Sitting of 28 February 1862

THE RIVERS SHANNON AND SWABE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he desired to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If any steps have been taken by the Irish Government to inquire into the facts contained in the Memorial presented to the Lord Lieutenant relative to the condition of the Rivers Shannon and Swabe agreed to at a Public Meeting of the Landowners, Landholders, &c, held at Athlone in November last; and when a reply to such Memorial may be expected?
  MR. PEELin reply said, that the Memorial had been considered, and that the Treasury was about to communicate with the Irish Government upon the subject. He might at the same time state that there would he no objection to an investigation limited to inquiring whether, without lessening the facilities of navigation which had been obtained at so large an expenditure of public money, it might be possible to do anything to diminish the liability to flooding of the lands adjoining the Shannon. That inquiry would only be undertaken upon two conditions—one that the memorialists or landowners should undertake to defray one-half of its cost; and the other, that the cost of any works which might be recommended should be defrayed by the owners of land.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to return to the counties the £300,000 which had been raised for works not executed?
  MR. PEELsaid, he believed that there was no evidence to show that the Shannon Commissioners did not carry out all the works which were contemplated at the time the Act which appointed them was passed.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. CORRY,
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he anticipated that when the correspondence between the Treasury, the Admiralty, and the Post Office with reference to the pier and other accommodation at Holyhead was completed, which he hoped would
852
be before long, there would not be any objection to laying it upon the table.

GASHOLDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When certain copies of the Models of Gasholders, deposited in the Office of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer, in compliance with the 3rd Section of the Sale of Gas Act, 22 &c 23 Vict., c. 66, will be sent to the Lord Mayor of London and the Chief Magistrates of Edinburgh and Dublin, as required by the Sale of Gas Act?
MR. PEELsaid, that he was informed that three copies of the Models of Gasholders deposited in the Office of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer, in compliance with the 3rd Section of the Sale of Gas Act, were completed, and ready to be sent to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The Lord Mayor of London had been informed that the model was ready for him whenever he chose to send for it. As to the other two, they would not be sent until it was ascertained that proper accommodation was provided for them.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the Recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of last Session?
MR. LAYARDsaid, the Report of the Committee had been taken into earnest consideration at the Foreign Office, and an attempt had been made to embody their recommendations in a scheme. That scheme had been forwarded to the Treasury, and in case it met with their approval it would rest with that Department to submit such demands to the House as might be necessary to cover the additional expenses that would be entailed by the alterations recommended by the Committee.

GALWAT PACKET SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to the loss to the country in the conveyance of Mails between Galway and America; and if he is prepared to recommend its resumption?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: —Sir, hare seen and read the Report of the Postmaster General to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have no doubt that he must be accurate in the statement which he makes. But with respect to the resumption of the Galway Con tract, and the general subject of steam communication between Galway and America, I have only to say, that if Her Majesty's Government should see cause to propose any further measure on that subject, their intentions will be made known to the House by my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) on the first fitting opportunity,

AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE—THE AMERICAN SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any communication has been made to the Government of the United States upon the withdrawal of the American squadron from the coast of Africa; whether any attempt was made by the British Government to induce the President of the United States to prevent the use of the United States flag by foreign slavers on the West Coast of Africa; and whether any request has been made to the President of the United States to permit British ships of war engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade to ascertain (during the absence of the United States squadron) the nationality of ships which may hoist the flag of the United States?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: —Sir, a representation has been made to the United States Government that the number of guns stipulated by treaty to be employed by them on the coast of Africa for the suppression of slavery are not now on that station. The answer given was, that the necessities of war, and of the blockade which they were establishing on the Southern Coast, obliged them to withdraw from foreign stations part of their cruisers which had been there employed. Undoubtedly, this answer, though one cannot altogether contest it, is not a very satisfactory one, because it only amounts to this—that the United States fail in executing the engagement of a treaty relating to a subject in which Englishmen take great interest, because the cruisers which ought to be employed there were employed in establishing a
  854
  blockade which in itself was very injurious to the interests and commerce of this country. But I believe, however, that I am warranted in saying that the President of the United States is very anxious to co-operate with Great Britain for the suppression of the Slave Trade. In what particular way that may be done, it is not at present for me to say, but I am satisfied there is an earnest desire on the part of that people to employ all the means they have at their disposal to put down the Slave Trade; and, in proof of that, I may mention, what indeed I stated on a former evening, that an American citizen, who was convicted of acts in furtherance of slavery, now lies under sentence of death in New York.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he must remind the noble Lord that be had not given any answer to the last branch of his question. At present the whole of the Slave Trade on the coast of Africa was carried on under the United States flag.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend must be aware that no permission given merely by the President of the United States can be effectual. Such a right of search as he contemplates can only be exercised under a treaty sanctioned by the Senate.

THE EMIGRATION DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If any communication has been made to the Admiralty relative to the recommendation of the Transport Service Committee as affecting the Emigration Department; and if he will state the purport of such communications?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department, without attempting to go into the general question of the Transport Board, had represented to the Admiralty that the process of removing British emigrants from this country to the Colonies was long and complicated, depending not merely on the transport itself, but on the previous steps taken for the selection and bringing together of emigrants, and that it would probably be highly disadvantageous to the conduct of emigration if all the steps of that process were not to remain in the same hands. He further pointed out that the transport itself would probably not be so well managed

  855
  when forming only part of the business of a huge department as it was at present, when undoubtedly the arrangements had been brought almost to perfection. The duties of the Emigration Department went much beyond mere transit to Australia; it had most important functions to discharge in the regulation and superintendence of the immigration from India and China to the West Indian Colonies and the Mauritius. It had constantly to advise the Colonial Office upon questions connected with land, and labour in the Colonies; so that, even if its shipping functions were thrown upon the Transport Board, it would still be necessary to form an Emigration Department at the Colonial Office; and consequently there could not be much saving. His noble Friend the Colonial Secretary, on, the whole, was strongly of opinion that to sanction the proposed transfer of duties to the Transport Board would be to sacrifice a most useful system, now in excellent operation, to what was little more than a false attempt at uniformity; that the Colonial Agents would not feel equal confidence in the new administration, and that the change would therefore only tend to revive all the old evils of emigration.

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

EDUCATION.—THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, seeing the noble Viscount the leader of the House in his place, I wish to make an inquiry of him on a point connected with the course of public business, which I believe is of much interest to the House. The noble Lord is aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has given notice of a Motion on Tuesday, the 25th of March, to the effect that this House upon a subsequent day, to be then named, shall go into Committee of the whole House, to consider the mode of distributing the national fund for the purposes of national education. My right hon. Friend said that he would be prepared on the 25th of March to ask the opinion of the House whether it was desirable or not to consider the subject in Committee; and if they agreed to that Motion, he would before the day for going
856
into Committee be prepared to lay his Resolutions on the table of the House. But yesterday some hon. Members sitting on the opposite benches seemed to be desirous that the Government should agree to the Motion, and pressed the Government to take that course. Some answers were given by various Members of the Government, which have occasioned, I believe, great ambiguity on the subject. The noble Lord must feel that this is a subject upon which a clear understanding is most desirable. I therefore wish to inquire from the noble Lord, what is the course which the Government are prepared to take upon the question? A right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench led us to infer that it was possible for the Government to agree to go into the question on the 25th.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I rise to order. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to what was said from the Treasury bench, of course those hon. Members to whom he alludes must have an opportunity of replying.
MR. DISRAELI: I only wish to make a few observations in order to render my statement clear. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am misrepresenting the case, he will have an opportunity of replying to me on a subsequent occasion. I wish now to put a question to the noble Viscount. I apprehend what both sides of the House wish to understand is this:—Are we, on the 25th of March next, to go bonâ, fide into Committee of the whole House on the question of distributing the funds for the purposes of national education? If that is the wish and determination of the noble Lord, my right hon. Friend has said that he will be prepared on a convenient occasion—so that the House will have ample time for consideration—to lay his Resolutions on the table; and, of course, any other hon. Gentleman who may wish to lay Resolutions on the table in reference to the same matter will also have full opportunity of doing so. Now, I wish to know what really is the intention of the Government in respect to this matter—whether they are prepared to agree to the consideration of these Resolutions in Committee? In that case, we shall, of course, go into Committee upon them on Tuesday, the 25th of March.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I was not here yesterday, but on reading the record of what passed, which is in the

857
hands of everybody, it does not appear by me that there was any ambiguity in the answer given by my right hon. Friend, which the right hon. Gentleman imagines. But to answer his question, I have no difficulty in stating that Her Majesty's Government feel the subject of education as connected with the Revised Code and the Minutes of the Council to be a matter on which such great and extensive interest is felt that there can be no reasonable objection to consider in Committee of the whole House the proposals which any hon. Member may think fit to make on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge appeared to me to describe very accurately, and very succinctly, the course which he meant to pursue. I presume his Resolutions would be Resolutions bearing on the Revised Code, and on the minutes of the Committee of Council for Education; that they would bring on for discussion the questions which have been under consideration. There are two courses which he might pursue. He might either do that which I understand him to have indicated; that is to say, he might give notice that on a certain day he would move that on a subsequent day the House should resolve itself into Committee on that matter, and might state at the same time that he would not hang up his Resolutions for criticism till the time arrived for the House to resolve itself into Committee. That is the course he might adopt if he were very modest as to the nature of his Resolutions. The more natural course would be, that he should lay those Resolutions on the table of the House, and simply give notice—as I believe was done by my noble Friend Earl Russell on a former occasion—that he should, on a subsequent day, move the House to resolve itself into Committee on those Resolutions. But these are distinctions on a matter of form. Substantially, the Government will have no objection to have the proposals, whatever they may be, bearing on the subject of education as carried on by the Committee of Council, discussed in a Committee of the whole House.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, from the answer just given by the noble Viscount, I infer that the Government would have no objection, if I laid my Resolutions on the table, as I said yesterday I should fee prepared to do, at least a fortnight before the day on which I am to make my Motion
858
for going into Committee, that I might then move, instead of the House going into Committee on a future day, that the House should go into Committee on the day appointed for the Motion—namely, Tuesday, the 25th of March. Am I correct in supposing that the noble Lord would not then object to going into Committee? Is that what the Government are prepared to do? I believe that course would be the most convenient that could be adopted, for it would enable me to bring forward the question earlier than otherwise it would be in my power to do. Then, if the noble Viscount consents, I would first give notice of a Motion for this House going into Committee on Tuesday, the 25th of March, and then I would undertake to give notice of my Resolutions at least a fortnight before that day.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not think there is any objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand he would lay his Resolutions on the table a fortnight before the day on which his Motion is to come on.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If the Government have entered into any negotiations with parties in this country, or considered offers of co-operation from Foreign Governments, for the purpose of laying down Telegraphic communication with America?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I am not aware, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have entered into any negotiations with any parties in this country relative to telegraphic communication between England and America. The American Government have expressed, in general terms, a wish that, by some means or other, a telegraphic communication should be established between England and America; but no distinct proposal has been made on the subject, and therefore no negotiations have been entered into with any foreign Governments with reference to such communication.

CLEARANCE INWARDS AND LIEN FOR FREIGHT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVErose to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade the

859
question of which he had given notice. It would be necessary that he should preface this question with a few brief sentences by way of explanation; but, as he was well aware that this was not a subject of general interest, though deeply affecting a most important body—the shipowners of the United Kingdom—he would take care that those sentences were very brief and few. In the year 1860 a Bill was introduced into this House, called "The Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill." It was intended to repeal certain provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts which had become obsolete, and were quite inapplicable to the present mode of carrying on the commerce of the country. It introduced uniformity of practice in the place of a most perplexing variety; and it did away with evils which had long been loudly complained of, and which were deeply injurious to the shipping interests of the port of London. To give an idea of the extreme inconvenience of the present law, he would mention only one point out of many. When a ship arrived in port from a voyage, it might be imagined that her owner would require the consignee of her cargo to land it with all reasonable despatch, in. order that his vessel might proceed again upon her outward voyage; but the fact was, that he was compelled by law to keep his ship as a gratuitous warehouse for an unlimited period, unless it should suit the good pleasure of the consignee to remove the goods earlier. His only alternative was to enter the goods as his own, which would formerly have subjected him to a penalty, and which was still an irregular act, and might be called an evasion of the law. Now, when it was considered that the introduction of steam and the diminution of the profits of the shipowner had made rapidity in the voyage, and despatch in loading and discharging, most essential, some alteration in the law was absolutely necessary. And since British shipowners were exposed to competition with the whole world, every artificial burden and restriction ought to be removed from them. This was the object of the Bill of 1860. It was no scheme of a private member anxious to indulge some whim of his own, or to further some local interests. On' the Back of the Bill appeared the influential names of the President and Vice President of the Board of Trade. It was not hurried through the House without sufficient notice, for, though laid upon the table early in the Session, it
860
was carried so late that it could not come before the House of Lords. They were told that the Customs authorities had been duly consulted, and he (Mr. Cave) had reason to know that deputations from shipowners, dock companies, wharfingers, and out ports, had frequent and protracted interviews with the right hon. Gentleman, and gave him the benefit of their experience and advice. It was hotly discussed in Committee, at great length, for, he thought, three nights; several changes and Amendments were proposed and adopted, till at length what might be supposed to have been a perfect measure was produced—at least, he knew it gave general satisfaction to the shipping interest. But, as he said before, it was too late to pass the House of Lords, and it was generally understood that it would be reintroduced at the earliest moment of the following Session. But another Session passed away, and there was no sign from the Board of Trade. The shipowners, therefore, naturally complained that their interests had been neglected, and he thought that the House had a good right to complain that a measure which it passed with so much care and deliberation should have been allowed for so long to lie dormant without an effort to restore suspended animation. Perhaps it might not yet be too late to resort to this process, and it was with that hope that he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to reintroduce during this Session the Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill, which passed the House of Commons in 1860, or to incorporate its provisions in any other Bill?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had very accurately described what had passed in the Session of 1860, with reference to the Bill. It was perfectly true that the Bill had passed in that House; but subsequently it was stated that hon. Members connected with the commercial interest had not paid that attention to it which it was desirable its provisions should receive at their hands. That was what had been stated, and it led the Government to reconsider the objections which had been urged to the Bill. He had come to the conclusion that the Bill of 1860 was, in the main, a good one; and they were now in communication with the Customs authorities on the subject. With regard to one portion of the Bill, there was a controversy between the wharfingers on the one hand, and the docks on the other, which was of such a

861
character as to render it difficult to pass such a measure as the hon. Gentleman wished for; but the Government were willing to introduce a Bill after consultation with the Customs. That consultation was now going on, and he hoped it would settle the matter.

THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND),

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on a subject which he had brought under the right hon. Baronet's notice about a fortnight previously. An advertisement had appeared within the last few weeks in several of the Irish papers. That advertisement commenced in these terms—
  "The Commissioners of National Education are about to nominate four candidates to compete for one vacant place in the class of sub-inspectors of National Schools in Ireland. None but members of the Roman Catholic Church are eligible to compete for the present vacancy. The examination in the following subjects will be held in Dublin under the direction of the Civil Service Commissioners."
  The subjects of examination and other details were then stated; and the concluding paragraph was as follows:—
  "Applications, accompanied by copies of testimonials, and stating age and religious denomination of the candidate, must be addressed," &c.
  The advertisement set forth the qualifications for the appointment, with the addition of the religious qualification The Civil Service Commissioners, in their report, gave the same identical qualifications, with the exception that the religious qualification did not appear in their report. The right hon. Baronet had told the House on a former occasion that he had no influence, directly or indirectly, over the National Board, and that House was therefore the proper place in which any complaint against the Board must be preferred. "What was the meaning of the advertisement? Was it to get the best sub-inspector of schools? If so, they would not get the best men by confining the candidates to one religious denomination. The Board of National Education in Ireland professed to be, he would not say an irreligious Board, but a purely mixed education Board, from the appointments and management of which religion was carefully excluded. The House voted large sums of money in support of a purely mixed system, and then they found that it
  862
  was administered on denominational principles. He did not object to that; he only complained that the Government came for money avowedly to promote mixed education. He was told that these appointments were made denominational for the purpose of conciliating an influential section of the people of Ireland, but he would ask whether the proposed was a proper method of conciliation? A man educated by the National Board itself, in the model school at Dublin, where he might have received an admirable education without having heard a whisper of religion, might find himself debarred from this competition by the religious qualification required. Whore was he to get his religious testimonials, and who was to examine them? And who would decide whether he was a good Catholic or a bad one? Those were questions which would not come under the cognizance of any Board, and above all a Board of education. The Civil Service Commissioners had been holding examinations seven years; but that was the first time sectarian questions had been imported into them, and he hoped it would be the last. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would exercise his influence with the Commissioners, and compel them for the future so to conduct their examinations as not to offend any class of the community. He was sure the advertisement was equally as offensive to Catholics as to Protestants and Presbyterians. If good inspectors were wanted, let the competition be open to all.
  MR. VANCEseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House is of opinion that the efficiency of the system of Competitive Examinations for the Civil Service would be endangered by the introduction of sectarian distinctions; and that this House is of opinion that the recent announcement made by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the effect that a vacant appointment under the National Board is to be filled up by means of an Examination to be conducted under the direction of the Civil Service Commissioners, but at which Examination "none but members of the Roman Catholic Church are eligible to compete," is inexpedient and unwise.'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I think the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, has entirely misunderstood the usual course of proceeding by the Board of National

  863
  Education. The hon. Member has said that this is the first time that sectarian influences have been introduced in the appointment of sub-inspectors, [Mr. HENNESSY: I beg pardon. I said, "into Civil Service examinations."] What I was going to observe was, that it has always been the system, although, perhaps, not acknowledged before 1860, when the Board were equally divided between Protestants on the one side and Roman Catholics on the other. The number of the Board was then increased from fifteen to twenty members, ten of whom were Protestants and Presbyterians, and ten Roman Catholics. It has always been the practice as much as possible, I will not say to conciliate, but in the matter of national education in Ireland to divide the patronage between the various religious denominations. Thus, we have one Roman Catholic Secretary, and one Protestant Secretary to the Board. We have one chief inspector who is a Roman Catholic, and one who is a Protestant; and I am told by the Roman Catholic members of the Board that the system has worked well, and that they do not wish to see it changed. I am told that the Protestants are also satisfied. I have nothing further to add, except that when Roman Catholics and Protestants on the Board are so convinced that the system works well, and when the Roman Catholics especially desire no change, I think it not expedient that there should be any alteration.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I quite understand the uneasiness of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy)—I mean the uneasiness which he has expressed in this House. He fears that there should be introduced into the Civil Service examinations a religious qualification. Now, on former occasions the hon. Gentleman has expressed himself as much in favour of the introduction of the denominational system of education into Ireland. I have heard him put that opinion forward. Well, if we are to have a denominational system, how are the denominations to be ascertained without examination? And how can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his anxiety in favour of a denominational system with his present objection to the very reasonable proposition made in the circular or advertisements issued by the Educational Board in Ireland. It is obvious that when the hon. Gentleman proclaims his anxiety in favour of the denominational system, it must be a
  864
  denominational system in the dark, so far as this House is concerned. We have in England admitted the Roman Catholic poor schools to participate in the grant made in this country under the denominational system. I speak of England and Wales. And what has been the result? Why, out of three Inspectors of Roman Catholic schools we have the report of only one. The reports of the other two inspectors have been suppressed as unfit, in the opinion of the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, for the perusal of this House. And the one report which has been published states that the accounts of the Roman Catholic poor schools which are under inspection have been rendered in such a manner in several cases as to be perfectly unintelligible. I think these facts are strong reasons against the establishment of the denominational system in Ireland, as formerly suggested by the hon. Member for the King's County. I must say that the proceedings of the Educational Board in Ireland appear to me to be perfectly reasonable and consistent with the grants made for education in Ireland. The Irish national system is intended to be a mixed system. How far it really is so I do not pretend to say, but I must say I think the objection taken to the advertisement in question is exceedingly captious as emanating from the hon. Member for the King's County. I could conceive nothing more appropriate than the reply of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I trust the House will excuse my having pointed out the inconveniences that are likely to ensue, according to the showing of the hon. Member for the King's County, if any system were adopted claiming to be denominational, but without the means of ascertaining the denominations in connection with which the educational grants under such a system would have to be administered.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would not call the terms of the Motion "captious," but he could not understand the object of bringing the subject before the House, except for the purpose of bothering the Chief Secretary, who seemed to be sufficiently bothered already by Irish affairs. It seemed most extraordinary that, though there were last Session and the Session before repeated complaints of the large preponderance of Protestant inspectors, now, when a Roman Catholic was to be appointed, a member

  865
  of the same persuasion should start up in the House and say he would not have a Roman Catholic inspector at all. The hon. Gentleman had said that the advertisement had offended Protestants and Presbyterians in Ireland. That might be so, but he (Mr. Scully) denied that it had offended any Roman Catholic except the hon. Gentleman himself. Since there was a strong infusion of the Protestant element into the system, it was only right and fair that it should be counterbalanced by a free infusion of the Roman Catholic element. While the system continued, as the Chief Secretary had remarked, everything should be done to conciliate the people of Ireland. If the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) who had seconded the Motion would endeavour to put down Protestant ascendency and every other ascendency in Ireland, he should have his (Mr. Scully's) support. For his own part, he would be glad if any person had ingenuity enough to frame a Bill which should make it penal to introduce the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" into discussions in that House. He was sorry to say that since the commencement of the Session he had hardly heard any Irish member open his lips upon any general subject whatever; he himself had not done so; he had tried it last Session, and he found that it was expected that Irish Members should confine themselves exclusively to Irish subjects.
  MR. VANCEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken seemed to have an exaggerated notion of his (Mr. Vance's) power to put down Protestant ascendency. He believed it no longer existed. What he wanted for the Protestants was fair play, and that he believed would be promoted by assenting to the Motion of the hon. Member for the King's County. As it had been resolved that there should be a national system of education, irrespective of creeds, in Ireland, the practice of advertising for denominational teachers, inspectors, or any others to carry on the system, ought to be condemned. If such a system had been established, it would be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Men ought to be selected, not for their particular creed, but for their efficiency as teachers or inspectors.
  MR. HENNESSY: With the permission of the House, I would withdraw the Amendment; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question, "Will the examination take place?"
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORY: Seeing my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland in his place, I wish to ask him a question; and as it is a matter of personal interest to myself, I shall explain in very few words lay object in putting the question. My right hon. Friend in a speech the other night, quoted a letter from me to the effect that I had written to him to say that, as far as I could learn, there was an ample supply of food in Ireland. Now, sir, I have been over in Ireland and have made inquiries, and it is my duty to say that there is a great deal of distress in that country. And as that letter might appear to have been written at the present time, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If it was not dated the 12th of November last, whether it did not refer to my own immediate locality, and whether in that letter I did not mention that there would be considerable distress in Ireland arising from want of fuel?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: In reply to my hon. Friend I beg to say that I had u desire to state anything but that which i strictly correct. It is true I wrote to my hon. friend, as I knew at the time that he was going to Africa, and on his way through Dublin he wrote to me a letter which I received on my return from my prolonged absence in the West. That letter is dated the 12th November. But it contained the words which I quoted, and which were—
"I have taken some pains to ascertain how things stand in my part of the world, and, as far as I can ascertain the real state of the case, I think there will be a sufficient supply of food."
I read that to the House. It is perfectly true he did say he apprehended a scarcity of fuel in the country. The House will recollect that on the first night of the Session I referred particularly to my hon. Friend as regards the deficiency of fuel, and as to his opening his property for the purpose of affording relief to the people.

THE LATE MADRAS AND BOMBAY ARMIES.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the right of Officers of the Native Regiments of Madras and Bombay to succeed by Seniority to the command of Troops or Companies, and to the ultimate com-

867
mand of their respective Regiments, is abolished; and whether Officers who have elected for local service with their Regiments can he sent to general duty notwithstanding their wish to serve with their own Regiments? The question was rendered necessary by what was called the amalgamation; but what might more properly be designated the dislocation of the armies of India. It had reference to the Madras and Bombay army, that of Bengal having been almost totally destroyed by the rebellion; and he would have it to be remembered that the Madras and Bombay native armies remained loyal to the British Crown, and that to that circumstance must largely be attributed the restoration of British power in India. The officers complained, and not without reason, that their rights had been violated by the sending of staff officers who had been long absent from their regular duties back, not only to their own regiments, but to others to which they had never belonged, and placing them over the heads of the regimental officers who had seen long service, and were entitled to the command of cavalry troops or companies of their own regiments. He held in his hand a list of cases which filled two folio pages, and from which he would cite one or two examples. Major Silver, of the 4th Regiment Madras Native Infantry, had been posted to the 31st, to the prejudice of two regimental captains, one of twenty-five years' service, and the other of twenty-four. Major Groube, of the late 5th Native Cavalry, is with the 2nd Cavalry, though Major Taylor and five captains appear to be present. Major Fowler, of the late 8th Regiment, had been placed in the 1st Cavalry, and had thus superseded all the regimental captains. Major Allen, of the 3rd Native Infantry, had been removed to the 12th, and had superseded the regimental major (Halliday), who had served twenty-four years. In the Bombay army Major Johnston, of the staff corps, who had nominally belonged to the 1st Native Regiment, and who was only a captain of the year 1853 and with army rank of 1859, had been removed to the 1st Grenadiers, and had thus displaced two captains of 1842 and 1844, of twenty and nineteen years' service. Captain and Brevet-Major Soppett, of 1842, of the 12th Native Infantry, is in command of the 25th Native Infantry, though two captains, of twenty and nineteen years' service, and six lieutenants are
868
present with the regiment. The practical result of those arrangements was to abolish entirely regimental rights. The 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, guaranteed to the military and naval forces of the Indian service the like pay, pensions, and privileges, as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the Company; and, by Mr. Henley's clause in the Act of 1860, it was also provided that the advantages as to pay, pensions and allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise, should continue and he maintained in any plan for the reorganization of the Indian army, anything in the Act to the contrary notwithstanding. He had thus made out distinctly that these guarantees had been violated and faith broken; and the inference must necessarily be drawn, that regimental succession by seniority, as had been the usage, was to be superseded, and virtually annihilated by the transfer of officers to command regiments to which they did not belong.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that he had received communications from India to the effect that the greatest possible dissatisfaction on this subject existed among the officers of the late Indian army. Those officers who had availed themselves of the option allowed them under certain circumstances of accepting retiring allowances, had their names printed in italics in a list, and, on the death of any one of those officers, no promotion took place; though by the Act of Parliament it was distinctly provided that the officers of the late native Indian army were to be placed in the same position, not only as regards pay, but promotion also, as they would have occupied had they continued to serve the India Company. It was plain that the pledge given to those officers had been broken, because if they had remained in the service of the Company, whenever a death occurred there would have been a promotion. Their chances of promotion had thus been seriously diminished, and he wished to ask what course the Government proposed to take, and whether they were going to consider the matter? He hoped that no consideration of economy would be allowed to interfere, for he was sure that the feeling of the House would he against saving money at the expense of meritorious officers who had spent the best part of their lives in the service of the country.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, his hon. friend who had just spoken had entirely mistaken the facts of the case. The

869
names of officers who retired were not placed in italics on the list, but were removed altogether. In the room, therefore, of every officer who died, or who would have retired under the old regulation, another was promoted, so that no such state as the hon. Gentleman supposed prevailed. He might add that an extra retirement list had been provided beyond that which existed a year ago for a certain number of officers; but the Government thought they would not be justified in making so many promotions, as they created retirements, their object being to reduce the army as well as to diminish expenditure. They had, however, given a proportion of promotions in respect of those extra retirements, in the ratio of two out of three, or three out of four, he did not recollect which. [Colonel SYKES: Every other.] To the extent to which the change went, he thought it must be looked upon as a boon to the Indian army.
With respect to the observations of his hon. and gallant friend behind him (Colonel Sykes), he could only say that they had no bearing upon the question of the amalgamation of the two armies. The question which he had put applied in fact altogether to the native army of India, inasmuch as whatever had been done in the direction to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred had arisen out of the reduction of that force. His hon. and gallant Friend in dealing with the subject, had mentioned the case of a particular person who had been out of employment for a considerable time; and who, having been suddenly sent back to his regiment, took rank over the heads of men who had served with the regiment during the period of his absence, and that was conceived to be a hardship, The hon. and gallant Gentleman must, nevertheless, be well aware that under the old system in India, officers who were absent for years from their regiments on staff employment, were, on attaining a certain rank, sent back to take the command of those regiments, superseding all the officers who had from year to year been serving in them, and who had performed signal service in command of them. Indeed, he had before him the case of an officer who had. after an absence of fifteen or twenty years, been thus sent back to his regiment. He would remind the House that they must, in considering the subject, bear in mind the fact that the army in Bengal, and also in Madras and in Bombay, to a great extent had been reduced. In Madras, for instance,
870
four regiments of native cavalry had been discontinued, and an order had been issued to discontinue eight regiments of native infantry. The consequence was that a large number of officers were thrown out of employment; but as to the expediency of the reduction of the native army, which led to that result, he believed no doubt existed. But then arose the question, what was to become of those officers whose regiments bad been disbanded? If his hon. and gallant Friend desired that they should enjoy all those advantages to which they might look forward before the Indian mutiny, it was obvious their expectations could be realized only by continuing the native army on the old scale. But as it had been determined to reduce that army very considerably, the question of what was to be done with the officers of the disbanded regiments remained still to be answered. Allusion had been made to the case of a major in a light cavalry regiment in Madras, who—that regiment having been done away with—had been put to do duty with another; but what rank, he would ask, was an officer so situated to hold in his new position? Was he to serve in the regiment to which he had been appointed as major, or captain, or lieutenant, or subaltern? The view the Government had taken of the matter was, that those officers who were deprived, for the cause he bad mentioned, of their natural employment should be employed again, as far as possible, with the rank their seniority gave them. That he deemed to be the fairest mode of dealing with a large body of officers, such as those of whom he was speaking; notwithstanding the wishes and hopes of those who held a lower rank might not, in some instances, be as a consequence realized. The best answer, however, which he could perhaps give to his hon. Friend, was to read an extract from the Order which had been sent out to India on the subject.
"Officers of the staff corps will be rarely appointed to do duty with native regiments retaining their regular organization. When so appointed, however, and on public grounds, it would be unjust to deprive them of the privileges attached to their relative regimental rank. Their position in the regiment, therefore, will be similar to that of the officers belonging to the general list formed by your General Order No. 1,637 of 1859, and they will be entitled while so employed to all the advantages of their (original) position as regimental officers. Officers of the staff corps, who while doing duty with their former corps may be promoted in the staff corps to a higher grade, will at once cease to do duty with their former regi-

871
ments, and must remain unemployed until their services are required for staff duty."
That was the order which had been issued, and he believed it indicated the best course which could, under the circumstances, be taken.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he did not think the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given the House was by any means satisfactory. The case of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen was this:—A practice had prevailed in the Indian army by which officers of regiments got promotion in rotation, but that the Government, having a number of officers unemployed, were placing those officers in the Bombay and Madras regiments over the heads of officers of long service, and were there by violating the practice that had previously prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman had virtually admitted the fact, but had stated, that in order to employ those officers there was no other resource than to place them, according to their rank in other regiments. That might be very true; but what sort of answer was it, he should like to know, to make to the complaints of the officers who were thus superseded? Passing over that point, however, he might be allowed to advert to the question raised by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir George Bowyer) which, as he understood it, turned upon an order issued by the Government declaring that certain officers who wished to retire should have a bonus for so doing; and which was accompanied by a regulation stating that the vacancy so created should not entitle the officer next in rank to promotion. Now, of that order the officers next in rank complained. They contended that previous to its issue old officers who would have been obliged to retire, owing to impaired health or any other cause, would, upon their retirement under these circumstances, have created a vacancy which would enable those under them to obtain a step in rank; but that, owing to the operation of the new order, no such promotion took place.
SIR CHARLES WOODin explanation said, that they had given a bonus to officers who were entitled to retire, and a promotion took place on each of those retirements; but that when they created additional retirements, they then gave only a proportionate amount of promotion.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that was precisely the grievance, that when officers were induced by the Government to retire,
872
the amount of bonus they received was a proportion only, instead of being the full amount.

EDUCATION.—THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS AND THE PUPIL TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Council a question of which he had given notice, namely, Whether orders were not issued, shortly after the promulgation of the Revised Code, that the portion of it which concerned the conditions under which Pupil Teachers were to be engaged should be acted upon forthwith; and whether forms of examination, giving notice to that effect, were not printed? The Revised Code had two aspects. In one it was a so-called educational reform, and in the other it had an important bearing upon the privileges of the House of Commons. Some time ago, when the subject was first brought before the House by the Vice President of the Council, the right hon. Gentleman was reproached with having issued the Revised Code as a decree of his own when Parliament had ceased for a time to exist; thereby introducing a vast change into the educational legislation of the country without allowing Parliament any opportunity of pronouncing its opinion on the subject. In reply to that charge the right hon. Gentleman said that the Code by its very nature could not come into operation until the financial year had passed away, and that consequently the accusation could not by any possibility be correct. His exact words were—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord could not refer to, or quote words used in, a past debate of the present Session.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman; but in doing so he might call attention to the fact that the House was about to go into Committee of Supply, and that he was stating a grievance which demanded redress beforehand. If in stating grievances which demanded redress independent Members were to be forbidden from referring to words which had previously fallen from a Minister of the Crown, it seemed to him that the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to that House would be quite illusory. The ancient and constitutional practice was, that independent Members when the House was going into Committee of Supply, should have an opportunity of calling Ministers

873
of the Crown to account; but how they were to do so if they were not allowed to quote the words of the Ministers he was unable to conceive. However, in the face of the decision which the right hon. Gentleman had given, he would not quote the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council in the recent debate on education, but would only state that on a certain occasion, which he would not particularize, and in a certain place, which he would not name, the right hon. Gentleman, upon being reproached by a certain right hon. Member, to whom he need not more particularly refer, with having introduced the Revised Code as a decree of his own, without subjecting it to the discussion of Parliament, and with having thereby evaded Parliamentary control replied as follows—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord could not do by an evasion of the rules of the House that which he could not do under their provisions.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would again bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, but in doing so he might remark that reference was frequently made to debates in "another place" without the slightest interference from the Chair.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the rules of that House were very positive upon the point that words used in a former debate could not be quoted or referred to unless the debate was a consecutive one, upon the subject of a Bill or other measure before the House at the time. That was a very distinct rule with respect to past debates in the same Session. Any reference to debates in "another place" was still less permitted in that House.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had only again to bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had no means of resisting it; but in doing so he might be permitted to say that it was very favourable to Ministers of the Crown. He would not quote any distinct words, but he might be allowed to remark that it was generally supposed that the Vice President of the Council had grounded his defence against the charge to which he had referred upon this consideration—that the nature of the Revised Code was such that it was absolutely impossible the Code could come into effect until Parliament had an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon the subject. He wished to test that defence by facts. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman
874
(Mr. Speaker) would allow him to say that he did so last week. Perhaps that was irregular. It might also be irregular to say that it was thought he then introduced a small subject to the House. He ventured to assert that the ground on which he was now about to arraign the Vice President of the Council was not a small, but a large one, involving the most important item in the whole of the educational grant. That ground was, that when the right hon. Gentleman last year promulgated without the sanction of Parliament the Revised Code, his intention at the time was, and he took measures accordingly, to bring it into immediate operation, as far as respected that enormous proportion of the grant which concerned the pupil-teachers. In endeavouring to establish that complaint, he would first point out to the House what were the pledges and statements of the Vice President of the Council. He believed he was in order in referring to debates which took place last year. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman made use of the following words:—
"I will merely state the outline of the Minute, prefacing it with the assurance that the Committee need not be afraid that we contemplate any coup d'état, because the nature of the grant is such that we cannot make any innovations till the end of the next financial year."
That was a deliberate and public statement to Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to a general pledge; he referred specially to the pupil-teachers, and his words were these—
"We intend to preserve the interests of pupil-teachers, and to take care that all future pupil-teachers shall serve, as now, for a period of five years."
That was the adumbration of the Revised Code which the Vice President of the Council sketched for the benefit of Parliament in the middle of July. When Parliament was about to separate, and when its control was practically at an end, the Revised Code was issued, and it contained, among other provisions, one to the effect that future pupil-teachers should be apprenticed according to the following conditions:—That they should be liable to dismissal without notice for idleness, disobedience, or immoral conduct, and that their engagements should be terminable on either side by a written notice of six months. It was thus to be in the power of a pupil-teacher to terminate his

875
engagement by giving a written notice of six months, and yet the Vice President of the Council had said only a fortnight before, "We intend to take care that all future pupil-teachers shall serve, as now, for a period of five years." Was that not keeping "the word of promise to the ear"? If the Vice President meant to take care that pupil-teachers should serve for a period of five years, it seemed to him the strangest way of doing it to give them the power of going away at the end of six months. That power did not exist under the old Code. He would not at present discuss the question whether the change was a beneficial one or not. What he wished to point out was, that it was a change which neither the House nor the country could have anticipated from the words used by the right hon. Gentleman last year. But the right hon. Gentleman went further, for he told them in the same speech what he considered to be a pupil-teacher. He said—
"The main difference between a pupil-teacher and a monitor is, that while the latter is engaged by the job—that is to say, a week, a month, or a year—the pupil-teacher is apprenticed with an engagement for five years."
It would be seen, therefore, that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed that future pupil-teachers should practically be engaged for a period of six months only, he made a very serious change in the condition of that class. The change thus introduced by the right hon. Gentleman was a change in the mode of admitting pupil teachers, and in that way, as well as in several others, the Revised Code seriously affected the enormous sum of 16250,000 which was annually given to managers of schools for the support of pupil-teachers. The Vice President had told the House that the Revised Code would not—in fact, could not—come into operation until the financial year had passed away, and yet the very moment the Revised Code was issued the right hon. Gentleman took measures for bringing it into immediate effect as far as the larger portion of the educational grant was concerned. What he understood was that with the ordinary forms which precede the arrival of the inspector there was Bent from the Council Office to all forms a written note to this effect—"Pupil-teachers.—Candidates for pupil-teachers must be subject to the Minute of the 29th of July, 1861, and the provisions of the Revised Code; "thus clearly intimating to
876
managers that, with reference to the admission of pupil-teachers, the Revised Code was to come into effect immediately. It might be said that managers need not, unless they pleased, have offered any pupil-teachers for acceptance; but by one of the Minutes by which that Code was to be brought into operation it was provided that after the next receipt of money, dating from the 29th of July, 1861, no managers should receive any money except in conformity with the Revised Code. A manager whose financial year began in August would in August, 1861, receive his money according to the old Code; but in August, 1862, according to the Revised Code, one of the provisions of which was, that if he had not a sufficient number of pupil-teachers, he should forfeit a portion of his grant. The consequence was that managers were obliged to have pupil-teachers at once, subject to the provisions of the Revised Code, and to acquiesce in the vast change which had been introduced by the simple fiat of the right hon. Gentleman into the mode in which the Parliamentary grant was to be disbursed. Nor was that all. Although, in consequence of the agitation which took place, the Revised Code was suspended, the notification was not cancelled but was sent to many schools, and managers understood that they were still subject to it. In many cases the managers had refused to have any pupil-teachers rather than submit to the new regulation, and consequently exposed themselves to the loss of the grant altogether. He had also received a complaint, and he should like to obtain papers to see whether it was correct; that in the case of Trinity School, Newington, candidates for pupil-teachers were just before the suspension until March refused because they were not offered under the new Code. Thus, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that when he introduced the Revised Code he had no intention that it should take effect immediately, but that its operation must be postponed until Parliament could pronounce an opinion upon it, seemed to him one of the most extraordinary misapprehensions of what was passing in his office that any right hon. Gentleman could have entertained. He felt he ought to apologize to the House for trespassing upon its attention at such length in respect to matters of detail, but he thought the House ought to be very jealous of the practice of passing important measures during the recess. There was a very curious gravitation of all important

877
administrative measures towards that period of the year. Treaties were made binding on the policy of the country for a long time, or containing the germs of future wars; yet they were all made in the recess, when Parliament could not express an opinion upon them. Up to that time they had only been accustomed to such proceedings by the Foreign Office, and he trusted that that House would interpose its veto to prevent their extension to other departments of the State. It, would he a dangerous precedent if a department, which had been singularly trusted by Parliament upon the faith that every measure which it took should be strictly subject to the control of Parliament, should be permitted during the recess to intro duce changes affecting the disposal of £250,000 of the public money. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would let him have returns connected with the matters discussed on the previous Friday?
MR. LOWEwas understood to say that there would be no objection to the Production of these returns.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council whether the introduction of the new principle of individual examination would necessitate any increase in the number of salaries of the present staff of school inspectors? During the preceding year £65,000 odd, or upwards of two-thirds of the grant, went alone to the payment of the inspectors? At present there were about sixty inspectors—thirty-six full and twenty-four assistant inspectors, and the table of fees was based upon rather a high scale. The thirty-six inspectors received salaries, perhaps, including allowances and augmentations, varying from £700 to £900, exclusive of travelling expenses. The assistants received from £450 to £535, also exclusive of travelling expenses. He was not sure that the number of those gentlemen would not have to be increased; but without having a word to say against the efficiency of the present body, he thought that if the new Code came into operation, thereby considerably diminishing the duties to be performed, a salary of £900 per annum for examining children in their alphabet, and in writing and arithmetic, would look rather formidable.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had received a copy of a letter addressed by Mr. A. Corrie, from the Council Office, to a clergyman at St. Saviour's National
878
School in Liverpool, and dated August 31, 1861. It appeared that the clergyman in question had written asking how he was to act, and, from the answer he had received, it would seem that some persons in the Committee of Council Office did intend that the Minutes should come into immediate operation. This was the letter—
"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and I am directed to inform you that on the 1st. of November next the minute of the 29th of July, 1861, will take effect in your school, and all new appointments will be subject to the Revised Code."
He thought it fair to the right hon. Gentleman to read that letter before he replied to the speech of the noble Lord.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that he had received a letter from a clergyman at New Seaham, in the county of Durham, stating that in December last he was informed from the Council Office, that no more apprenticeships would be sanctioned under the old system. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he could reconcile that with his statement in the House, that in future pupil-teachers should serve for five years?
MR. LOWE: Sir, it is impossible to reconcile the letters with my statements; but had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) been kind enough to call my attention to the facts before I came to the House, I should no doubt have been prepared to give some explanation. At the Privy Council Office we correspond with some 6,000 or 7,000 schools, and it is impossible for me or any one person to be responsible for every letter; but if hon. Gentlemen would give me some notice, I should be able to answer their questions. I can only say that the letters, as stated, are not in accordance with our practice, because we have in innumerable cases since the notice was given on the 23rd September, consented to the apprenticeship of fresh pupil-teachers under the old Code. I will explain all the facts to the House, but I cannot accept the versions which gentlemen may give to hon. Members of letters which I have never seen. If the right hon. Gentleman will move for papers, or will come to the office and inspect them, I will endeavour to give him every satisfaction; but I cannot undertake to explain everything on the spur of the moment.
Now, as to the charges which the noble Lord has made against me. In the first place, he says, that in a speech last

879
Session I said that the House need not he under any apprehension of our attempting a coup d'é at, because it was impossible that the changes should come into effect until the expiration of the financial year. That was the statement of a simple fact.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible that "any innovations" could be made.
MR. LOWEsaid, the noble Lord catches at the words "any innovations;" but it is impossible for a Member of this House, or a Minister of the Crown, to be so guarded in the words he makes use of as to defy criticism. I may have inadvertently used the expression quoted by the noble Lord, but the meaning of what I said was, that we had not the slightest intention of introducing a change without the consent of Parliament. It is impossible. What the Minutes amount to is this. They are the notices given by the Department of Education of the principle on which the Department will solicit from Parliament the granting of the Vote for Education. As you cannot touch the grants now held under one system and apply them under another, and as you cannot get the money to carry out the new system without the consent of Parliament, it is impossible—granting me to have all the evil intentions which are imputed to me—to make this revolution which is apprehended. Then the noble Lord says I told the House that pupil-teachers under the new Code should be engaged for five years, as they now are.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: And serve, as now, for a period of five years.
MR. LOWE: The noble Lord has read a paragraph from the new Code, in which it is said that the engagement shall be terminated by six months' notice from either party; and he says that is a breach of my undertaking. Hard words, Sir! But does the noble Lord know what is the present engagement of pupil-teachers? Their present engagement is to serve five years, and they are apprenticed by deed; but that deed is not stamped, and it has no validity whatever. That has always been the practice of the office, and it was thought better in introducing a new Code that we should give a really effective agreement, terminable by notice on either side, than perpetuate an agreement which is in the eye of the law a nullity. If the noble Lord examines the agreement which he quoted, he will find that the direction is to
880
serve for a period of five years, and the specimen agreement to be entered into by managers with pupil-teachers names the same period of service. When I spoke of five years, I was alluding to the recommendation of the Commissioners; but they have taken no precautions to ensure continuity of service. The great merit lies in continuity of service; for the pupil-teacher is of little value for the first year, but becomes of value in later years, and unless the precaution be insisted on—which the Commissioners overlook—the full benefit of the agreement is not derived. So what I said was perfectly true, and what I did was in accordance with what I said. We have taken the precaution, subject to this power of terminating the engagement with notice, if it should prove not satisfactory to either side, of keeping the pupil-teachers for a period of five years. Suppose upon a point of detail like this, that, speaking to the best of my opinion and information at the time, I had announced that the Government would not make such an arrangement—would the House, if a subsequent change of opinion took place, charge my original statement upon me as a matter of bad faith? We are accustomed to better treatment. Would the House deem justifiable a fastening on words and syllables an imputation not of change of opinion, but of a wish to deceive and overreach the Houses of Parliament?
Now I come to the more serious part of the noble Lord's charge. He asks a question, but he has relieved me from the necessity of answering it, for he has made answer to himself, and the facts are matter of notoriety. He charges me not only with a want of respect to this House of which I should be exceedingly grieved to be guilty, but with a breach of faith and honour—if I understood him rightly. The framing of the Code was a matter of difficulty, but still greater difficulty attended the arrangements for the transition from one system to another. To those who were charged with that duty it was a matter of anxious care; and if we erred, we did so not from want of consideration, but either from want of ability to grapple with the question or from its inherent difficulties. The principles of the change are mainly two—first, that there shall be no payment except to the manager; and secondly, that we shall pay money only on the individual examination of scholars. When we had settled the principles of the change, we

881
had then to consider how to deal with the interests existing under the present system, which were vested and entitled to be respected. We came to the conclusion, and it certainly was an agreeable one. that pupil-teachers now apprenticed under the present system had rights which we were hound to respect. The faith of the Government has been pledged, and though the agreement was not exactly legal, we will never take any advantage of a flaw in the indenture; hut, at whatever inconvenience, we are hound to see that they do not suffer by the change. The House will see that this is a matter of no slight difficulty; because our own principles being that we are to pay only to the manager, and then only upon examination, the necessity of preserving the vested interests of these pupil-teachers embarrasses and will continue to embarrass the working of the system till the last of them has fulfilled his apprenticeship and been got rid of. Then conies the question as to pupil-teachers apprenticed after the passing of the Minute and before the time when it was to come into operation. The pupil-teachers engaged before the issue of the Minute had no reason to suppose their interests would be interfered with by the Government; they had no notice of any change, and we felt bound to respect their interests. But those engaged after the passing of the Minute stand on a totally different footing, and have no claim of vested interests to set up against the Government or the public, for of their non-vesting they had previous notice. There fore we decided that pupil-teachers engaged after the Minute was agreed to should not be engaged by the Government upon the existing terms, but by the mangers under the terms which would come into force when the Minute itself subsequently became law. That we did, because we thought vested interests meant reasonable expectations; and when teachers had notice that we were about to change the system, they had no longer a reasonable expectation that the system would continue which entitled them to bring claims against the public. We did that—whether rightly or wrongly I do not shrink from the issue—entirely with a view to the public interest, and to prevent further vested interests from accruing. Up to the 23rd of September that rule was acted on, and the House will see that the last thing we thought of was to withdraw the matter from their cognizance.
882
Instead of dealing with £250,000 a year, the noble Lord might have said £300,000; but as regards these pupil-teachers, we are only dealing with a few who were elected between the time of the passing and the promulgation of the Minute, to replace others who had completed their apprenticeship. In placing these not on the footing of the old pupil-teachers, we felt we could not do any serious or permanent mischief; because if the House should adopt the Revised Code, as I trust they will do, the parties will then be placed in the position which they were led to expect; whereas if the House should reject the Revised Code, by a single Minute these pupil-teachers can be placed on the same footing as if they had been engaged by the Government under the old terms, and no prejudice will be done to them. The noble Lord truly says, a considerable ferment arose in the country. My noble Friend Earl Granville was at the time in Ireland in attendance on Her Majesty. I was on the Continent; but I returned on the 17th of September, and at once put myself in communication with Earl Granville. Though we felt that we had honestly and conscientiously exercised our best discretion, we did not think it advisable to allow persons to do what the noble Lord has done to-night—that is, to distract attention from the real merits of the controversy by discussions as to our discretion and wisdom; we showed a more conciliatory spirit, and instead of leaving it in the state we placed it originally, we suspended the Minute absolutely. We did that on the 23rd of September, and since then we have acted consistently—I heard for the first time to-night that there has been any deviation from that practice—as if this Minute had never existed at all. We may be wrong in the view we took originally, and as we have seen fit to retract, it does not, perhaps, lie in my mouth to say differently. I only ask the House to see how the view of affairs differs, as stated by me, from that which has been stated by the noble Lord. I can only regret that he has viewed our conduct so unfavourably. I assure the House that the matter is one of enormous difficulty. We do not pretend to be free from error; we are conscious of having made many. I bow with submission to any hon. Gentleman who finds fault with the intellectual part of the work, which is fairly open to any hostile criticism that may he brought against it. But I speak both for the noble Lord and myself when I ask the House to believe

883
that we are utterly incapable of doing anything to withdraw the question from the absolute jurisdiction or control of Parliament; or of entertaining the least desire to be wanting in that respect which we owe to the House.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) has spoken of the salaries of inspectors as excessive. Their salaries begin at £200, and are raised by successive stages of £50 till they reach £600, when they stop, and this maximum rate is not attained till they have been twenty-four years in the service. In addition to the salary of £200 there are allowances for the expenses of travelling and living at hotels—for they are always on the move—amounting to £250 a year; in addition to which, they are reimbursed for any expenses incurrred in connection with the discharge of their official duties. He advances money, and if the amount appears moderate, he is reimbursed. That does not appear to me extravagant pay for gentlemen of the very high class we employ as inspectors. Our rule is, and it has been constantly acted upon, to take the young gentlemen of the greatest distinction we can find from either University; and any one who will compare the names of the inspectors with the University calendars will see that we have enlisted in the service of the public a most distinguished set of men. This Minute will not come into effect until after the 31st of March, 1863, except in the case of certain new schools. No schools now assisted can be examined under the new Minute till after the date I have mentioned. Therefore I have not the least reason to apprehend that during the next financial year there will be any increase of the public expense in this matter. Whatever the ultimate result, I certainly do not contemplate raising the salaries of the inspectors. But it is obvious that when the system does come into effect there will be some increase of expense under this head. I would rather not make any positive declaration on the subject at present, for I might hereafter be accused of breach of faith if I now indicated a plan which subsequent experience might not prove advisable. We shall have the opportunity of trying experiments on a small scale this year; and when the time comes to ask for a vote of money under the new Code, which cannot be in force till next year, then I, or whoever may be in my place, will be prepared to lay fully and fairly before the House the amount of the
884
additional assistance that may be required.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the state of the law relative to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland, and to ask him if he is to introduce any measure during the present Session to amend any defects therein? Considerable litigation had recently taken place on the subject, and the Commissioners declared that after considering carefully the law, they had come to the conclusion that they could not receive either land or money for trust purposes
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the question was one of considerable importance, and he quite admitted that the existing state of things in connection with the Board of Charitable Donations and Trusts in Ireland called loudly for remedy. On the part of the Irish Government, however, he might say that so anxious were they to consider the question, that on the 12th of September he wrote to the Master of the Rolls on the subject, and pointed out the difficulty of getting the business done. He found that before the vacation the Commissioners had passed a resolution in July, showing the inconveniences of the present system, which required not less than five of the Commissioners to be present—indeed, on the last two occasions they were unable to get a quorum, and therefore the business remained untrausacted. It had occurred to him that it might be well to introduce the English Act, 16 & 17 Vict. into Ireland; but after communicating with the Commissioners on the subject, their opinion was that it would be inconvenient to introduce the English Act into Ireland with the Board as at present constituted. On the part of the Irish Government he wished to say there was no wish to introduce any sweeping changes in the law of charitable donations and bequests; but such was the difficulty to obtain a quorum, that it was thought it would be a great advantage if a short Act were introduced making the quorum to consist of three instead of five members.

POOR LAW ANNEXATION.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, that he

885
rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, Why he has annexed the non-parochial district of Nottingham, called "The Park," to the suburban Union of Basford, instead of making it contributory to the poor rates of the town of Nottingham, of which it was in reality a portion? Although the question was one altogether of a local character, it was of great importance to the people of Nottingham. There were 153 residents in "The Park," the great majority of whom were leading merchants and manufacturers of Nottingham, who were chiefly indebted for their affluence to the industry of the working population of that town. It was by no means just that at a time when the operatives were suffering severely from the depressed state of trade consequent upon the war in America, that the very persons who had derived so much advantage from their industry should either endeavour or be allowed to evade their responsibilities as regarded local taxation. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have been aware of the real facts of the case, and he implored him at least to postpone his final decision until after the 1st of March, in order that full particulars might be laid before him. The feeling of the people of Nottingham on the subject was clearly evinced by the fact that in the course of two or three days above 2,300 signatures had been obtained to a petition against the proposed annexation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would concur with him in thinking that the wishes of so many of the inhabitants of the town of Nottingham ought not to be made subservient to those of the 153 residents of the Park. He should like to be informed why the annexation had been considered advantageous to Basford, and not to Radford Union. Radford was nearer to the town and nearer to the Park than Basford was, and the rates in the latter Union were consider ably less than in the former, while in some of the parishes in Nottingham they amounted to as much as 6s. or 8s. in the pound. In his opinion the proposed annexation was both unjust and unwise, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he regretted that since the hon. Baronet and his constituents had attached so much importance to this annexation, he had not taken an opportunity of addressing the Poor Law Board until the very day before the 1st March, the last on which anything could be done
886
to remedy the complaint. Even, however, were he to delay his decision, he doubted whether the hon. Baronet would be able to by before him any other facts than those which had been already submitted for the consideration of the Poor Law Board. The facts were, briefly, that the district proposed to be annexed was a tract of country near Nottingham that had hitherto been extraparochial. Some years ago, by the operation of an Act which had passed that House all these places ceased to be extraparochial and became bound to maintain their own poor. This particular district had no poor, but it was still the duty of the Poor Law Board to see that all parishes liable to the maintenance of their poor should be attached to some Union. As the district had no poor, each one of the neighbouring unions was anxious that it should be united to it. He had received deputations from three unions, Radford, Basford, and Nottingham, and heard evidence adduced in support of their respective claims. He then had made inquiries as to the rule of the Poor Law Board which usually regulated the annexation of such places. He found that the public convenience of the district had been the guiding principle, due regard being had at the same time to the opinions and wishes of the owners and occupiers of the property to be annexed. He accordingly desired that some public meeting should be held to collect their opinions. Such a meeting had been held, and the owners and occupiers of the district had expressed a nearly unanimous wish that they should not be connected with Nottingham, and that they should be united to Basford. He found that the contribution of the district to the establishment charges of Nottingham and Basford unions would he precisely the same. He also found that Nottingham was "the county of the town of Nottingham," and that it had always carefully avoided having any parish attached to it. He was therefore looking about for a reason to determine his decision, when a representation was made to him that the hundred of Basford was a few years ago made liable for the destruction of the castle of a noble duke, and had had to pay £22,000 for an outrage in which its inhabitants took no part. This consideration, coupled with the expressed wishes of the owners and occupiers of the district, finally induced him to decide in favour of Basford Union. He did not think the capitalists who had villas in this district could fairly be charged with neglect

887
of the poor, because they were employers of labour, and were at this moment employing more hands than were absolutely required for the purposes of trade, owing to its present depressed condition. If the hon. Baronet could lay any further facts before the Poor Law Board they would receive attention; and if any good cause could be shown for so doing, he should be happy to revise his decision.

DISTRESS IN COVENTRY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to make a few remarks in reference to a former statement he had made respecting the condition of the town of Coventry, which be regretted to say was in deeper distress than appeared to be generally believed. The House would no doubt feel that it was his duty to be very careful of what he said when he was speaking of men whose credit might not stand so securely as it had done before the distress visited the manufacturers and the working' people of Coventry. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow him to correct himself in the matter. It would be recollected that he had, on that day fortnight, stated that out of eighty master manufacturers in Coventry fifty had been in the Gazette, not including those who had made compositions with their creditors. In consequence of that statement he had received the following communication:—
  "Coventry, Feb. 15, 1862.
  "In The Times of to-day you are reported to have said—'But of the manufacturers fifty out of eighty had been in the Gazette, that fifty not including those who had made compositions with their creditors.' This is not correct; and I am afraid you will be called to account for it. I think your informant is in error; if you had said, 'Out of the eighty manufacturers thirty were either bankrupt, insolvent, or hare made compositions with their creditors,' you would have been about correct."
  As to the writer's observations that he (Mr. Newdegate) would be called to account for his statement, he would only remark that it did not matter to him whether he was called to account or not, inasmuch as it never was his habit to state anything in that House which he did not believe to be substantially correct. Immediately on the receipt of the letter be had just read he wrote to the gentleman from whom he had received the information which he bad felt it his duty to communicate to the House. The
  888
  following was the reply which he received:—
  "Coventry, Feb. 20, 1862.
  "Dear Sir—If you will refer to my statement, you will see that I stated in reply to your query as to the number of failures as follows:—'This cannot be at present ascertained, but it is estimated that the number at the present time far exceeds fifty, not including insolvents.' Now, when I mentioned fifty I did not confine myself to manufacturers alone, but I included other tradesmen who had failed in consequence of the depressed state of the trade in this city and neighbourhood. Again, I not only considered those men had failed who had become bankrupts, but who had arranged with their creditors to pay less than 20s. in the pound. At the same time I did not include in the fifty men who had taken the benefit of the late Insolvency Acts—that is, whose estates were under £300; for had I done so, I must have made the fifty into 150, &c. &c. From what you said in the House I infer that you took it for granted that the fifty who had failed had all been in the Gazette, and that the term 'insolvents' meant those who had made compositions with their creditors. If this is so, the apparent discrepancy between your speech and my statement is easily explained. From inquiries I have made since your letter 'reached me I find, so far as the time has enabled me to ascertain, that the number of tradesmen who have failed since the treaty is sixty-five, of which thirty-seven are immediately connected with the ribbon trade. Hoping this explanation will prove satisfactory,
  "I remain, dear Sir, yours truly,
  "C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M. P."—.
  He thanked the House for allowing him to correct a statement which had thus been called in question. But the letter which he had just read, although it did not very materially affect his statement, proved a fact of which he was glad to be assured, that the credit of the master manufacturers and tradesmen of Coventry bad a power of endurance greater than what he had led the House to believe.

INDIAN ARMY EXPENSES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the total force maintained on the Indian Establishment has been decided on for this year; whether he will lay upon the table of the House, before he brings in the Army Estimates, the data upon which the capitation rate of £10 per man, which is to be paid by the Indian Government, has been calculated; whether the amount so produced is to cover the expenses of the Depots of Indian Regiments at home, of recruiting, and of the payment of Pensioners from Indian Regiments; and whether he will furnish an account in detail of the items and services to which this payment by the Indian Go-

  889
  vernment will be applicable? In putting those questions he said his object was to ascertain that no expenses which ought to be borne by the Indian Government were charged upon the Home Treasury. He also remarked that he understood that the depot battalions were to be reduced this year.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISdid not see any advantage in anticipating the discussion on the Army Estimates, which would take place on Monday next. In answer to the first question of the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to state that the total force in India, exclusive of local troops, was, during the year, to consist of 56 battalions of infantry, 11 regiments of cavalry, and 16 brigades of artillery. The reply to the second question was, that the capitation rate of £10 per man was calculated on the total force of the Imperial army in India, including cavalry, infantry, and artillery, officers and men, as shown by the monthly muster rolls. The sum thus calculated was paid by the Indian Government to cover all expenses of raising and training men in the United Kingdom, and was continued until they landed in India. It did not include clothing nor kits. There was another sum of £3 10s. per man, which was calculated on a similar principle, for non-effective charges. It was estimated that those payments would in 1862–3 amount to £730,000 for effectives and £255,500 for non-effectives—giving a total of £985,000. Formerly the effective charges used to be paid over by the Indian Government to the War Office without appearing in the Estimates. In the present year, 1862–3, these charges are included, for the first time, in the Estimates, the increase in which is, therefore, in a great degree merely apparent. The money received from the Indian Government would not be deducted from the Estimates, but would be paid into the Exchequer.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  The House then went into Committee of Supply, but immediately resumed to sit again on Monday next.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  REPORT.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR brought up the Report of the Committee of Supply.
  Upon the Question that it be read a second time,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE(who
  890
  had a notice on the paper to call attention to the correspondence between the Admiralty and the Treasury appended to the Estimates) said, that he had wished to call attention to the subject before the House went into Committee on the Navy Estimates, but that owing to accident his notice was too late, and he had then put it on the paper as a matter which he should bring forward when next the House went into Committee on those Estimates. He unexpectedly found, however, that the whole of the Navy Estimates had been gone through in one night. It was an occurrence which had very rarely happened, and, in one respect, it rendered more important what he had to say. The fact of those Estimates passing through in one night really represented the disposition of the House and the country to vote whatever was necessary for the service of the navy, and, upon the whole, to place confidence in the Estimates which were submitted by the Government. But, notwithstanding that readiness and confidence, it was the duty of the House to exercise a fair vigilance over the Votes, and, as far as they could, to control the expenditure. The control might be exercised in two ways. They might reject a Vote in Committee of Supply, which did not often happen, or they might exercise a moral influence over the Government by criticising the Votes submitted to them, which he believed to be the more effectual and the more desirable method. But, in order properly to exercise that control, it was of importance that the details of expenditure should be presented in a shape which hon. Members could thoroughly understand; that they should know well what they were voting, and, after a reasonable time had elapsed, that they should be informed how the money had been expended, so that they might see whether it had been expended upon the objects for which it had been voted. It appeared from the correspondence appended to the Estimates, that the system which prevailed of transferring money from one Vote to another defeated that control on the part of the House, and prevented hon. Members knowing how the money voted for a particular service was applied. That was particularly the case with regard to Vote 11. The House was aware that there were two kinds of transfer, a transfer of a surplus from one Vote to another Vote on which there was a deficiency, and a transfer within a particular Vote from one

  891
  detail to another detail. It was to the latter class of transfers that he now wished to call attention. The provisions of the Appropriation Act were substantially, that the money voted for each department should be appropriated to each "separate service;" and that, if the exigencies of the public service made it requisite to alter the proportions assigned to each "separate service," the Admiralty, with the consent of the Treasury, might make the alteration. There was some difference of opinion as to what was meant by the term "separate service," and as to whether it was necessary for the Admiralty to consult the Treasury when a transfer was made from one detail in Vote 11 or Vote 12 to another detail in the same Vote, or whether it was only necessary when they proceeded to transfer money from Vote 11 to Vote 12. Whatever might be the strict construction of the Appropriation Act, the practice was for the Admiralty to consult the Treasury before making any transfer even within the same Vote; and he believed that practice was entirely within the spirit of the Act, and conformable to the wishes of the House. There were eight cases of transfer mentioned in the correspondence appended to the Estimates. Three of them related to the year 1860–1, and the others to the year 1861–2. With regard to the first three, he would only remark that it was a pity such transfers should take place by the authority of the Treasury at the suggestion of the Admiralty at a time when Parliament was sitting. They all took place in the month of March, 1861, when, as Parliament was sitting, the most natural course would seem to have been to present supplementary Estimates in case an excess had arisen. At the same time, as those matters were brought before the Treasury on the last day of the financial year, there might not have been time to present supplementary Estimates. With regard, however, to the control which the House might suppose the Treasury exercised in the matter of these transfers, it appeared to be extremely, feeble, because he found the Treasury using the terms "We feel we have no alternative" when giving their consent to the course proposed by the Admiralty. It would hardly be thought that this sort of control was worth much. He would not, however, quarrel with the Government on those first three instances, but he must direct attention to the fourth
  892
  case. On the 11th of June the Admiralty wrote to the Treasury as follows:—
  "Sir,—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, that my Lords have directed the sum of £5,000, for providing an iron caisson for Sheerness Dockyard, to be charged to the aggregate Vote 11, postponing other services, so as not to create an excess."
  And to that the Treasury signified their assent. This was a matter hardly within the spirit of the Appropriation Act. The Act said that the transfer should take place if it were absolutely necessary. Was this transfer absolutely necessary? The letter was written on the 11th of June and on the 6th of June, five days before, the Vote was passed. On the 6th of June the Admiralty asked Parliament to vote sums for new works, detailed in No. 11. They did not ask for any money for an iron caisson at Sheerness, but five days afterwards they went to the Treasury and said they were going to spend £5,000 in that manner, postponing other services. Two questions were raised. Why did not the Admiralty put the iron caisson into the Vote? And why did they ask for Votes for other services which five days afterwards they knew they could postpone? It led to the suspicion that Vote 11 was a Vote which could be easily cut down without detriment to the public service; and when they knew what happened with Vote 11, the suspicion was strengthened. Every year there was an excess upon that Vote, and sometimes a considerable one. In 1858–9 there was a surplus of £116,000, in the next year a surplus of £105,000, and in the year afterwards a surplus of £52,000. The House voted on an average under that head £90,000 a year more than was Expended. It might be said that the Admiralty did not know how much they were going to spend, and wished to cover what they did by sufficient authority; but, although they were not bound to spend what was voted, it led to practical inconvenience. There was always a surplus which could be applied under the law to other Votes, and therefore when, for instance, too little was taken for the Admiralty Office, the surplus of the Votes for new works supplied money for the Admiralty Office which was not voted. There was no real saving on the Vote for new works, because if £100,000 were voted for the purpose and only £50,000 expended, half the work had to be done afterwards, and the £50,000 surplus in one year had to he

  893
  voted over again in the next. Upon the next case he would only point out that the Treasury had challenged what the Admiralty had done, and that the Admiralty, in excuse, stated that an oversight had been committed. That was curious and rather unsatisfactory, but the correspondence stated that measures had been taken to prevent such errors in future, so he would say no more about it. In the next case that appeared in the correspondence the Treasury had given a very grudging assent to the Admiralty proposal. Now he did not think it desirable or to the advantage of the public service, to continue a system which had produced such correspondence as had taken place between the Treasury and the Admiralty. Apparently the two departments were brought into uncomfortable relations, and at the same time very little was gained by the control which the Treasury was expected to exercise. In the next case, that of the Achilles, where the additional expenditure was required in the month of September, it appeared to him that the spirit of the Act had been entirely carried out. But then came the last instance—that of the new Marine Infirmary at Woolwich. He believed the first Vote for that infirmary was taken as far back as 1856, and it was then estimated by the Admiralty that the sum of £42,000 would be required for the whole work, and accordingly that sum was inserted in the Estimates. For a time the Admiralty went on taking various sums, until at last it was discovered that the amount first proposed was not sufficient, and in the year before last the estimate given was £65,300, and there was a note appended stating that the original Estimate had been made before the site was purchased. Well, in the year 1861–2 the case of the Estimate stood thus:—There had been voted £52,250, there had been expended up to the 31st of December previous £58,206, and £5,000 was asked for the coming year, leaving to complete the work—nil. So that though Parliament had voted only £52,000, more than £58,000 had been expended, and £5,000 more was asked for; which, however, the House was led to suppose would be sufficient to complete the work The £5,000, of course, was voted, thus making the total amount voted £57,250. Now, it appeared from the correspondence which had taken place between the Admiralty and the Treasury that, though £57,250 was the amount voted, the total amount expended was
  894
  £73,294, making a difference of £16,000 between the sum voted and the amount which had been spent. That was an unsatisfactory state of things, and one which the House would naturally be anxious to look into. The House would also be naturally anxious to criticise the fact, that whereas the infirmary was originally expected to cost only £42,000, and the revised Estimate reached the sum of £65,000, the building had really cost so much more. But the effect of this system of transfers was, that this criticism could not take place, because the Committee had not the opportunity of knowing exactly what had been done with the money until nearly two years afterwards. Nothing within the Estimate of 1861–2 would show the real state of things at the time that the last Vote was taken. Now, the effect of framing the Votes in that manner was to conceal from the House the real state of the case, even though it was within the knowledge of the Admiralty; for when they came to explain the matter, they admitted (in the letter page 100) that some of the items of excess had been ascertained before the Estimate for the current year was framed. They admitted in the last page that the whole expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1861, had been £61,798, and yet they proposed to go on with a Vote of only £57,250, because, they said, "there was no objection to charging the difference between the amount expended up to that date, and the sums voted to the same date, to the aggregate vote, on which there was a surplus." They thought they had a perfect right to make up the difference between what had been spent and what had been voted out of the aggregate voted for other services in the year before, which, in fact, would entirely conceal the real circumstances from the House. He brought forward this matter in no hostile spirit, and he was quite sure that if they went more fully into the matter, they would see that the effect of this system was really to conceal from the House the total sum which it voted for small items, and so to deprive the House of that control which it ought to exercise over those Votes. As long as that course was continued, the same thing must happen. What he wished to suggest for the consideration of the House and the Government was, whether it would not be possible to put an end to the system of transfer altogether. He should like to see something like a Treasury chest fund,

  895
  or what had been proposed for the civil contingency fund, brought into play in this matter. He meant, that the House should vote exactly what the Government asked them to vote, and that what had been demanded should be the amount which the Government were entitled to expend; but that there should be a fund of a certain fixed amount upon which no final payments should be charged; and if it were necessary to expend more than the sum asked in any particular Vote, that the Admiralty, or other department, with the consent of the Treasury, should take the difference out of that fund by way of advance, to be repaid by a Vote of the House. But it should be a general contingency fund; and if, for instance, it were necessary, as in the case of the Achilles, that some money which had not been voted should be expended, the Admiralty should get an advance of £5,000 or £10,000, or as much as they wanted, out of that fund; and at the close of the year there should be a Vote taken in Parliament to repay to the contingency fund the sum that had been taken from it for the object required. The effect of that arrangement would be, that the House would see exactly what had been taken from the fund. If the Government wished to present to the House the real state of expenditure, he believed they could only do it at the moment they were asking for a vote of money. If it were done afterwards, it was hardly to be supposed that the majority of hon. Members would care to inquire into the matter.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he did not presume to offer any opinion on the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet as to the establishment of a General Contingency fund, because the question involved very grave considerations, and could not be satisfactorily disposed of by any one on the spur of the moment. The correspondence as to the bar at Portsmouth should be read in connection with the Estimates and correspondence of the previous year. The expenditure was unavoidable; without it the bar would have been left in an incomplete state, and the money previously spent thrown away. With respect to the course pursued by the Admiralty he observed that it was not a new one; that the Admiralty had the power to apply sums from one item under Vote No. 11 to another item under that Vote, so long as the total Estimate in the first column was not exceeded; but they were bound to ob-
  896
  tain the sanction of the Treasury whenever any application of money would cause an excess upon that total Estimate, or whenever any new works, not already agreed to by Parliament, were undertaken. When the Estimate of £65,000 for the infirmary at Woolwich was presented, it was supposed that that sum would cover the whole expense; but, as was well known, the construction of barracks and hospitals had undergone careful consideration, and had been reported on by several Committees. The consequence was that vast improvements had taken place in their interior fittings, lighting, and ventilation; and he thought that the Admiralty would not have been held free from blame if they had not endeavoured from time to time to render the infirmary as perfect as possible. That was the real cause of the unforeseen excess on that item; and the check which was given by the publication of the correspondence on the point at the end of the Estimates, appeared to be all that the House of Commons could, under the circumstances, desire. Though the construction of the caisson at Sheerness dockyard came under the head of a new work not sanctioned by Parliament, yet he must tell the House that so long back as in the year 1856–7, a sum was taken in the Votes for the construction of that caisson, but was not expended; and when the last year's Estimates were prepared, the real necessity for the caisson was not then foreseen. However, in June, very urgent representations were made from Sheerness yard to the effect that the existing caisson was in a very bad state, and that the new caisson would make the dock available for receiving ships of quite another class. It appeared to be one of those cases of emergency which had evidently been contemplated by the Act of Parliament, and the expenditure was really in accordance with the spirit of a Vote of that House on a former occasion. The suggestion made by the hon. Baronet for an alteration of the existing practice, must be left for future consideration.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the subject was one of great importance, and it was extremely desirable that hon. Members should turn their attention to the correspondence and returns to which allusion had been made, which constituted their only check upon the administration. On a cursory examination of that correspondence he thought that there were many points

  897
  requiring explanation from the departments; but he was afraid it was hardly possible to strengthen the existing check in respect to these outlays. There must arise cases of sudden emergency obliging the departments to expend for the public service money for items which did not appear under the different Votes, and all that should be required under these circumstances was, that if that House were sitting at the time, and if there was opportunity for it, a Vote should be taken; but if that House was not sitting, then nothing further could be demanded than that the circumstances should be explained to the House as soon as possible. It should be recollected that these outlays were not incurred on the mere decision of the Admiralty, but that the Treasury was interposed as a check upon the demands of the Admiralty. According to the existing practice, these matters were brought to the knowledge of the House by the publication of the correspondence, and hon. Members had the opportunity of canvassing any breach of the strict rules relating to the appropriation of public money. Neither the Education Vote nor any other civil service Vote had half as much check upon it as the Votes of the great services, the army and navy. With respect to the alteration suggested, that was too large a subject to enter upon at present, but he thought it would be more difficult to carry out than the hon. Baronet supposed. Altogether, although he was afraid that the arrangement suggested by the hon. Baronet might not prove practicable, it was of great importance that a proper check on the appropriation of monies voted by Parliament should be secured.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock till Monday next,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Gardens in Towns Protection.

UNITED STATES—BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS—THE CORRESPONDENCE. —QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that within the last twenty-four hours various papers had been laid upon the table in reference to the blockade of the Southern Ports. Those papers, no doubt, contained a great deal of valuable information; but they were also remarkable for the absence of information upon certain points of too great importance to be passed by. They contained Reports from the various consuls as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the existing blockade; they specified cases in which British vessels had broken it, together with a statement of ships that had been allowed to pass without let or hindrance from the cruisers of the Government of the Northern States; but they did not contain any information with respect to any communications which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign States in regard to the blockade. He wished to ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, Whether any such communications had passed; and, if so, whether there was any objection on the part of the Government to lay those papers, or extracts from those papers, before the House? He did not complain of the course which the Government had adopted in issuing the papers now before their Lordships, but there was great inconvenience in discussing a subject of this character upon papers presented in a fragmentary form. There was some excuse at the close of a Session for papers being so presented; but when neither the public offices nor the Parliamentary printers were overtaxed, it would be desirable to have the papers laid on the table as a whole, in order that a satisfactory judgment might be pronounced upon them.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had not had any formal communications with foreign Governments on the subject of the blockade. From time to time the French Ambassador and some other representatives of maritime States had asked him what course the British Government intended to pursue. His reply to

847
those questions were to the same effect as the despatch which he had addressed to Lord Lyons. No formal communications, however, had passed, and therefore there were none to lay upon the table. With regard to the mode in which the papers were presented, it seemed to him that they were much clearer and more intelligible when they were presented divided into the several subjects. He begged to lay on the table a despatch which he had just received from Lord Lyons, with regard to the blocking-up of Charleston Harbour, in which Mr. Seward is said to have stated that no more stone-ships would be sunk.
EARL STANHOPEwished to know whether the despatch did not confirm the Reports which he had alluded to on a former occasion as to the sinking of a second stone fleet?
EARL RUSSELL: —There is a statement in these despatches, and it has appeared elsewhere, that there had been a complete filling-up of Charleston Harbour; but Mr. Seward says this is not so—that all has been done that ever was intended to be done, and that there will be no further attempts to block up the harbour.

ITALY—THE PROCLAMATION OF COLONEL FANTONI.—EXPLANATION.
EARL RUSSELL: —I have to state to your Lordships that I have received information since the meeting of the House yesterday, with reference to the Neapolitan proclamation which was brought under your Lordships' notice by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby). It appears that when my despatch reached Turin, Sir James Hudson was at Milan, and that explains the delay which arose in the return of an answer to it. I have received an intimation last night that an explanation on the subject would be sent to the representative of the Italian Kingdom in London, who accordingly called on me this morning, and brought me the answer of Baron Ricasoli. The answer is to the effect that the proclamation of the commandant at Lucera was published without the sanction of the superior military authorities, and was immediately suppressed. The despatch went on to say that it was necessary to take very active and stringent measures for the suppression of brigandage, which is extremely injurious not only to the general peace of the country, but to the pursuits of industry and agriculture in the various districts where it prevails. The measures for putting it down are stated
848
to have been always concerted with the municipalities; so that if they contained anything injurious either to the prosperity of the districts or to innocent persons, the municipalities would not have agreed to them. As, however, the proclamation in question did not meet with the approbation of the superior military authorities, it was, as I have stated, immediately suppressed. The diplomatic representatives of Her Majesty are, therefore, not to blame for omitting to report it to the Foreign Office.
THE EARL OF DERBY: —I am very glad to hear the explanation which the noble Earl has given us. I am only sorry that he did not receive it in time for the answer to the question which I put last night, because it would have saved a good deal of conversation which turns out to be useless, inasmuch as the genuineness of the document is now admitted, and the very valuable information brought by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) from Turin, that the proclamation was a copy of a document published in 1810, turns out to be no information at all. It appears that the Armonia was right in publishing it as a document which emanated from an officer in the Neapolitan dominions, that it is entirely genuine, and that it is precisely of the character which I stated. I am extremely glad to hear that the Italian Government have felt it their duty to renounce and repudiate it in the strongest terms, and I hope your Lordships will now consider that I was fully justified in bringing the matter under your Lordships' notice.

GARDENS IN TOWNS PROTECTION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS presented a petition of John Augustus Tulk, of Dunston Lodge, Spring Grove, Hounslow, Esquire, for amendment of the Bill, and praying to be heard by counsel against it.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said it did not affect Leicester-square any more than Grosvenor-square, Bedford-square, or any other square; the object being to protect the health and enjoyment of the public. Where lands had been left as open spaces for the health and enjoyment of the inhabitants it was important to preserve them in that condition. It was not proposed to take possession of private property, unless

  849
  it was in such a state as imperatively required some interference. If this had been a new principle, he might have hesitated to suggest it. But the Bill was strictly in conformity with those provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act which, in the case of gardens in front of houses, prohibited the owners building on those gardens within thirty feet of the roadway, and authorized the vestry board to demolish any such buildings at the expense of the owner. The case with respect to property in gardens was much stronger than with respect to property in squares, because the gardens had never been used by any one except the persons occupying or owning the houses to which the belonged; whereas the squares were used in common by all the residents in the houses which surrounded them. Many years ago a public statue, of no great merit as a work of art, stood in the centre of Leicester-square, and he doubted very much whether there was any right to remove it, or to convey the ground upon which it had been erected. He did not object to the case of the petitions being brought before their Lordships, but he hoped they would not send the Bill to a Select Committee. It was entirely a question of principle, and if the object was wrong the Bill should be rejected.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSthought that an opportunity should be given to the freeholder of Leicester-square to explain his objections to this Bill before a Select Committee.
  After a few words from Lord REDESDALE,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought, that though the general objects of the Bill were extremely desirable, yet considerable injustice might be done unless some amendments were introduced in Committee. He did not see how it would meet the particular case of Leicester-square.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Clause 1. (Restriction on the doctrine of Implied and Constructive Notice, as affecting purchasers for value or mortgages.)
LORD CRANWORTHobjected to the clause. It had already been three times before Parliament and had always been
850
rejected. Nor did he disapprove of constructive notice in all cases.
LORD CHELMSFORDconcurred with his noble and learned Friend. The clause proposed to do away altogether with the law as to constructive notice; to this provision he objected.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas also understood to object to the clause.
LORD ST. LEONARDSexpressed his surprise that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not approve the clause, seeing that his noble and learned Friend had assisted him in the preparation of it. He (Lord St. Leonards) on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend had inserted some words in it of which he did not himself altogether approve. It had been the object of his life to secure bonâ fide purchasers for valuable consideration; and he believed that general regret was felt at the extent to which the doctrine of constructive notice had been carried. With actual notice he did not propose to interfere; the Bill only abolished constructive notice in eases where the Court was of opinion that the conduct of such purchaser or mortgagee amounted to fraud, or to such wilful neglect as amounted to fraud. He was willing to frame the clause in any way that would secure the object he bad in view, and to secure that before a man was made liable he should have real notice, such as a honest man would not desire to evade.
LORD CHELMSFORDexplained his objection to the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacknowledged the existence of the evil, and concurred in the desirability of correcting it; but thought it would not be corrected by introducing words so difficult of construction that they would generate additional confusion, instead of furnishing a convenient and practical rule for the guidance of the Courts. He was sure that his noble and learned Friend could frame such a rule. He therefore earnestly begged him to withdraw the clause, and bring forward another expressed a little more fully and definitely.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that on the appeal made to him he would not refuse to postpone the clause, with the view of recasting it, if possible, in language better calculated to effect its object.
Clause negatived.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock