Sitting of 13 March 1862

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Longford County, Myles William O'Reilly, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS,—2o Industrial Schools Acts (1861) Amendment; Bleachfields (Women and Children Employment).

THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH SYSTEM

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that the Electric Telegraph Service in that country is not in an efficient state either as regards engineering or management; whether the Government be of opinion that the recent appointment in India of three Military Officers to superior positions in that Service over the heads of duly qualified persons is not contrary to the previous orders of the Home Government; whether such appointments are not calculated to impair the confidence of the community in the efficiency of that Department; whether he is aware of any peculiar qualifications possessed by these officers to justify such exceptional appointments; and whether the Indian Government contemplate an immediate reorganization of the Indian Electric Telegraph Department?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he believed there had been some recent complaints from India of deficiencies in the working of the electric telegraph, mainly owing to the employment of native signallers who were not quite competent for the work. Representations having been made to the Indian Government, a Committee was appointed, and the result had been that the Department had been reorganized. With regard to any particular appointments, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that they were all made in India. The Home Government did not interfere with the appointments made in India unless some special ground was shown for its interposition. He had not the least reason to suppose that any improper appointments had been made over the heads of qualified servants. With regard to two of the Officers in question, Major Douglas and Major Stewart, he did not believe that two persons better qualified could be found either in the Indian or any other service. Two other Officers who had been promoted had been for some time in the Departments. Looking to the anxiety of the Indian Government to put
  1418
  this service on a proper footing, he had no reason to suppose that any improper appointments had been made.

CANADIAN BISHOPRICS.—QUESTION.
MB. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Patent, dated July 9, 1861, appointing a Metropolitan Bishop in Canada has been returned to the Colonial Office for revision; and whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the circumstance that the Patent in question may involve an infraction of the provisions of the Act 19 & 20 Vict., c. 121, of the Canadian Parliament, by which the appointment of all Ecclesiastical Functionaries within the Province was vested in the Canadian Synods?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that a Patent for appointing a Metropolitan Bishop in Canada had been twice sent back to the ecclesiastical authorities of the Colony for revision before it was finally adopted. With respect to the Act of the Canadian Parliament, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under some misapprehension. The Act did not vest the appointment of all the Ecclesiastical Functionaries in Canadian Synods, although it left the Synods to make regulations which might involve that assumption. That assumption of power had not, in fact, been made by them. The Crown still appointed Canadian Bishops, although it appointed persons who had been recommended to it by the Diocesan Synods. The Secretary of State for the Colonies thought that the old form of Letters Patent was no longer suited to the present state of things, and he hoped to provide in future a new form of document, which would enable the Bishops in Canada to consecrate persons designated by the Diocesan Synods, reserving only to the Crown a veto on those appointments.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished the Secretary to the Admiralty to state the course intended to be pursued by the Board of Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the management of Greenwich Hospital.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, if the hon. Member wished to ascertain whether the Government had any intention of bringing in the same Bill this year which

1419
they brought in last year, he might say that they had no intention to do so; for last year both Houses of Parliament received that measure rather unfavourably.

SUPPLY—POSTPONED RESOLUTION (BARRACKS AT HOME AND ABROAD) —SANDHURST COLLEGE.

  RESOLUTION RECOMMITTED.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given notice, with a view of bringing the Vote of Sandhurst College under the consideration of the House; and I believe it will be more convenient that I should make my statement on this Motion, inasmuch as the House will then have full discretion whether to go into Committee or not, and will be able to vote with a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. Now, Sir, the Committee of Supply have decided to reject a Vote of £ 10,787 for increasing the Royal Military College at Sandhurst. The question which I shall have to submit is, whether the House will again go into Committee of Supply with the purpose of reviewing that decision? The Vote was, in fact, a repetition of the Vote of last year. Last year a plan was introduced into the House by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. G. Baring) then Under Secretary for War, according to which all persons entering the army were to pass through the College of Sandhurst, whether their Commissions were obtained by purchase or without purchase. That was the plan which had been proposed by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and sanctioned by my predecessor, and which was then opened to the House by my hon. Friend. Some debate arose on that proposition, and a division took place, and my hon. Friend agreed to postpone the ultimate decision on the plan until Parliament had had an opportunity of reviewing the question. But, in consequence of the division that took place, my hon. Friend gave notice that the Vote of last year, £ 15,000, would be expended in the course of the year. There is no doubt at all on that point; and the money was voted by this House, but voted, not as sufficient for carrying the plan which had been proposed by my hon. Friend into effect, but merely as an instalment of the sum which would be necessary for that purpose. It was distinctly understood by the House that to the extent of that £ 15,000 the War Department were at
  1420
  liberty to proceed. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] Well, I assert in the most deliberate manner, after haying examined the debates of last Session, for I hold an impartial position in the matter, that the House had distinct notice from my hon. Friend that it was intended to expend £15,000 on the enlargement of the College of Sandhurst. I dwell particularly on this point because, in consequence of the remarks that were made on a late motion respecting the management of public monies, some hon. Members appeared to be under the impression that there had been a want of good faith on the part of the Government, and that they had been expending money on buildings at Sandhurst without the authority of Parliament. Nothing can be more certain than that this Vote of £15,000 was for the purpose of enlarging the college, and not one farthing had been spent without the explicit authority of a Vote in Supply, and also of the House in the Appropriation clause. The House ought to understand the nature of the plan that was opened by my hon. Friend last Session, because it differs materially from the plan I propose, and which is the foundation of the Vote that I am about to ask. One is far more extensive than the other, and I conceive that all that was intended by the promise of the Government was that the more extensive plan should not be acted upon without further deliberation and the permission of the House; and that no steps should be taken which involved the execution of that plan. That promise has been most faithfully kept, and more then kept, because I have abandoned that larger plan for the present without asking the House to assent to it, and have reduced it to the plan which I have before stated, and now repeat for the information of the House.
  The House ought to be aware that there were very high authorities for the adoption of the original scheme—namely, the larger one that was opened to the House last Session. I will read a passage from the Report of the Select Committee on Military Organization. That Report, made two Sessions ago, was the basis of the proposal that was made last Session to the House. The Committee, in page 12 of their Report, say—
  "For the purpose of obviating objections as to the large amount of patronage at the Horse Guards and the number of first commissions given away, the Commander-in-Chief opened a plan, whereby henceforth there should be only one en-

  1421
  trance into the army, and that through the medium of a military college. His Royal Highness is of opinion 'that this would be the most desirable thing which could be introduced into the service.' He gave the outline of a plan in great detail, which would be best explained by reference to the evidence, and to the questions and answers specified in the margin. Mr. Herbert, who heard that evidence, and who took part in the examination of his Royal Highness, declared that in his opinion the advice given by the Duke of Cambridge was sound; that, if it were adopted, the whole dispute as to first commissions would be entirely at an end, and that one entrance into the army through the door of a military college would terminate the controversy respecting patronage. He stated further that he had himself made the same proposal some years ago in the House of Commons; that he had a plan now before him, submitted by the Council of Education; that, with the Commander-in-Chief, he was now considering it; and that, in the event of the fusion of the European Indian army with the Queen's army, many difficulties with respect to the enlargement of the patronage at the Horse Guards would be removed by the establishment of this military college. The plan being thus avowedly incomplete, and the details not yet being matured, your Committee do not think it expedient to pronounce a decided opinion on the subject; but the measure proposed is well worthy of the most careful consideration."
  It is evident, however, what was the bent of the opinion of the Committee They were favourably inclined towards the plan as affording a solution of a difficult problem with respect to the patronage of first commissions, and particularly with respect to the amalgamation of the Indian army. I confess nothing has so much surprised me in the discussion of this subject as to hear that this plan, with respect to Sandhurst, is considered by some persons what is termed "a job." In fact, it is the very opposite of a job, and was proposed by the Duke of Cambridge with the perfectly disinterested view of restraining his discretion in the disposal of his own patronage, and of imposing conditions with respect to merit upon persons entering the army. Instead of the Duke of Cambridge having an unlimited power of giving first commissions, he proposed that every one about to enter the army, whether by purchase or not, should be required to spend a year at Sandhurst, and afterwards to undergo the ordeal of a competitive examination. Now, if that process involves anything which has the most remote resemblance to a job, I confess I never understood what that monosyllable means. Anything which tends more decidedly in the opposite direction it is impossible for me to conceive. A very large proportion of the Members
  1422
  of this House must remember what passed during the debates on the India Bill, and the jealousy which was expressed with respect to the unlimited power of the Government in disposing of the Indian patronage. Such power on the part of the Government has always been, from the time of Mr. Fox's India Bill to the Bill which was passed a few years ago, one of the great objects of the jealousy of Parliament. Now, in consequence of the addition of nine infantry regiments and three cavalry regiments to the Indian army, there will be a great increase in the number of non-purchase commissions, and it is to non-purchase commissions that I shall propose to limit this plan.
  Well, then, the proposal made last Session was for a Vote of £15,000 to commence the enlargement of Sandhurst College, with a view ultimately to make it sufficiently large to pass every person entering the army through its walls. For that purpose £15,000 would not have been sufficient; but, in consequence of a deliberation which took place during the recess, I came to the conclusion that it would not be desirable, for the present at all events, to press that plan upon the adoption of Parliament, but to limit it to commissions obtained without purchase. The result of that decision was that a contract was made, I think, in August last, to the amount of nearly £15,000; and it was intended that that contract, when executed, should enlarge the college to a sufficient extent to meet the limited demands which would be made upon it in consequence of the restriction to which I have adverted. The decision of the Committee of Supply has placed me in this position, that in consequence of only a small part of that contract having been executed—to the amount of about £1,000—up to December last, and of some £4,000 which it is expected will have been executed to the end of the quarter, I am now obliged to come to the House for a re-Vote. The rule which obtains with regard to the War Office does not obtain with respect to the Civil Service. If this were a harbour Vote, for instance, the £15,000 might be expended in the ensuing year; but the rule of the War Office is more strict, for the authority given to it in this respect lasts only to the 1st of April following, so that if the whole sum is not expended, it is necessary to come to Parliament for a re-Vote. Substantially, therefore, I only I asked the Committee the other night to

  1423
  re-Vote so much of the grant of last year as should not be expended up to the 1st of April. If on reconsideration that Vote shall not be made, all I can say is that the money already expended is thrown away; that we must compensate the contractor out of the Vote of last year for his loss in not being able to execute the rest of the contract, to the amount of perhaps £5,000; and that a couple of thousand pounds more will have to be expended in removing the half-finished walls now standing. Therefore there will be an expenditure in this way of about £12,000, and the whole sum which I now ask is only £10,000 to give the requisite accomodation for adapting the College to the limited wants I have described.
  Now, there is a circumstance to which the House ought to advert in coming to a decision on this question—namely, that when the East India Company was in existence, it had a Military College at Addiscombe; that College has been suppressed, and the military students who used to be received there are now divided between Woolwich and Sandhurst. That is another reason why additional accommodation will be needed at Sandhurst. Addiscombe was intended mainly for the formation of artillery officers and engineers, but those who failed obtained infantry commissions. The whole of that class will have to be provided for at Sandhurst under the present regulations. If the House should approve the principle that persons who are to receive non-purchase commissions must go through a course of military instruction and pass a competitive examination, some provision must be made for this class of persons. The change that has taken place in the Indian Army as regards Sandhurst is not limited to the commissions in the twelve new regiments; but when vacancies are occasioned by appointment to the Staff in India, they will lead to non-purchase commissions in whatever regiments they may occur. That circumstance, therefore, will occasion an addition to the other students at Sandhurst. The House may, perhaps, wish to know what will be the total number of non-purchase commissions to be given away under the new state of things. As far as I am able to ascertain, the total number, as estimated by His Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief, is 230 non-purchase commissions per annum. Of these, between 30 and 40 will be reserved to non-commis-
  1424
  sioned officers who will not pass through Sandhurst or undergo examination. There will be also 20 Queen's cadets, sons of officers who die in the service, and 20 more, sons of Indian officers, so that 160 will be left for annual competition. The Queen's cadets will be subjected to a qualifying, but not to a competitive, examination. It is only fair to require that they should show that they, are competent. Hitherto the number of non-purchase commissions competed for has not exceeded 20, so that the difference between the future number and the present will be the difference between 160 and 20. Each first commission is worth, according to the regulation price, £450; and that amount, multiplied by 190, would be equal to a sum of £85,500. Therefore, if the House were to refuse to make this arrangement with respect to the accommodation at Sandhurst, and were to establish the principle that non-purchase commissions should be given away without any test whatever, it would place in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, without any restriction, patronage to that amount; and I scarcely think that such can be the Intention of the House. It must be borne in mind, that if you are to have a competition for 160 commissions, there must be more than 160 persons competing, otherwise it would be no competition at all; and the plan I should propose would provide only 296 cadets for 160 commissions; and if it is wished that the competition should be valid and substantial, I cannot suppose that the number of cadets could be reduced below that amount.
  I will now state precisely what I propose with respect to the accommodation. At present the number of cadets at Sandhurst is 189. It is proposed that the establishment should be increased, so that there should be four companies of 84 cadets, comprising altogether 336 cadets, and it is calculated that the additional building, as proposed to the House, will provide accommodation for that number and no more. And even after the additions now in progress should be made, there will still be five cadets to one room of 19 by 21 feet, and the room would be used both as a sleeping and sitting-room. There would certainly be halls for study and meals as well, but the sleeping-rooms, containing five cadets each, would be rooms of 19 by 21 feet. I think that the House will see that this is not a very

  1425
  excessive or luxurious accommodation, and it, indeed, gives less space than is at present allowed to the students at Woolwich. I believe I have now stated the principal outlines of the proposed plan, and the sum of £10,000 will just suffice for the purpose. The arrangement will be, that persons receiving a non-purchase commission should enter Sandhurst on a qualified examination, should pass a year there, and come out upon a competitive examination. That is the whole extent of the plan I propose, and I trust I have stated sufficient to enable the House to see that it is quite different from the plan proposed last year, being much less extensive and not involving the principle that every officer receiving a commission should pass through Sandhurst. The arrangement is limited to the case of non-purchase commissions, and the obligation of study at a military college and the test of competitive examination are intended as a check on what would otherwise be the unlimited discretion of the Commander-in-Chief in giving away non-purchase commissions. That is a principle hitherto not objected to by this House; indeed, it has been insisted on as a security against the abuse of patronage, and the objections which have been made to the plan appear to rest upon a misunderstanding of the purpose for which the arrangement is suggested. I trust that this explanation will induce the House to go into Committee to re-consider this Vote, and afterwards to agree to it.
  There is another question, raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) the other night, with respect to the claims of the Universities to take part in the military education of officers. Now, I think that everybody must see that the two great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge can never to any very considerable degree become places for purely military education. I think that they have not appliances necessary for the purpose, and that they cannot undertake to teach the branches of a mere professional education such as the army requires, and such, I may remark, as the navy now requires, because no person can enter the navy who has not passed a year's instruction in the Britannia training-ship, which in this respect is an institution equivalent to the College at Sandhurst. I believe, also, that the Admiralty are contemplating to establish a permament college on shore. Therefore these things should be borne
  1426
  in mind when a representation is made by any hon. Member that it is an unprecedented thing that there should be a special education of officers, for the principle is acted upon for the navy. With respect to the Universities, I would call the attention of the House to the correspondence on the table respecting the facilities which the War Office proposes to grant to persons studying at the Universities; and I beg to read the following letter from the War Office to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford;—
  "War Office, Jan. 27, 1862.
  "With reference to the letter from this department of the 8th instant, I am directed by Secretary Sir George Lewis to inform you that, having had the subject therein adverted to under his further consideration, and having conferred thereon with His Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief, he is of opinion that candidates who may have passed the first and second examinations (called Responsions and Moderations) at the University of Oxford, may, upon certificates being furnished by the Examiners of their possessing the necessary qualifications in the subjects included in those examination, be exempted from any additional examination of a preliminary character in the same for admission to Sandhurst as military cadets; and I am further to state, that should the candidates from the University exceed the limits of the maximum age as at present prescribed (namely, under nineteen years), Sir George Lewis will be prepared, on cases arising, to consider (if necessary) a relaxation of the rule in regard to age for University undergraduates."
  I shall be quite prepared also, in regard to Cambridge University, to enlarge the term by six months. With these explanations, I beg leave to move that the postponed Resolution be re-committed to the Committee of Supply.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, that he had listened with ever-increasing astonishment to the successive speeches of the Secretary for War. He would, nevertheless, confine his observations within as narrow compass as possible. It was difficult to reconcile the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which they had just listened with those delivered before, and it certainly had left the House in greater obscurity than ever as to the ultimate object of the Government proposal. The House, however, was asked to retrace the first step it had made in the path of retrenchment, and to give up the advantage of the only victory the friends of economy had gained. If that step had been taken in the dark, or that victory had been gained by surprise, there might have been some grounds for the re-

  1427
  quest. Now, what were the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to reconsider the Vote? His arguments were, in the first place, based on a newly-discovered matter of fact; secondly, on a question of patronage; and next, on the correspondence with the Universities which had been laid on the table. With respect to the first ground, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation why the fact, which if it was not known to himself, at all events must have been known to the Government, and which he seemed to consider so important as to afford a sufficient reason for reviving a discussion of a Committee more full than usual, had not been disclosed to the House until after two discussions and an adverse vote? For what purpose, he should like to learn, were hon. Members to sit night after night discussing the Estimates, if information were to be doled out to them as in the present instance? The fact on which the right hon. Baronet relied must have been in possession of Her Majesty's Ministers when they submitted the Estimates in question, and constituted, he should contend, no good reason for asking the House to reverse the decision at which it had already arrived. As to the question of patronage, he should ask hon. Members for a moment to consider in how guarded and careful a manner it had been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. Finding that he could not carry his proposition for the compulsory residence at Sandhurst of all officers, he stated it was to be abandoned for the present, but for the present only, and to a limited extent. But the objection to the reconsideration of the Vote was, that the House would thus be admitting one end of the wedge, and would subsequently be told that a large building having been provided, and the principle admitted, the original plan ought to be adopted. If the right hon. Baronet would inform the House that they were not at any future time to be called upon to resort to the scheme of compulsory education at Sandhurst for all the officers of the army, it would be unnecessary to enter into a consideration of the inadvisability of forcing men at a comparatively early age to confine themselves within the operation of an exclusive system, and to render themselves liable to the contraction of ideas which it was calculated to produce, and which was likely to be obviated by a more open and liberal training.
  1428
  In abandoning their scheme of forcing education on all alike, the Government would virtually give up the principle on which the Vote under discussion must rest; but in saying that they would not render it compulsory on those who could purchase commissions, while they would insist on it in the case of those who could not, they were making, as it were, one law for the rich and another for the poor. He should ask the House not to be led away by the supposition that there had been any concession made by the Government in the matter since the discussion which took place in Committee of Supply, for one of the main arguments of the majority was, that it was unjust to impose that upon the poor which could not be enforced against the rich.
  Then it was said that the adoption of the plan would involve the surrender of patronage. But, notwithstanding, it appeared that patronage was to exist in another form, and that the young men were to be admitted without having to undergo any competitive examination; and the great point the House 'had to consider was, whether they ought to make it compulsory on parents and guardians to send to one particular establishment all young men intended for the military profession. It had been supposed that since the former discussions the Government had changed their intentions, but, for his own part, he thought the case stood even stronger than before, for it was clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for "War that the original proposal of the Government was not abandoned, but only postponed. The right hon. Baronet in fact contended that in the case of those to whom commissions were given without purchase, it was right to impose a certain condition, and that into the expediency of that condition the House of Commons ought not to inquire. But in what, let him ask, did the condition consist? It involved not only the proposed instalment for the expense of the building in question which the right hon. Gentleman himself declared to be insufficient, but also a large annual Vote, and in the future a still larger annual expenditure. Could it then fairly be said that it was not the duty of the House of Commons to inquire whether it was wise and just to impose such a condition, and whether that expenditure was called for? For his own part he thought not, and he should with confidence appeal

  1429
  to hon. Members to say whether any necessity for so large an outlay had been made out.
  But, thirdly, the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that the correspondence on the table showed he had made to the Universities considerable concessions. He did not, however, state that he had conceded the principal point in dispute—whether there should or should not be compulsory residence at Sandhurst. That point appeared to be still insisted upon, and with a fatality which seemed to attend all the communications made to the House on the subject, the principal document—namely, the letter dated 6th May, 1861, and which contained the scheme of military education proposed by the University of Cambridge—was not included in the papers laid on the table. Whether that document was referred to as the private correspondence between Lord Herbert and the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge he was unaware; but how it could be considered as in the nature of a private correspondence, seeing that it was signed by the Vice Chancellor and by many other members of the Council of the Senate, and that it had been published in the newspapers, he was at a loss to understand. Be that, however, as it might, in the absence of that document, there was great difficulty in making out the real character of the proposal of the Government from the correspondence as it had been presented. The Universities considered that they had within themselves the means of giving a young man about to enter the army such an education as would fit him to be that which an English soldier ought to be. To effect that object they offered to abridge the time usually required for residence at the Universities, and so to modify their own rules as to render them applicable to the peculiar position of those about to enter the army. Now, he should like to know whether the number mentioned by the right hon. Baronet as at present occupying Sandhurst did not comprise a considerable number of those studying for Staff appointments? [Sir GEORGE LEWIS That portion of the building occupied by the Staff College will henceforth be devoted for the use of the cadets generally.] But even so, he did not see how the large increase in the number of cadets, which was 170, and which the right hon. Baronet said was to be limited to 336, was accounted for; but what he wished the House distinctly to understand was, that
  1430
  the Government had not conceded in the present case the free choice of education either at the Universities or at Sandhurst, but that a large number of young men were to be brought to Sandhurst, and to obtain admission to the army only through the medium of a compulsory education there. If, moreover, the House were to reverse its decision, and re-commit the Vote, hon. Members would, after a time, be told that they had consented to the adoption of a system of compulsory examination in the case of those who were unable to purchase their commissions, and would be asked how they could consistently refuse to extend the system to those who were in a position to do so. He did not say that the proper test, whatever it might be, should not be applied, or that the examination should not be as stringent or as professional as they pleased to make it; but he contended that they should not limit to one place or to one set of persons the acquisition of that knowledge which was necessary to pass that examination and to comply with that test. That was the principle upon which the Committee had acted, and he trusted the House would not now, especially in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Secretary for War, suffer itself to be induced to reverse the decision of the Committee. Such were the reasons which compelled him to meet the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War with a direct negative. The grounds upon which he did so were—first, that by agreeing to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the House would sanction the principle of compulsory examination of the whole of the officers of the army; and, secondly, that there had been no necessity shown for the proposed expenditure of public money. He confidently anticipated the support, not only of those who were pledged to a policy of economy and retrenchment, but also of those who desired to preserve inviolate one of the most important functions of the House of Commons—namely, a real and effective control over the public expenditure.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, I think the House is now realizing the inconvenience, to say the least, of being called upon to discuss the enlargement of a public military college before we have had an opportunity of hearing Ministers propound their scheme of education. Tonight, for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has

  1431
  given us a description of his scheme, but we have had no opportunity of considering it, far less of entering into a debate upon it. I well remember the circumstances under which the Vote was agreed to last year. At midnight, on the 25th of June, no plan was propounded as to what the scheme of education should be. A hint was given on the subject, and I understood that all candidates for commissions in the army were expected to go to Sandhurst for one, year. The details of the scheme were not stated. Upon that occasion, indeed, two Motions were made for reporting progress, and the Committee was rather hurried into a Vote upon the subject. I did not join in the division myself, because I felt there was no plan before us upon which we could vote; and I must say that, in my opinion, we were treated to a little sharp practice. At the same time I do not go so far as to say that there has been any breach of faith, because I do not believe that such a charge can fairly be brought against the late hon. Under Secretary for War; but' it certainly is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War—perhaps owing to the circumstance that he has been thinking more of the Astronomy of the Ancients than of the duties of his office—has not until to-night given us any explanation of his, scheme of military education. To-night, however, he has favoured us with a clear statement, and I, who am not fettered by any previous vote, am happy to come to the consideration of the subject. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken that this question is one of economy and retrenchment. We have to deal with a scheme intended for the benefit of our military officers, and I think it would be ridiculous cheese-paring to treat it upon economical considerations alone. The real question before us is, will all classes of officers be benefited by the new scheme of education? I have no hesitation in saying, for one, that I think the scheme, as propounded by the right hon. Secretary for War, will be highly beneficial to the officers of the army. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says that all officers are to be compelled to go to Sandhurst for one year, he does not give a correct representation of the scheme. The right hon. Secretary for War has told us that all first commissions, which are now in the patronage of the Commander-in-Chief, are henceforth to be
  1432
  thrown open, and that his Royal Highness, in return for the great benefit thus bestowed upon the army, will be satisfied if candidates for commissions without purchase are required to pass a certain time at Sandhurst. I think that is a great advantage for those gentlemen and the service in general. What is the case now? The examination which an officer has to undergo has nothing at all to do with his professional duties, Running into the extreme of competitive examinations, we ask a man a parcel of useless questions, no way connected with his profession; and the consequence is, that an officer goes to his regiment, whether with or without purchase, without any special military training, unless he has been at Sandhurst. For a considerable period, of course, such an officer is of no possible use to his regiment or to the service. Take a cornet of cavalry on first joining his regiment. He may be the best classic or the best mathematician in the world, but if he has not learnt to ride, or acquired a knowledge of his drill, he is of no use as a cavalry officer. If you send a cornet to Sandhurst, he will acquire a special military training, and after he leaves the college he will be able within a week to do regimental duty. I look upon that as a great advantage. It is not for me to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has any particular object in view, but he is the representative of Cambridge University, and we all know that Cambridge University likes to get as much grist to its mill as possible. I have been at Cambridge myself, and I know the great anxiety they have there to make their net so as to catch everybody and everything. Let us see what has been the result of the institution of Sandhurst. Important evidence has been given upon that point. The Committee on the Organization of the Army was probably one of the best-constituted Committees ever selected by this House. ["No."] An hon. Gentleman says "No;" but I defy him to put his finger upon any Member of that Committee who had not special knowledge of the subject of investigation. I hold in my hand the evidence given by a right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who, whether we regard his great general knowledge, his sound judgment, the clearness of his perception, or his special acquaintance with the army, must be considered as good an authority as any to be found in the United King-

  1433
  dom. I allude, of course, to the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon General Peel told the Committee that the result of that military training at Sandhurst would be to make young officers at once fit for duty in their respective regiments. The acquisition of such gentlemen would be a very different thing from that of a parcel of young men from Oxford and Cambridge, who are not always the best recruits for regiments, for the same reason which induces a riding-master in the cavalry to look upon a postboy with dismay—namely, because he has to unlearn a great deal. Many gentlemen from Oxford and Cambridge join full of classics and mathematics, but knowing nothing whatever of special military duty, except what they have got by cramming—a sort of information which, if it is speedily acquired, is also speedily forgotten. It is for the interest of the army we should have officers with some special military knowledge. The British army is the only army in the world in which men join their regiments unable to do duty at once. We have heard a great deal of officers being separated from the rest of the community, and one would suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was going to require every officer to remain at Sandhurst for three years. The fact is, however, that the student is to go to Sandhurst when he is between sixteen and seventeen years of age, and to remain there for one year. So far from thinking that a disadvantage, I regard it as one of the greatest advantages which could be conferred upon the army. There is another point which ought to be considered. General Peel was asked by the Committee on the Organization of the Army whether he thought, supposing no admission to the army should take place until after the young man had passed through the college, the purchase system could continue. His reply was that, in his opinion, the natural consequence would be to do away with the purchase system altogether eventually. I commend that statement to the serious attention of those who are opposed to the purchase of commissions. It suggests a very material consideration for this House. Do not let us run away with the idea that the Secretary for War proposes to do something which is wrong and unconstitutional. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is open to the charge of carelessness in
  1434
  having so long deferred an explanation of his scheme of education; but what we have now to consider is, whether that scheme is a good or a bad thing for the British army. I am prepared to vote for it as an experiment, and I trust the House will support the right hon. Gentleman in the Motion which is now before us.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that there was hardly any Member in that House whose attention had been more closely directed to the question of admission into the army through the Military College at Sandhurst than his own during the last three or four years. He need hardly say that the question under discussion was not one which should be treated in a party spirit. It was a question in which the interests of the British army were involved, and he had a particular reason for saying that to make it a party question would be, not only very improper, but also very inconvenient. A few years ago many hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite entertained very different opinions from those which they held now. When he became Secretary for War in the Administration of the Earl of Derby, he found that his predecessor, Lord Panmure, had established a plan according to which every candidate for admission into the army was required to go to Sandhurst. That plan was actually in operation when he went to the War Office, and it was applied even to candidates for admission into the scientific branches. The only alteration he made was this—having found that a great hardship was felt by gentlemen who were preparing for Woolwich in consequence of the change in the age, he had allowed two additional examinations to take place for Woolwich. What was the consequence? The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) moved an Address to the Crown, praying that the old practice might be reverted to, and he had a perfect right to do so; he did not approve the plan that had been adopted, and he was perfectly certain, if it had continued to be carried on by his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman would equally have objected to it. The fact, however, was, that every Gentleman on the other side voted on that occasion against Sandhurst, and those on his side of the House voted for it. The plan laid before him by the Council of Education, when he was Secretary at War, went to this extent that every person entering the army should pass through a military college. The hon.

  1435
  Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne) was not strictly correct in stating that the plan was entirely approved by the Committee on Military Organization. He had objections to it, because it cast upon every person the necessity of making up his mind whether he would enter the military profession at the early age of seventeen, while some might wish to enter the army at a later period of life. As he now understood the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, the admission to Sandhurst in the first instance would be a qualified admission to the army, and that it would also to some extent diminish the admissions into the army by purchase. The examination on admission to Sandhurst would be equal in severity to that qualifying for a commission in the army; and, after going to Sandhurst, the examination was to be purely professional for those who would obtain commissions without purchase. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) said it was a hardship for men to have to go to a military college, as if every profession were not in the same position in this respect with the army. All who entered the Navy, the Marines, Artillery, the Engineers, had to go through a professional training. Even the profession to which his hon. and learned Friend belonged had to submit to this rule, although the only test in law was appetite. In point of economy, the man who got his commission by a professional examination was far cheaper to the country than one who must receive pay for six months before he was able to do any duty. As to Sandhurst, again, that might and ought to be made a self-supporting establishment. Sons of officers were allowed to go in at a cheaper rate than other cadets, who were obliged to pay for the difference. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief might have said, "I will give up all these commissions to be competed for, but I shall nominate all the cadets." That would, in point of fact, have been equivalent to retaining the patronage. But, on the contrary, His Royal Highness said, "I do not want this patronage; I wish to get rid of it." But then he thought that, as in the Indian army, the candidates for commissions should pass through a military college. "What would be the result if they succeeded by refusing the Vote in not increasing the number of the cadets at Sandhurst? They would not be one whit nearer the adoption of the proposal of
  1436
  his hon. and learned Friend—namely, that Oxford and Cambridge should come to compete for; direct commissions. They might, indeed, compete even in a professional examination; but what would be said if Oxford and Cambridge were made military colleges? The effect would, no doubt, be to change the course of life of many young men who originally intended to go either to the Bar or the Church. It would be found much easier to obtain a commission than to take a degree. So far as the army was concerned, there could be no hardship in saying that those to whom they were about to give commissions should previously acquire some knowledge of the military profession. Having obtained his commission by a professional test, an officer would be ready at once to join his regiment, and almost to command a company. He hoped and trusted this would not be made a party question, but that they would come to that conclusion which the was perfectly certain would promote the interest and the efficiency of the army.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he was not in so fortunate a position with regard to the question as the hon. Member for Liskeard. He had twice voted on the subject against the Government, but after the explanations given he should, on the present occasion, record his vote in their favour. When the Vote was brought before the House last year, he opposed it on the ground of the scantiness of the information supplied, and because he objected to pass every officer of the British army through an establishment without some security that it would be an efficient one. The Government on that occasion, however, had given the information which was wanting. They had been told that the accommodation to be provided was for 336 young men; and though it was within his knowledge that the accommodation originally provided in Sandhurst was for 405, practically the provision fell far short of what was necessary; and he believed if the requisite accommodation was to be made for students of an advanced age, it was not more than sufficient for the number now proposed to be sent. Then he felt no objection to the end to the object to be accomplished—namely, that of giving a professional education to young men intended for officers of the army for one year, after the termination of their ordinary school education. His objection to the scheme of last year

  1437
  was, that it was a proposal to pass every officer of the army through one college, The proposition now made by the Government was to limit the number to about one-third, leaving the other two-thirds to be educated as at present, subject to the same condition of passing a test examination before obtaining a commission. He felt the force of the objection to an exclusively special education. He believed that it cramped the ideas, and therefore he was opposed to any system which would compel young men to devote three or four years to a quasi-military education in which they would learn neither strategy, tactics, nor the higher departments of the profession. Such was the system now in force at Sandhurst. But he by no means objected on principle to obliging a young man of sixteen or seventeen to devote one year to special studies. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill were obliged to get their military education in a French College, while Sir John Moore and Sir Charles Napier only obtained their military knowledge by passing successively through every single arm of the army. They had seen the evil effects of the want of special training during the Crimean campaign, when young officers were sent out to join their regiments and required to lead men into action without the requisite knowledge for commanding a company. The same evils would happen again if their officers were sent to command without special knowledge of the duties they had to discharge. He should, therefore, under the altered circumstances, support the proposition of the Government without fear of rendering himself liable to a charge of inconsistency because he had opposed the Vote of last year.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he could not admit that officers who left Sandhurst, although possessed of some military knowledge, were prepared immediately to take the command of a company. They would be expected by the colonels of their regiments to learn their drill in the ordinary way. If Oxford or Cambridge wanted to have military education exclusively in their own hands, it would be quite a different thing. They only asked for a fair trial of their system; and if it failed, another plan might be adopted. He did not know whether riding formed any part of the training at Sandhurst, but he appealed to anybody who had been at Oxford or Cambridge whether that art was not to be learnt there. They were told that the
  1438
  proposal of the Government would be of great benefit to the army; but he believed the benefit had been exaggerated, while a probable disadvantage had been overlooked. A reasonable apprehension had been felt that as the College at Sandhurst was to be limited to a particular class, officers passing through that institution would enter their profession as marked men, who from poverty or other circumstances could not pay for their commission like their comrades. That might give rise to jealousy, and other feelings inconsistent with the well-being of the service. Then, again, there was the question of expense. Grants like the present began with very small sums, and went on annually increasing. The tendency of such Votes, rapidly to double, and even treble themselves, was illustrated by the remarkable growth of the Estimates of the Educational Department. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to check the proposed expenditure. As to the taunt thrown out against those who were very anxious to save money in small sums, it should be remembered that any attempt to save larger amounts was always met by the cry that it would be detrimental to the public service.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to ask the Government whether it had been absolutely determined that these examinations should be of a competitive nature. It would be a great hardship to young men of inconsiderable fortune if after undergoing a year's special training at Sandhurst they were to be exposed to all the chances of a competitive examination. Things might surely be so managed that the number of admissions to Sandhurst should correspond with the number of commissions to be given. He thought the House hardly understood that the present scheme implied that a number of young men, educated at Sandhurst, would not only have to incur a considerable expense for that education, but would then receive commissions only if they succeeded in a competitive examination. If they should not succeed, it would be difficult for them to recover their position in society, or to repair the loss they would sustain by what would then have been to them a year's perfectly useless training. He believed the feeling of the House was truly expressed when the hon. Member for Liskeard said they were carrying their system of competition too far. Why could

  1439
  not the education of these young men be so arranged that after going through a probationary year of military instruction they should then have to pass a severe but fixed examination in military subjects? If they failed in that ordeal, they ought to take the consequences of their failure; but they ought not to be exposed to a competitive examination, so uncertain and indeterminate in its nature and results that it was very possible for an able man to fail in one year, and for a very inferior man to succeed in the next, These were hazards to which youths of this particular class ought hot to be subjected; and he therefore trusted that the Government would reconsider their opinion in this matter.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, as the subject was of great interest to the profession to which he belonged, he could not reconcile it with his feelings to give a silent vote upon it. Two distinct issues had been raised—namely, Whether a breach of faith had been committed by the Government; and whether they ought to have expended a certain sum of money, which it was admitted they had expended without the authority of the House. The charge of breach of faith had not been relied upon, and it did not appear to him that it afforded any justification for refusing the Vote. It appeared that a certain sum of money was voted last year for Sandhurst College, but all not having been expended, Her Majesty's Government paid the balance into the Exchequer; and the money being now required, this Vote was proposed for the purpose of getting it back. Had there been any breach of faith on the part of the Government, the proper and constitutional course for the House to adopt would have been absolutely to reject the Vote; and in such a state of things he should not have hesitated to concur in that proceeding, leaving those who made contracts to find the means of settling them as best they could, and trusting to the vigilance of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) to prevent this expenditure from creeping into the Appropriation Act in some other guise. The question, however, was narrowed to this point—whether the gentlemen who obtained commissions without purchase should be required to undergo a military education at Sandhurst. That a military education of some kind was desirable for every officer entering the army nobody denied; and on none could that condition be imposed with more propriety
  1440
  than on those who received their commissions without purchase. He did not attach any weight to the objection that that particular class of officers, after leaving Sandhurst, would be marked men in their profession for the rest of their lives. Poverty had never been deemed a crime in this country, and he believed there never had been, and never would be, a different feeling entertained towards officers who had purchased their commissions and those who had not, any more than there was a difference made in society between the man who happened to have a large fortune and one who had not. It had, indeed, been suggested that to sanction the Vote would be to permit the introduction of the thin edge of a wedge which would ultimately operate very prejudicially. But it should be borne in mind that no further step could be taken in the way of future grants without the concurrence of the House. The speeches of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) had exhausted this question. Often as he heard the hon. Member for Liskeard address that House, he had never heard him make a speech in so much of which he concurred. If he might be permitted for a moment to refer to himself, he would mention that he had the good fortune to be brought up in a military college. The result was, that the moment he joined his regiment, instead of having all the duties of an officer to learn, he was as competent as he was in two years afterwards to take his place in the ranks as a private, or as an officer to assume the command of a company. Had it been otherwise, he should have been exposed to the necessity of being regularly drilled for two or three months; and he could not but think it desirable that a young officer on joining should be saved from the ordeal of being week after week drilled by the sergeant-major or the drill-sergeant of the regiment. He should, therefore, cordially support the Vote.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, his main objection to the plan had been removed by the explanation of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War; but he warned the House that it was calculated only for a time of peace, and would not preclude enormous patronage in time of war, and, if carried on under the system and regulations established for Sandhurst in 1858, would inevitably be a failure.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, it was quite clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that progress had been made in the economical administration of the army. That being so, and as there would be another opportunity of discussing the question of education, he thought his hon. and learned Friend would exercise a wise discretion in not going to a division.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolution recommitted to the Committee of Supply.

  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  NEW ZEALAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the nature of the new plan of Native Administration proposed by the Governor of New Zealand; and whether the Imperial Government will be free from responsibility for the scheme, and from the Military and Civil Expenditure involved in its adoption; and, also, whether the present number of Troops in that Colony is about to be reduced? He had given notice of the question, as that was the last opportunity the House would have during the present Session of considering the whole subject of the military expenditure going on in New Zealand; and that time next year would be too late for any consideration whatsoever of that important question. He wished to have a full state meat from Her Majesty's Government of what was being done in that colony There were 7,000 troops, besides the naval equipment, maintained for local purposes entirely at the cost of this country. In the town of Auckland the British troops formed a considerable portion of the entire population. By a Resolution which the House had adopted a few nights previously, it was decided that for the future the colonies of the country should he responsible for the maintenance of order within their own boundaries. No doubt, in assenting to that Resolution, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies attempted to make an exception in favour of those colonies in which the colonists had to deal with native tribes, and New Zealand was so circumstanced; but the hon. Gentleman held out a prospect that immediate steps would be taken
  1442
  to remove the exception by those colonies having full and unrestricted powers given to their own legislatures to deal with all their own affairs. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman whether, in inaugurating a new native policy in New Zealand, the Government was taking measures to give effect to that principle? If the Government found themselves in any way impeded by the Act which created the Constitution, he should then desire to know in what manner the Act operated as an impediment, and whether the clause or clauses having that, effect could not be repealed. It was essential, he thought, for the interests of the colonists, and of the natives, that the new policy should be left to the responsibility of the colonial administration, and that a term should be placed to the wasteful and bloody system of interference which had hitherto prevailed. The Governor of New Zealand had designed a constitution for the natives, which was now in the hands of the Government. His plan was to map out the territory of the natives into circuits, then to cut them up into village districts. He proposed then to give each village district a native council, to be presided over by the chief, in the presence of the civil commissioner. The circuits were to have councils composed of the heads of the district councils, and the Chief Civil Commissioner was to preside. Sir George Grey proposed to maintain the right of the Crown to the waste lands, and to establish a new system of colonization by Crown grants upon conditions of occupancy and residence. The scheme was more creditable to the ingenuity of Sir George Grey than promising for the peace of the colony. It was also very doubtful whether, if adopted, it would lead to any diminution of the great expenditure of this country in New Zealand. It was difficult to discover from the Estimates the total expenditure in respect of any of the colonies, as the items were scattered here and there. But an approximate estimate might be made by taking the number of troops at present in the colony. The number was 7,000, and at £100 a man, which was the average expenditure, that would be £700,000. But he was informed, in a letter from a leading public man in the colony, that the total cost of the colony to this country was £960,000 a year, added to which there was the cost of transport of troops, stores, and naval establishments, which made a total demand upon the mother

  1443
  country, from New Zealand alone, according to this gentleman's calculation, of at least a million and a half per annum. That expense, it should be remembered, was the cost incurred in respect of the colony by this country, and was exclusive of the losses arising from the war, which fell upon the colonists, and which could not be less than half a million per annum. The scheme of Sir George Grey would not lessen the burden now borne by this country unless it was provided to transfer the whole legislation and responsibility to the colony, and there did not appear to be any intention or hope of doing that. The plan of mapping out native lands would be a fertile cause of wars, and the local advisers of the Governor had pointed that out to him, as well as the probability that the local councils would be in frequent collision with the Government. But the presence of the Crown Commissioners implicated the Government in all the native legislation, and instituted a double government, which the colony for itself repudiated, saying, "If you do this, it must be your own act, as representing the English Government." Sir George replied that the English Government would be well satisfied if they escaped paying tens of thousands on war, to spend a few thousands a year in civilizing the natives. Even if Sir George Grey held out any hope of decreasing the military expenditure to be borne by the mother country, he still intended for us another expenditure for civilizing the natives, the success of which scheme was very doubtful. Already in New Zealand had Sir George Grey tried his civilization scheme, and had settled military pensioners there; but nothing had been heard of them during the recent war. Again, at the Cape Sir George Grey had induced this country, not only to maintain a complete army, but also to make large Votes for civil expenditure under the idea of civilizing the natives. No one had heard of any successful result from that expenditure, which had been reduced of late by Parliament, and which ought now to cease. He believed that Sir George Grey did not at all contemplate saving any expense to the Imperial Government by this scheme of his. It was stated before the colonial defences committee that negotiations had been going on between the Imperial Government and the Government of New Zealand for six years, to induce the Colonial Government to take on themselves some small share of the expen-
  1444
  diture, and the result was, that the Government of New Zealand consented to pay to the Imperial Treasury £5 a head for all the Imperial troops in the colony, leaving the taxpayers of this country to pay the remaining £95. But bad as that offer was, even it had not been carried out, and the whole expense of the troops in the colony was paid out of the Imperial Treasury. And the colonists did not even thank us for what we had done. They said, that as the Imperial Government kept in their own hands the government of the Maories, they would not contribute to the support of Maori wars; but that if left to themselves, they would soon find the means of putting a stop to these wars. After all our expenditure on the score of philanthropy and of liberality to the colonists, we found it said in the leading articles of their papers, and the speeches of their leading men, that they did not consider the late war to be either politic or just, and that whenever the subject was discussed here we exhibited perfect ignorance of the origin and merits of the war. When such were the criticisms passed in the colony, he asked the Government whether they would not take that opportunity of putting an end to the existing system. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would tell him that the correspondence between the colony and his department on the subject was yet incomplete. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Hear, hear!] If that were so, the answer was most unsatisfactory; for if the Government were corresponding at all on the details of the plan, if they took any part in this matter, there was an end of the last chance of checking this interminable, bloody, and wasteful policy. He had hoped that the only answer of the Government in reference to the plan proposed would have been, "This is your affair; we have nothing to do with it. We cannot even advise you." But if a correspondence was to go on, he should take an early opportunity of asking the sense of the House upon the subject.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that his right hon. Friend was quite correct in supposing that on a former occasion he had, when replying to the Motion of the hon. Member for Taunton, drawn what seemed to be the plain and inevitable distinction between the expenses of maintaining internal order—internal police—within colonies of British origin, and the expenses entailed by the defence

  1445
  of British colonies against formidable native tribes residing within their borders or upon their frontiers. That seemed to him to be so obvious a distinction that he should have thought the right hon. Gentleman must have felt that the principle which ought to be applied to the one was in the very nature of things inapplicable to the other. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if there were something new, extraordinary, and monstrous, in the maintenance by this country of a certain body of troops in New Zealand for the purpose of protecting the colonists against, the real and pressing danger by which they were threatened. He would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that, whether rightly or wrongly, it was the system which this country had pursued for many generations, and under which New Zealand and other colonies had sprung into existence. The House must not forget that New Zealand was an infant colony, which sprang into existence twenty years ago under the protection of this country, and up to about fourteen or fifteen years ago had obtained an annual Parliamentary Vote towards its ordinary civil expenditure, but which, like other colonies, was now being called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of a military force. With the knowledge which he was bound to possess on this subject, he must say he was startled to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the colonies of New Zealand not only did not ask the protection of this country, but had denounced the presence of our troops there as an insult and a burden, when the fact was that before the late troubles broke out they had bitterly complained of the garrison having been for several years cut down to a single regiment. The right hon. Gentleman, in support of his view, had quoted the opinions of New Zealand papers and of various gentlemen who, living in the southern island distant from the seat of war, were not personally interested in the protection of life and property from native dangers, but sat upon their seats with as much security as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and who—if any interest were to be imputed to any one in the matter—were interested in the continuance of the existing state of things in the northern islands, because otherwise the stream of emigration might he diverted from the south to the north. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) would ask whether the opinions of those persons were to
  1446
  be placed in competition with the opinions of the New Zealand Ministers for the last two years, and the great majority of the New Zealand Assembly, who had given their cordial and hearty support to the policy lately adopted by the Governor. It was a mis-statement of the case on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the expensive and melancholy war in New Zealand had been deliberately promoted by the Government. There could be no doubt that the Governor, acting nominally as the representative of the Crown, but really acting in conjunction with his Ministers, did take certain steps against a very talented and active chief, which, contrary to the expectations and opinions of those who advised him, had led to these unfortunate hostilities. The right hon. Gentleman now threatened the Government with very serious consequences if they made themselves responsible for a plan of native administration, which he had been informed had been drawn up by Sir George Grey (the Governor) and his advisers, and which, he supposed, would involve this country in greatly-increased expense. That plan had only been received by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies a few days before the last mail left for New Zealand; but he might state that its object, so far from being what had been supposed by the right hon. Gentleman, was to diminish the risk of future native wars, to offer to the willing acceptance of the natives a system of local self-government, to be worked out mainly by themselves, and in districts not arbitrarily formed, but depending on the tribal divisions of the natives, so as to satisfy that craving for law and order which was one great cause of the King movement. The financial portion of the plan, however, was so incomplete that the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary had addressed a rigid inquiry to Sir George Grey as to the amount of effort and exertion and the extent of pecuniary contribution which New Zealand would be prepared to offer in order to carry out what appeared to be a large and costly system of native administration, and also what the colony was prepared to do towards repaying some of the expenses incurred in the late war. Her Majesty's Government had not committed themselves to any responsibility for any portion of Sir George Grey's plan, or the civil and military expenditure it might entail. They had simply limited themselves to making requisitions for

  1447
  fuller explanations, which they had a right to expect to enable them to judge of the working of the plan. One part of the plan he (Mr. Fortescue) approved, and it was an essential part of it—that the anomalous system under which the responsible Government in New Zealand had been debarred from the management of native affairs should be put an end to. The Governor had transferred these duties to a responsible department, and he was now acting in regard to the native affairs as in regard to other affairs of the colony. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have been informed by some members of the Ministry of Sir George Grey that they entertained grave objections to the plan. But the plan had been drawn up, he believed, with the approval of the Governor's responsible Ministers; and it was most inconvenient that any member of that Ministry should instruct the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House of Commons that the plan in question had been condemned and objected to by Sir George Grey's Ministry. The information of the Government was quite different from that placed at the command of the right hon. Gentleman, and was, he trusted, more correct. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether the number of troops at present in New Zealand would be reduced. Until the late unfortunate troubles the garrison of New Zealand consisted only of a single regiment, and he trusted that the policy adopted by Sir George Grey would tend to conciliate the native race, and would supply them with that system of law and order which had long been wanting, and which they had endeavoured to supply to themselves, so that they might revert to a small garrison again. He could not, however, conceive a more short-sighted policy than that which would withdraw the troops prematurely from New Zealand. At that crisis of the relations between the colonists and the native race, when the Government was disposed to make every concession to that race consistent with their own good, it was absolutely necessary that the natives should understand that it was through regard to their welfare, and not through fear of their arms, that Her Majesty's Government were introducing the proposed system. He earnestly hoped that the time would come before long when the troops might be withdrawn, but he hoped the House would support Her Majesty's Government in keeping them there at present.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that as time came round they were able to draw conclusions with respect to their past policy which would be useful for the future. He had the honour of a seat in that House when the colonization of New Zealand took place, and he recollected that the question of the aborigines then came under discussion. He startled the House and the Prime Minister of the day (Sir Robert Peel)—who, it was said, had the faculty of assimilating other men's ideas—by saying that experience had shown that wherever the white man put down his foot by the side of the brown man the brown man disappeared. They might put off the moment, but the time would come when the brown man would be extinguished, and the sooner that consummation took place the better. All they did by their pretended humanity was to extend the time in which he lingered in his misery. We began our colonies always by an injustice. What right had we in New Zealand? We put our foot there, we took the land from the natives, and then with a sort of sanctimonious hypocrisy we turned round and said, "We know that we do you an injury, but we will do you the least possible injury." But there were certain persons, missionaries and others, who said, "We will preach the Gospel to those people; we will make them Christians; we will do all except do them justice. If we went away and allowed them to govern themselves and inhabit their own country without interfering with them, we should do them justice, but that we do not intend to do." They might depend upon it, their mode of life, their habits, their thoughts, their European civilization were destruction to the brown man. They signed his death-warrant when they put their foot upon the shore of New Zealand, and therefore they could not pretend to save him from the inevitable destruction which was coming upon him. And now came the right hon. Gentleman and said, "Oh, withdraw your troops; it is a great expense." Why, that expense was the very result of their mock humanity, their hypocrisy. Let the colonists be left to themselves, let them not be troubled with our ideas of justice, and they would settle the matter very quickly. For, what would they do? They would take possession openly and avowedly of the whole colony, and would say to the aborigines, "You must get away, and, if not, we will punish you." But, instead of leaving the colonists alone, they

  1449
  were attempting to set up a separate system of government from that of the colony; but then it had turned out a failure; it could not continue, and now they were about doing what twenty years ago he had advised them to do. Let there he no pretence, no hypocrisy. They were going to create a new country, a new people, to plant European civilization in the southern hemisphere. By so doing they would utterly destroy the aboriginal population, The people of England would find that the plainest policy was the best. They began with an injustice—they must take the consequence of their evil deed, the evil deed of going to New Zealand at all, which was to destroy the aboriginal race. His words would be called "horrible," "cruel." Cruel they might be, but they were the result of the past policy of the country. They had planted England in New Zealand; the Englishman would destroy the Maori, and the sooner the Maori was destroyed the better.

  THE ARMY IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the nine non-purchase regiments are included in the number, Infantry of the Line in India 54,837, and the three regiments of Cavalry in the number, Cavalry in India 7,062; and in whom is the patronage of these regiments to be vested? The reason for his putting the first question was, that the impression prevailed in India that they were paying for a larger number of men than they had. He wished also to hear whether there was any difficulty in obtaining field officers for those regiments. There was also another important question he wished to put—what amount of loss has been incurred by the War Department by fictitious or forged entries of work performed by contract, since the amalgamation of the War and Ordnance Departments; specially, what amount of loss has been incurred in the Dublin case of Hamilton Dinnellan; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent the like frauds in future? He believed that there was great laxity in watching over the performance of public contracts, and he feared that that might account for the loss of a good deal of public money. On this point very remarkable evidence had been given by the Director of Works to the Admiralty—a most able officer in his own department—who stated that he had been
  1450
  called on to certify to matters of contract connected with harbours of refuge, involving an expenditure of thousands of pounds of which he positively knew nothing whatever. When the question was put to him point blank, he stated that there was not the most remote check over these contracts No doubt there was difficulty in working out contracts in such a way that the public would have money's worth for their money. Some time back, however, the Board of Ordnance was amalgamated with the War Department—a measure as to the expediency of which opinions were divided at the time, and he wished to know what amount of loss had since been incurred in consequence of fictitious, improper, or even forged entries. Within the last few months a painful case had occurred at Dublin, where a clerk in the War Office, named Dinnellan, and a contractor named M'Ilwaine, by collusion succeeded in making it appear, that thousands of pounds were expended which had never been spent at all, and defrauding the public purse to that extent. That afforded additional proof that some audit or second eve was wanting over these contracts; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not only be able to give satisfactory explanations on all these points, but to state that measures had been taken to guard against possibility of similar frauds in future.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)said, that before the right hon. Baronet rose he was anxious to ask him another question with respect to the Ordnance survey of Scotland. A map of that country had been promised for the last thirty years; yet they were nearly as far from obtaining it as they had been ten years ago. The representatives of Scotland had been startled and alarmed at hearing, on the authority of Sir H. James, that, part of the money voted for the purposes of the Ordnance survey of Scotland had been employed on defence surveys in other parts of the country, and that the Staff had been removed for the same purpose. That was not proper treatment either of Scotland or of the House of Commons. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the money voted for the Ordnance survey of Scotland would be applied to the vigorous prosecution of that object; and whether the money diverted from that object last year would be restored to its original purpose? It was hard that the Bill for the defences should be made to appear less

  1451
  than it really was by robbing the Ordnance survey. By a return about to be produced, it appeared that Ireland, which had already a map upon the 6-inch scale, was at that moment having money spent upon the topographical 1-inch survey.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked, that although a survey of Scotland had been ordered on the 25-inch scale, which would nave been a most costly affair, it had been actually commenced on the 1-inch scale. [Cries of No, and Six-inch.] Well, that was very different from a 25-inch survey. But why should that immense amount of money be spent in giving survey of their property to the landowners?
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that Ireland was surveyed on a 6-Inch scale. Had the House, twenty years ago, taken the advice of Sir Hussey Vivian and voted £1,000,000 for the purpose of a survey of the kingdom, millions of money since spent on the tithe map, the main drainage maps, and other independent surveys, would have been saved to the country.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) he had to state that the nine non-purchase infantry regiments and the three cavalry regiments were included in the number shown in the Army Estimates as being on the Indian establishment. The hon. Member also asked, whether the licences for competing for the first commissions in those regiments were granted by the Commander-in-Chief. The commissions would be competed for by the students at Sandhurst after residence there 'for one year, with the exception of twenty Queen's cadets, who would not be subjected to a competitive but to a qualifying examination. With regard to the second question, relative to the Ordnance frauds, it was true that a sergeant, engaged as a clerk in the Engineer Office, and another person, had been engaged in certain fraudulent transactions; but those persons were not officially connected with each other. The frauds amounted in value to £23,000, and extended over a period of thirteen years, having been commenced in 1848; but it was quite clear that they were not in any way connected with the consolidation of the Ordnance and War Departments. Effectual steps had been "taken for the prevention of similar frauds.
  With respect to the endless Ordnance survey, he could only say that he retained individually, though not officially, the opi-
  1452
  nion he had long entertained, that it would have been far better if the Ordnance map had been limited to a 1-inch scale instead of the 6-inch or the 25-inch scale. But the House decided otherwise, and he felt it his duty officially to acquiesce in the decision. In reference to the complaint that Ireland, having already a map on a 6-inch scale, was now going to get another on a 1-inch scale, he could only say that a 6-inch scale was of no use at all. It was too small for the purposes of survey, and too large for a mere map; and therefore he did not grudge Ireland the formation of a useful map, A question had been asked respecting the Scotch survey, and in reply he had to say that he understood that in 1860 a sum of £5,000, allotted to the prosecution of that survey, was diverted to carrying Out some plans for fortifications in the south of England. That was done after deliberation by his predecessor in office; and as the transfer had been made and, he presumed, sanctioned by the Treasury, it was impossible to refund the money, as the hon. Member for St. Andrews suggested. With respect to the Vote this year no specification was made. It was taken as a gross sum for the survey, and how much would be allotted to Scotland or England would depend upon considerations of convenience.

THE "VICTORIA" TROOP SHIP.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman left the chair he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to the statements which had appeared in the public newspapers respecting the return of the Victoria transport with the 96th Regiment on board, being a second time disabled and unfit to perform her voyage to Canada. He wished to know whether the statements in the newspapers were correct; and, if they were, he thought the noble Lord himself would feel glad of an opportunity of offering that explanation which the general opinion of the House and of the country deemed to be necessary. It would be in the recollection of the House that at the time when reinforcements were sent out to Canada the Victoria transport was despatched with the 96th Regiment oh board; but no very long time elapsed before she returned to Plymouth, having been completely disabled, and rendered unable

  1453
  to carry the regiment to their destination. Moreover, he believed that he was not overstating the case when he said that it was most providential the vessel did not founder at sea, and that the whole of that valuable regiment was not lost in consequence. It was within his personal knowledge that several of the military officers formed the worst opinion of the capabilities of the Victoria, and were strongly disinclined to be sent to sea again in that vessel. He had addressed privately to his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty an inquiry whether that Board intended to send out the Victoria again with the 96th Regiment, and whether the vessel was in a fit state to convey troops? Subsequently to that a public inquiry on the same subject was made by an hon. and gallant Officer in that House. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, in answer, made, both privately and publicly, the most distinct statement that the Admiralty had taken all possible means to ascertain that the Victoria was in every respect fit for the voyage she was about to undertake; and he added that she had been surveyed by proper officers deputed by the Admiralty, and that the report sent to the Admiralty in respect to her was such that the noble Lord, himself a competent sailor, felt that there was no objection to sending the Victoria to sea. She accordingly went out again with the 96th Regiment, and, from what he saw in the public newspapers, it appeared that she was not three days at sea before she became a second time disabled, her engines failing, water filling her hold, and the vessel suffering injuries in a variety of ways, so that it was only by bearing up to the island of Fayal that her safety was secured. Under these circumstances, he thought some explanation was due to the House, and he there fore asked the noble Lord whether the statements in the newspapers were correct; and whether or not the noble Lord could, on the part of the Admiralty, assure the House that some steps would be taken with regard to the Report made by the officers who surveyed the ship, so that, hereafter, reports on such matters might be deemed more trustworthy than the Report could in that instance be regarded?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was impossible to overrate the importance of the question put to him, or for one moment to suppose that the Admiralty
  1454
  would neglect any possible precaution to ensure the safety of the gallant troops going from this country across the Atlantic. The story of the Victoria was, in truth, a very unfortunate one. That vessel, after originally putting to sea, fell in with a tremendous westerly gale of wind, and from no fault of her own but because the engines were not powerful enough to enable her to make head against the gale, and because her coals had run short, she came back to Cork, for the purpose of replacing the coals. The admiral at Queenstown, hearing that there was a certain amount of alarm among the military officers, who thought the vessel not altogether seaworthy, manifested every anxiety that the Victoria should be sent out in a perfectly seaworthy condition. He consequently instructed the artificers of the ships then lying in Cork Harbour to make a very careful survey of the vessel; and, inasmuch as there had been much blame thrown on the Admiralty for sending out that vessel again, he thought the House would permit him to read the report of the condition of the vessel made by the surveying officers on the occasion. The surveying officers were the captain, the chief engineer, and the boatswain of Her Majesty's ship Revenge, and the master, chief engineer, and carpenter of Her Majesty's ship Hawke, the naval storekeeper and the superintendent dock-keeper, and they reported that they had been on board the steam transport Victoria, and had inspected her hull, rigging, sails, and had not found her defective. They also had the vessel tried under weigh and under steam. Her engines worked very well, her boilers in every respect were in good condition, the boilers got up steam very easily; her engines made 58 revolutions, the mean vacuum being 23½, and the ship made 11 knots. They added, "We are of opinion that the ship is in good trim and in a fit state to cross the Atlantic." That was one report; but Admiral Smart, being anxious that no pains should be spared to secure the ship being in good order, caused the carpenters of the squadron to go on board the ship to try her below, to examine her rivets and other portions of the vessel. They reported that they had carefully examined the state and condition of the hull; she was an iron vessel, built in compartments, and they tried the well in every compartment, and that the greatest quantity of water was

  1455
  two inches. They tried the rivets, and found them perfectly tight, and they were of opinion that she was a strong built vessel, capable of crossing the Atlantic at any time of the year. The vessel proceeded to sea again, and fell in with a succession of hurricanes so dreadful that he (Lord Clarence Paget) believed the like had rarely been known by any seamen who had crossed the Atlantic. It was almost heartbreaking to think of the dreadful losses that had occurred in that succession of hurricanes. He had the log of the vessel in his hand. She sailed the 14th of February from Queenstown. On the 15th there was a moderate gale, with rising sea, which went on increasing until the 18th at 3.30 p.m., on which day there was "a fearful gale." At midnight of the 19th there was "a terrific gale, with furious storms of snow." On the 20th two men fell overboard. At 1 a.m. the gale increased to a hurricane, and the ship became perfectly unmanageable. At 5 a.m. there was "a furious hurricane, accompanied by vivid lightning;" at 11 a.m. a sea struck the ship and stove the bulwarks on both sides, washing away the troops' conveniences. Afterwards the wind moderated a little. On the 22nd, the eighth day, the wind came on again with a strong gale and squalls; and on the 23rd, the ninth day, the engines gave out. So that the vessel had encountered these furious gales during nine days without accident to her engines or leakage. The wind again increased to a strong gale. At 5 p.m. on the ninth day it was found that the ship was making water; and to the end of the story it was nothing but a succession of gales and hurricanes. The vessel must have encountered weather which he believed to have been altogether unprecedented. Many vessels had suffered severely, and the Government had lost a fine steamer called the Trojan, freighted with stores. Part of the crew of that ship were picked up by an American vessel, the captain and crew of which stated that during twenty years they had not experienced such weather as prevailed in the Atlantic during the month of February and the beginning of the present month. Under those circumstances, and seeing that the Victoria withstood that awful hurricane for nine days without any serious disaster, there could, he thought, be no doubt that she was perfectly seaworthy and quite fit to cross the Atlantic. He was bound, however, to say that in
  1456
  consequence of the disasters which had befallen her, and her engines being very much shattered, she would not be employed again. It was impossible for him, however, to quit the subject without congratulating the House upon the noble conduct of the troops. During the whole period that the vessel was at sea, Colonel Scobell, the officers, and troops behaved admirably. They assisted 5n baling the ship and clearing away the wreck. They never gave way to despair or despondency, and in truth it was owing to their exertions that the ship was saved. He hoped that after his statement the right hon. Baronet would be satisfied that the disasters which had occurred to the vessel were, such as it was impossible to foresee or to guard against, and that all they could do was to be thankful that their gallant soldiers had returned in safety.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the regiment in question was divided—one wing of it had already arrived at Halifax, and the other wing was on its way to Canada. Looking at the unfortunate result of the second attempt, the War Office had decided not to order the second wing to cross the Atlantic again, and the wing that was at Halifax would be ordered to return to this country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Supply considered in Committee.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  Re-committed Resolution, reported 10th March, read as follows:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £667,168, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Barracks at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
  (1.)"That a sum, not exceeding £677,955 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Barracks at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the enormous outlay under that head. There was also a sum of £550,000 for hospitals. He would not grudge any amount that might be necessary for that purpose, but he could not but think the sum a large one.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Vote had already been discussed; and the only thing that had been postponed was the Vote for Sandhurst. As to the item for

  1457
  barracks he could only say that the accommodation asked for had been thought necessary. A great diminution in the mortality of our troops had been effected in the course of the last few years, and that was, doubtless, owing to the improvement which had taken place in our barracks.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to know what was the meaning of the item of £2,000 for erecting a trial but at Hong Kong?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the item to which the hon. and gallant General referred was for the purpose of making an experiment in the construction of a specie of barrack at Hong Kong which should he simple and cheap. Money with that view had been voted last year, but had not been expended. The item was therefore merely a re-Vote.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had to complain that the nature of the course of instruction to be pursued at Sandhurst had not been submitted to the notice of the House, although it had last year been stated by the hon. Gentleman then Under Secretary for War that it was awaiting the signature of the Sovereign. He also wished to know how admission to Sandhurst was to be obtained, because if it were by nomination, the patronage of the Horse Guards, so far from being diminished, would be considerably increased by the proposal of the Secretary for War. Another point on which he should like to have some information was whether the period of the residence of cadets at Sandhurst was to be limited to one year?
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he wished to know if the new Indian regiments were to remain permanently non-purchase corps? He asked that question because the military train, which had been started on that footing only three years ago, had already, to some extent, become a purchase corps He begged also to ask what would be the expense of the education at Sandhurst to the sons of civilians?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had not held out as an inducement to the Committee to assent to the Vote under discussion the circumstance that new regulations as to non-purchase had been introduced. He had simply stated it to be the fact that certain alterations in that respect had taken place; he might add that the arrangements which had been made in concert with the Indian Government in reference to the subject were intended to
  1458
  be permanent. Twelve regiments, nine of infantry and three of cavalry, had been converted from the old local force into Queen's troops, the commissions being non-purchase commissions, and that was the state of things to which the present mode of admission into the army was sought to be adapted. With respect to the mode of admission into Sandhurst, he might state that the age at which cadets were formerly admitted was thirteen, those who passed a certain examination obtaining a commission without purchase at sixteen. All nominations to the college, moreover, were made by the Commander-in-Chief, and the number of cadets was at least 405. [An hon. MEMBER: 412.] Under the proposed system the nominations would also be made by the Commander-in-Chief, and the question was, under what conditions they were to take place? A cadet would, in the first instance, be required to pass a qualifying examination on his entering Sandhurst if he had not gone through certain degrees at the Universities, and at the end of a year would stand a competitive examination, in which if he succeeded he would obtain his commission without purchase, merely paying £100 for his year's residence. He might in passing observe that the ad captandum argument used by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) to the effect that the proposed scheme would operate as a great hardship in the ease of poor candidates for the army, while it would he favourable to rich, had no good foundation, inasmuch as the regulation price of a commission was £450, while under the new system of non-purchase the poor man who was nominated to Sandhurst would have to pay only £100, the cost of his residence there. If at the end of a year he did not succeed in passing the competitive examination which he would have to undergo, he would be allowed six months more to take another chance, when, if he failed, it would he still open to him to procure a commission by purchase, although he would lose the benefit of his residence at Sandhurst. The Committee, in considering the subject, must not, however, overlook the fact that although they were asked to vote a considerable sum for the maintenance of cadets at Sandhurst, they received a payment in return, as would be seen by a reference to page 189 of the Estimates, to the extent of £11,218, which sum was placed to the credit of the Exchequer in 1861, under the head of "Con-

  1459
  tributions of Gentlemen Cadets at the Royal Military College." The salaries of the Staff formed really the sole outlay voted by the House, because the expenses of the cadet's Were in fact defrayed by themselves and Were paid into the Exchequer. He trusted that under these circumstances the Committee would agree to the Vote.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had given altogether a satisfactory explanation. It was necessary of course that men should qualify for the position of officers, and the more thoroughly that was done the better it would be for the service; but he could not understand why those who got their commissions without purchase should be subjected to a compulsory system of education, while those who bought their commissions could obtain their education where they chose. If an exclusive and compulsory system was desirable, why should it not be extended to the one class as well as the other? He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that special military training was essential; but it might be procured elsewhere than at Sandhurst. Some of the best officers in the army came from Eton. The Vice Chancellor of the University he had the honour to represent very justly said that the Government system must have a tendency "to lower the intellectual culture of the army generally, by depriving it of the higher education which the Universities supply, and, at the same time, to engender that narrowness of mind which is the ordinary result of all exclusive professional training." On free-trade principles a man should be allowed to get his education in any Way he chose, and he could not understand why a liberal education should not be an excellent preliminary to the goosestep and parade drill.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the education at Sandhurst was purely military, and that, in order to obtain admission there, a young man must undergo a preliminary examination to prove that he possessed a sound general education. Therefore so far from superseding, the arrangement rather favoured University education, because a man who had gone through such a course would be more likely than another to get admission to Sandhurst.
  MR. WHITESIDEremarked, that there were classes for engineering and other branches of military science at the Universities.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he approved the present system. It was a complete mistake to suppose that those who got commissions without purchase were treated with less respect than those who paid for them. He was sorry to hear that the time to be spent at Sandhurst was to be limited to one year. He did not believe that any officer, not even his noble and gallant Friend opposite (Lord Hotham), could qualify himself for the command of a company in so short a period. It was very desirable that a certain number of officers should be trained in a military college, so as to be fit to perform their duties as soon as they joined their regiments.
  MR. LEFROYobserved, that the Universities did not seek to engross the whole training of military officers, but only to supply them with the elements of a sound liberal education. He believed, however, that the special education for military purposes which officers would receive at Sandhurst would be a great advantage to them, and therefore he would support the grant.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to observe, in reply to a statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), that during the whole Peninsular war officers of the Artillery and Engineers entered upon their duties after only One year's training at Woolwich, and he believed that period Would be found sufficient for officers at Sandhurst. He did not believe that henceforward officers who might pass through Sandhurst would be looked down upon in the army merely because they had not purchased their commissions.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to know how far the system of non-purchase of commissions was intended to be omitted or to be extended in the army of India, as well as in the army of this country?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that when the question of the amalgamation of the Imperial and of the Indian armies was before Parliament, the regulations with respect to the non-purchase system in India had been frequently made the subject of discussion. His belief was that there were no regulations in force with regard to the sale of commissions in that country.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he wished to know whether an exchange would be allowed from a non-purchase into a purchase regiment?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that an

  1461
  officer might exchange from a purchase into a non-purchase regiment, but he did not see how such a thing would deprive a regiment of its character of being a non-purchase regiment.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would beg leave to ask whether any further Votes would be wanted to complete Sandhurst, so as to enable it to accommodate 336 cadets? He also inquired why the plans and regulations relative to military education which were promised last Session had not been laid on the table?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had every reason to believe that no further Vote would be required for building purposes, though he would not undertake to say that an additional sum would not be wanted to complete the internal accommodation of Sandhurst. The plan of military education announced last year had not been produced, because it had been abandoned and a new scheme substituted in its place.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain which was the old scheme and which was the new?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that according to the plan of last year, every officer entering the army was to pass through Sandhurst. The Government had since decided not to act upon that plan, but to adopt the more limited one which he had described that night, and by which only those officers who had not purchased their commissions were to pass through the Military College. He had no objection to lay the new scheme before the House.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he had observed with pleasure that sums of £4,000 and £3,000 were asked to establish soldiers' reading-rooms and gymnasia. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would further extend the system of reading-rooms for soldiers. He also hoped that in addition to the employment and instruction of soldiers and their children in trades, he would cause inquiry to be made into the system and results of employing French soldiers in the cultivation of vegetable gardens, or other cultivation of the land.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the sums proposed for gymnasia and reading-rooms for soldiers were certainly not of any considerable amount, but they were as large as the Government then felt justified in asking the House to grant. It should
  1462
  be remembered that it was the multitude of the items in the Military Expenditure rather than the magnitude of any particular charge which raised the Army Estimates to so considerable a sum. The present Vote showed, at all events, the willingness of the War Department to make an advance in that direction. The item for teaching soldiers trades, was an experiment adopted at Aldershot on the recommendation of an officer who visited the camp at Chalons, and the system, if successful, might be introduced elsewhere. The same officer had reported in favour of gardens, but it had not been thought advisable to ask for any Vote at present.
  SIR MORTON PETOobserved, that a sum of £30,000 was asked for sanitary purposes, without any specific explanation being given of the sort of works to which it was to be applied.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Vote consisted of a great variety of detail's which it would be impossible to explain within moderate limits.
  COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he wished to know under whose control the Vote would be expended?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid the expenditure of the Vote would be entirely under the control of the War Office. It was intended for the detailed improvement of barracks, and it was impossible to give a more specific description of its destination; it would be as easy to specify contingencies. There were a number of small improvements required for the health of soldiers in military barracks in this country, and this Vote was proposed with that view. If the sum taken proved too large for the purpose, it would not be expended,
  SIR HARRY VERNEYobserved, that nothing was more economical than taking means to preserve the health of the soldier. The improvements which had recently been effected tended very much to reduce the death-rate.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could not understand what the sum of £30,000 was required for. Nothing could be more important than to preserve the health of the soldier; but it was not satisfactory merely to be told that so large a sum was to be applied in a general way to sanitary purposes without details.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, there was no point which gave the Secretary of State for War more trouble than the sanitary improvement of the army. He un-

  1463
  derstood, however, that the Vote was necessary in order to carry into effect the sanitary improvements in various barracks which had been reported on by a Commission presided over by Dr. Sutherland; drawings having been furnished of the improvements in every instance. It was his belief that the sum of £30,000 would go a long way in carrying out the improvements required.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he knew that the whole of the medical officers of our army felt justly affronted at seeing a civilian placed at the head of the sanitary commission. The military medical men were a most distinguished body, and he thought that their feeling on the subject was quite natural. He wished to know whether Dr. Sutherland's salary was included in the £30,000.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that the hon. Member opposite spoke of drawings. Now, the drawing to which he objected was that drawing of £30,000, The Vote, he thought, did not stand on satisfactory grounds. Let the right hon. Gentleman state what it was for. Besides that item there were distinct charges made for barrack improvements. "Sanitary purposes," like the word "contingencies," which appeared lower down, might mean anything. He had no wish to give a factious Vote, but it appeared to him to be a better course to postpone this Vote until they had more satisfactory details respecting it.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that this sanitary Vote was one in which the late Lord Herbert took especial interest. Its origin was a Resolution of the House of Commons proposed by the present Lord Fortescue, and agreed to without any opposition. It had been found that soldiers in the prime of life were dying in consequence of the defective ventilation of barracks; and if not as a matter affecting the humanity, the honour, and the credit of the country, yet even from motives of economy, it was desirable that there should be perfect ventilation and perfect drainage in those buildings. Nothing was more expensive than a well-trained soldier. The late Lord Herbert himself visited many barracks, and noticed their defects, in a sanitary point of view, and he joined in many of the detailed reports which the Sanitary Commissioners presented from time to time regarding the health of the troops. Dr. Sutherland, one of the Commissioners was a very high authority upon
  1464
  such subjects, and reported upon the sanitary condition of the army in the Crimea. It was for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations in what were termed the "interim" Reports of the Commission that £50,000 had been voted for the last two or three years; but in consequence of various improvements having been effected, the Vote had been reduced to £30,000. Nothing was more capable of proof than that improvements in the ventilation and sanitary arrangements, of the cavalry barracks especially, had diminished the loss of life. If £50,000 had been wanted, he was sure the Committee would have cheerfully voted it, for he was certain, that if there was one single Vote which the House and the country would not wish to see diminished, it was this particular Vote for improving the sanitary condition of the army.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he was glad he had put the question, because it had elicited a satisfactory answer.
  MR. SALTsaid, he desired to ask the object of a Vote of £ 3,000 for Hospitals?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was for the wives and widows of soldiers.
  MR. SALTsaid, he had seen a letter in The Times of that day, headed "Starving Needlewomen." He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman bad any idea of employing women in connection with army clothing; and whether the wives and daughters of soldiers could not be so employed? It was not a new suggestion. The subject had been mentioned in the life of Sir Charles Napier. In raising the condition of the wives of soldiers they would also be raising the condition of the soldiers themselves.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was impossible for the Government altogether to overlook mercantile principles. They must consider the value of an article in the market, and could not make contracts on a basis of mere charity. If once they considered the supply of the army as a means of improving the condition of distressed persons, he hardly knew where they would stop. But the War Office had, nevertheless, made some contracts at slightly increased prices with certain societies which employed needlewomen.
  MR. MONSELLasked, whether the examination at Sandhurst was to be a competitive examination for young men entering or for young men leaving the college?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had

  1465
  already stated that there was to be an examination on entering, to show that the young men were qualified; but on leaving the examination would to be competitive, in which more would compete than would obtain commissions.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, according to the proposed system for Sandhurst, the patronage of the Commander-in-Chief instead of being diminished, would be increased. The professed object had been to prevent the Commander-in-Chief having an increased amount of patronage in consequence of the amalgamation of the Indian army and the army of this country. Every one who had studied the matter must be aware that the competitive system for the Artillery and Engineers had succeeded, and that there had been an enormous improvement in the young men who had entered those corps. If they wished to prevent the Commander-in-Chief having more patronage, why was that plan not adopted at Sandhurst? He regretted that there was no mode by which to obtain in Committee an expression of the opinion of the House upon the subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend must have very strange notions as to what patronage was. He apprehended that his right hon. Friend had been in office to very little purpose if he were so perfectly ignorant of the nature of patronage. His right hon. Friend asserted that the plan proposed gave more patronage to the Commander-in-Chief what was the patronage which the Commander-in-Chief had before and which he now abandoned? It was the power of giving positively to A, B, and C commissions without purchase. It was a patronage of some value, be cause that which was granted was a positive gain to the individual and a certain possession. What was the present system? The Commander-in-Chief abandoned the power of positive appointment, and there was substituted for it the power of nominating young men to Sandhurst with the chance of their getting commissions by their own exertions, and having in the interval to pay £100 for maintenance. It was quite clear that, as the number of candidates was greater than the number of commissions, the extended patronage amounted to this—the nomination of a certain number of young men, of whom
  1466
  a certain number would surely be disappointed, and the rest, who were not disappointed, would achieve the object of their ambition by their own exertions and at a certain expense during the period of their being at Sandhurst.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, there were a certain number of their constituents who were seeking for appointments, and who were just as much obliged to them for getting them nominations as places. The Commander in-Chief now had three nominations for competitive examinations, instead of one direct nomination to a commission.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would ask what number of young gentlemen entering Sandhurst would obtain commissions in proportion to the number of competitors?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was reckoned that there would be 296 candidates for about 116 commissions.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that every officer of Artillery he had spoken to had given a directly opposite account of the officers who entered the army under the present system to that given by the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). Nothing could be more disgraceful than the recent occurrences at the Military College at Woolwich. There was neither the same esprit de corps nor the same military discipline as under the former system. He only hoped that under the present system such officers as Sir Harry Jones, Sir John Burgoyne, Colonel Maude, Colonel Gordon, and Colonel Chapman, would be produced.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would remind the Committee of the irregularity of the discussion, and suggest that they should pass to the next Vote at once.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that if any disgrace attached to the recent outbreak at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, it attached to the system under which that establishment was administered, and he could not but think that some of the officers as well as the young men were to blame.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he could not remain silent while such opprobrious language was used in reference to the Military Academy at Woolwich.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he did not allude to the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had had the opportunity of reading the Report presented as the result of the inquiry that had taken place into that outbreak, and he believed that the principal cause of the

  1467
  discontent among the young men was the introduction of a certain portion of the cadets from Addiscombe, and the difficulty of engrafting them upon the system at Woolwich. There was some dissatisfaction as to the terms upon which they were to enter for the examination. Unquestionably, there was mutinous behaviour on the part of many of the young men, and he could state most distinctly to the Committee that it was not owing to any conduct pursued by the governing body, or by the head of the establishment, which could justly be objected to. The main defect in the institution was, that the age of the young men had been increased, whereas the regulations had not been revised. The consequence was, that they had been governing an institution of young men upon a system that was rather suited to boys; and that he believed was the true explanation of the outbreak. He thought that the head of the establishment had behaved on, the whole with great propriety, and the Report acquitted him of all impropriety. But the regulations required careful revision, and when the new system was ready to be brought into operation, it was thought expedient that a new head should be placed over the institution, but without the slightest reflection upon his predecessor. That recommendation had been carried into effect, and he could not at all acquiesce in the very injurious language which his hon. Friend had used with respect to the administration of the establishment.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought one of the clearest evidences that the system which prevailed at Woolwich was indefensible was the fact that the young men were nominally punished, and not expelled. He quite approved, however, of their not being expelled, because the system was much to blame.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that the ringleaders in the outbreak were rusticated. A punishment sufficiently severe to mark the reprobation of the Commander-in-Chief of such conduct was, he thought, inflicted. But although a due discretion was exercised in the assignment of that punishment, he could hardly conceive that what seemed to him to be a judicious lenity should be construed into a proof of the innocence of the persons concerned in what unquestionably was a grievous breach of discipline.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £296,283, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Educational and Scientific Branches, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he rose according to notice, to move the omission of the item of £12,700, the probable charge consequent on the augmentation of the establishment of the college at Sandhurst by increasing the number of students to 400. That item afforded him an opportunity of raising the question of principle, which he wished to raise unembarrassed by the difficulty experienced in the previous discussion on account of the money having been actually expended. The subject, however, had been so fully handled in the previous debates, that it was not necessary for him to do more than to clear away two or three misapprehensions which seemed to have arisen. He had never rested the case upon merely economical grounds, but had stated that the education of the officers of the army was so important, and their influence so wide-spread, that he should not grudge any expenditure necessary for securing the best education for them; but the Universities had made a proposal to the Government for effecting that object, and the question was whether that plan ought not to receive a fair trial before the Committee sanctioned, for the first time, this increased expenditure. It was hardly necessary to defend the Universities from the charge of interested motives in the offer they had made to the Government. Indeed, that offer was much more open to the observation of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who said it was questionable whether it would be advantageous to the Universities themselves. He had himself at first doubted whether it would be beneficial to the discipline of the Universities that young men should resort to them for military education; but the document to which he had before alluded, and which was signed by the Vice Chancellor and many other of the most eminent men at Cambridge, stated it as their opinion, formed after serious consideration, that the liberal offer which had been made to the Government might be carried into effect without injury to the discipline of the University—an opinion in which Oxford and Dublin had also subsequently concurred. His mis-

  1469
  givings on that score bad therefore been removed. If that liberal offer were rejected, the responsibility would rest with the Government, and the Universities would have done their duty. The Universities had means of giving military education which were not at their command heretofore. Dublin was a garrison town, where a knowledge of drill could be easily imparted. Equal facilities might not, perhaps, exist at Oxford or Cambridge; yet they had adjutants and drill instructors, who were appointed and paid by the Government. He had heard most favourable opinions expressed by distinguished officers as to the efficiency of the University Volunteer corps, and the Secretary for War would have an opportunity of testing these opinions at the approaching meeting of the Volunteers belonging to the Inns of Court and the two Universities. Let the right hon. Gentleman appoint any officer, however strict, to take the command upon that occasion; let the united corps be ordered, without previous notice, to perform any manœuvres of which any regiment of the line was capable, and he would he quite content to stake the fate of his Motion upon the report of the officer so appointed. Moreover, the efficiency and permanency of those corps must be materially increased by an infusion of military students through the adoption of the offer made by the Universities to the Government. And, having regard to the frequent dispersion of their members, there were no Volunteer corps which it was more important to maintain in a state of efficiency, as they afforded the means of spreading the movement throughout the kingdom. All that the Universities asked was to have a fair competition—that every parent should he allowed to choose where he would send his son to receive the education necessary to qualify him for a commission without purchase. If a boy by his own talent gained an exhibition at school, which might, to a great extent, defray the expense of his education at the University, why should he not be allowed, when he had been a year and a half or so at the University, to go in to the military examination and compete for a commission without purchase? He wished it to be distinctly understood that it was only to the increase of Sandhurst that there was any opposition. There was no enmity on the part of those who objected to the Vote to the existing establishment, large as it was; all that was wished was, that
  1470
  the Government should not incur any additional expense on Sandhurst until the alternative plan which he had suggested; had been tried. He would conclude by moving the omission from the Vote of the item of £12,700, the probable charge of the proposed increase at Sandhurst; but as he understood there was an impression that no further division should be taken that night on the question of Sandhurst, he would only make the Motion pro formâ, and reserve to himself the liberty of dividing on the report,
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £12,700, for the augmentation of the Establishment of the Royal Military, College by increasing the number of Cadets, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not aware of any impression of the sort to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and so far as the Government were concerned the hon. and learned Gentleman was at liberty to take the division whenever he thought it most expedient. He had already so fully stated the plan he proposed, and explained his reasons for it, that he could scarcely say anything further on the subject. If the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin were allowed to send students up to the military examinations who had not passed through Sandhurst, other places of education would claim the same privilege. The Universities of London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Bee's, and other places, would put in a claim to be admitted ad eundem, and the advantage to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would thus be very much watered down. Sandhurst was at present very nearly self-supporting, and if the number were increased to 300, the payments would amount to somewhere about £30,000, which would more than cover the Vote. The payments of the students were paid into the Exchequer; but if the House should strike out the Vote, the result would be that they would have to be received on behalf of the institution, and the proposal of the hon. Gentleman referred itself, therefore, into a question of how the accounts of the establishment should be kept.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had entirely misapprehended the whole argument of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn). It was not the object of his hon. and learned Friend

  1471
  to obtain any peculiar advantage for the three Universities. All that he had contended was, that it was inexpedient to make it compulsory that all person's who wished to enter the army without purchase should pass through Sandhurst. That was his first point; and his next was, whether, having regard to the persons themselves who passed through Sandhurst, was it or was it not expedient to make it a preliminary condition that they should obtain their commissions by a competitive examination? That was the scheme propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and it was a scheme to which he (Mr. Walpole) had the strongest possible objections, and the grounds of those objections were very simple. He admitted it was desirable that there should be a Military College; at Sandhurst at which the sons of officers and civilians could be educated for the military profession, and he even thought it would be judicious if the payment made on account of the sons of officers not of high rank were smaller than it was at present. No doubt it was necessary to have a certain standard of Military Education to serve as a sort of standard to which all other persons must come up; but why it should be required that every person who had proved himself fit for a commission at an examination, the terms of which were settled by the Military Authorities themselves, should go through Sandhurst, he could not understand. That was the real point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War should address himself, rather than to the invidious distinctions which he appeared to think his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge desired to press on him. In the course of the debates on this subject many Gentlemen thoroughly conversant with the subject had expressed an opinion that Sandhurst ought to be self-supporting; and if that were so, it would be far better, before increasing the establishment, to wait a short time, and see whether it might not be made more self-supporting; No doubt the original recommendation of His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief was, that every officer, whether entering the army by purchase or not, should be subjected to a competitive examination; but the matter was entirely altered when they tried to draw the line between those who purchased their commissions and those who did not. He believed they would have to come round to the question whe-
  1472
  ther they were to require that system of competitive examination to be carried to an extreme, and to tell gentlemen who were perfectly qualified to enter the army, that merely because they did not pass so good an examination as some others, there-fore they should not get their commissions. If they, allowed gentlemen to enter the army after passing a good qualifying examination, which should fully test their merits, acquirements, and capacities, they would do far mere towards improving education in the army than by confining and cramping it within a very limited sphere. He felt his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War had made out a strong case for giving a Vote for the buildings, which Vote was agreed to last year; but with regard to the extension of the amount to be given to the support of Sandhurst, he thought the House and the Government ought to pause until the plans had been more maturely considered. He should be glad to induce the Government to withdraw that particular Vote for one year, when they would be better able to judge where amendment and alteration were needed. If the plan were sound and good, let it be adopted; but they should not too hastily increase the Estimates by an annual Vote; He might add that in the early part of the evening the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said that accommodation was to be provided; at Sandhurst for 336 young men; but he (Mr. Walpole) believed the Vote was asked on the supposition that there would be 400, and he should like' to hear some explanation on that point.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he should give his support to the Government on that occasion. He thought the objection to the Universities as places for the education of officers was the greater age at which they would enter the army. The smooth-faced boys who in former days entered the service from Eton and Harrow came to their regiments full of life and energy, and with a very moderate opinion of their own merits which was a great recommendation in an officer; and by the time those youths were eighteen they were not only drilled soldiers, but, which was of much more importance, they had disciplined minds. And had the boy-officers ever flinched from their duty? In the Crimean war what most astonished and delighted the soldiers was the example of cheerfulness set by these youthful officers when undergoing the same hardships as the troops, during

  1473
  the dreadful winter the army passed through. He could not understand why such a change was made in the age of the officers. As to the Universities, there were no means of acquiring the practical part of a military education at Oxford or Cambridge. Dublin had a better claim; there was a large garrison there, but no other University had the same facilities for an officer learning his duties practically, He had to complain of the uncertainty of obtaining commissions under the present system of competitive examination. Many eases of the greatest hardship had occurred from that uncertainty. At the last examination only twenty commissions were given to the cadets from Sandhurst, the consequence being that number twenty-one on the list remained a Queen's cadet. He should be glad to hear that henceforth all Queen's cadets would be ensured commissions, for formerly when a man passed his examination he was assured of receiving his commission.
  MR FINLAYobserved, that he regarded the question as purely a financial one. After establishing the college at Sandhurst it seemed a hard thing not to vote the necessary money for its support.
  SIR WILLIAM RUSSELLsaid, that during the Indian mutiny the only complaint against many of the young officers was that they were too gallant, for their daring often led them to peril the lives of their men unnecessarily, and it would have been better if they had enjoyed a better introductory training.
  LORD STANLEYhad nothing to say against Sandhurst, but he could not follow the process of reasoning by which it was proposed to confer a monopoly in military training on that establishment. It was not a mere question between Sandhurst and the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, but between Sandhurst and all the rest of the world. He could understand that no one should be admitted into the service who had not acquired a certain amount of professional qualification. That was very proper; but he did not understand what it concerned the Government, or any one else, where that qualification was obtained, so long as it was possessed. It might he said there were facilities for professional instruction at Sandhurst not to be found elsewhere. That might be, and he believed it was the fact; but that was the candidate's own affair. If a candidate could obtain instruction better at Sandhurst than at any other place, then Sand-
  1474
  hurst would have the advantage of attracting candidates; but if there were that natural advantage, it was not only invidious, but useless, to superadd to that advantage a practical monopoly. It was urged in favour of the plan adopted by the Government that it was founded on the principle of open competition. He would remark, that although it looked like competition, yet the resemblance was more in appearance than reality; because though of the number of those who entered Sandhurst only one out of every two obtained commissions, and therefore as among the students there was a competition, yet the first entrance into the college was by nomination. It would be a mockery to say that the competition was open to the world when the entrance to the college was restricted to those fortunate individuals who possessed influence sufficient to obtain a nomination in the first instance from the Commander-in-Chief. The common sense plan would be to throw open the competition to the whole world, to state what would be required of candidates, and to allow them to get the qualifications required wherever they could, and then to let them come to Sandhurst that they might be tried whether they really possessed those qualifications. Then, if it were thought necessary, the candidates might pass a certain time in a military college to acquire habits of discipline. Something of that kind had been introduced into the civil service of India. Instead of the present system he thought it would be better to throw open the competition for commissions to all the world.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, that if they were to follow the noble Lord's advice, they should vote at once for the entire suppression of Sandhurst College. Since the discussion in the earlier part of the evening the question had entered upon a new phase. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge had begun by limiting his proposals to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin; but now it was urged that it should be open to all schools to qualify young men for competition for commissions. For his own part, he thought the principle of competition had been carried too far, and that no practical good flowed from it. If it were intended that young men should pass two or three years at Sandhurst, there might be objections; but he could not see what hardship there was in requiring of a candidate for a commission, who had re-

  1475
  ceived his general education elsewhere, to undergo one year's professional education at that college in order to qualify him for the particular profession he wished to adopt. He had relatives who had studied at Sandhurst, and he had no reason but to be well satisfied with the progress they had made at that institution. He had a great love and veneration for the universities, and having passed a great portion of his life at Oxford, he should object to anything like a military system of education being introduced into universities.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the proposed system had been tried with the view of admitting persons to the civil service of India; but it had failed, and it was therefore given up, having been found not only inconvenient but unjust. It might seem a paradox, but nevertheless he held that the education a man should receive should be every education but that of his profession. In that distinction existed the difference between the man of liberal mind and the man of narrow mind. Every mechanic was educated with special reference to the trade he was to follow—his education was narrowed to that particular pursuit. But the professional man received a good sound general education in all the branches of knowledge with which his mind was able to cope, and then devoted himself to the study of the profession of his choice. So it should be with those destined for the army. But, in point of fact, Sandhurst was not an institution solely for military education. Otherwise, for what purpose were professors of mathematics, French, German, classics, and general history found there. Now, what he and others asked was that, until they became officers, young men should be at liberty to obtain their education wherever they pleased, and should not be forced to enter what was called a military college to receive an education which they could obtain as well", or perhaps better, elsewhere. Again, injustice was done by the proposition of the Government to the various educational establishments throughout the kingdom, and also to the young men who would have to come to this country from Ireland and Scotland on the chance of passing, but with the certainty that two-thirds of the entire number would be rejected. Their families would thus be made miserable, and they would themselves be prejudiced by being specially educated for a profession which they could not attain.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the arrangement at Sandhurst very much answers the description which my hon. Friend has just given. He says that young men ought to be allowed to get their general education where they like. So they are. My hon. Friend denies this, because he says you profess at Sandhurst to give something like a general education. Now, the young men are to remain at Sandhurst a year. Does any one think that in a year they can get that general education which persons ought to have who fill the rank of an officer? At Sandhurst they are examined to ascertain whether at other places—at Universities, or schools, or at home—they have received that general education which is considered necessary as a foundation for a military life; and surely when you consider that what they afterwards require is peculiarly military instruction, that can be best acquired at a military college. How, for instance, can a young man at Cambridge or Oxford be expected to get that knowledge of military discipline and training which will be necessary when he joins his regiment? Hon. Members seem to confound general with military training. They say that a different system answered with regard to civil and scientific appointments. No doubt it does, and for this reason, that the knowledge requisite for the men who fill these appointments may be acquired anywhere. But what you want here is a knowledge of the military duties which a young man has to perform when he receives his commission, and I cannot understand how these duties and this knowledge are to be so well acquired as in an establishment of a purely military character where he can be practised in the duties he will afterwards have to discharge.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that one pervading fallacy throughout the discussion was that the young men who were to obtain commissions without purchase would be poor men, whereas poverty or eminent service was by no means the sole claim to these commissions. He feared, on the contrary, that the proposed system would have the effect of throwing the commissions into the hands of those who were possessed of broad acres. It was true that commissions would be given only to those who passed a competitive examination; but that examination was to be restricted to those who obtained nominations, by which means patronage would be greatly increased. He could only characterize the

  1477
  proposal as an attempt, under the name of competition, to maintain the system of nomination,
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had placed the question on a definite issue—"Will you take these young men after they have undergone one examination upon what is now pretty generally known as the system of 'cram and sham'? Or will you not adopt the surer test of having them under your own eye for a year, when you will know whether they have anything in them or not?" For himself, he had no particular faith in a system which brought men from north and from south, from east and from west, and then suddenly let off the information with which they were crammed, like the charge in a pop-gun. The science of cram had now arrived at such a pitch of excellence that uncommon little reliance was to be placed on the results of examination. It was like bringing a horse to the post. A horse was brought into such condition, and trained to such a nicety, that if he ran on the expected day, he was sure to be pretty well up at the finish; but if he was not brought to the scratch at the particular moment, he would, perhaps, be good for nothing. The hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) had propounded a singular proposition. "Let your officers," he said, "first get their commissions, and then teach them their business." But was that principle carried out in other professions? A man was not allowed to practise at the bar until he was supposed to have learned something of law; and so it was with the clergy. Would the hon. Member like to have a doctor learning his business by practising upon his own person? Surely an officer should have acquired a knowledge of his profession before you gave him a commission, and the best plan was to make him acquire that knowledge under your own eye. He did not think a system of open running was so likely to secure the best men as the present more qualified system, A few nights before, he had voted for the extension of the Sandhurst establishment, because he had been unable to see why it should not be extended, when the army had been so much increased; but he should object to a proposition to make every officer pass through the college, agreeing as he did with his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, that it was better to have gentlemen entering the army in different ways, in order
  1478
  that the results of different systems might be ascertained. He thought it would be a great disadvantage to have all our military officers going through one groove; but, as the Sandhurst system was only to be carried out to a limited extent, he should vote for it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he must object to the item of £71,000 for the "Survey of the United Kingdom and Topographical Department." A Committee had been sitting for the last three Sessions to consider questions connected with the survey. Their report would be issued very shortly, and the Government ought to wait till it was before the House, in order that the House might decide whether they were to have the 25-inch or the 1-inch scale. The question ought not to be re-opened year after year, but a definite decision ought to be come to on so important a subject. He begged to move the omission of the item.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if the House were never to agree to a Vote for the Ordnance Survey until all inquiry into the subject was at end, he feared they would wait a long time; for as long as he could remember there had always been an investigation, or a Committee, or a Commission, or an inquiry of some kind on the subject of the Ordnance Survey. Certainly it was his opinion that a great deal of money had been wasted. If the large plan under the consideration of the Committee to which his hon. Friend had referred were adopted, and the Government proposed to carry it out, he should be obliged to submit a supplementary Estimate, for there was nothing which would cover it in the present Estimate.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that a supplementary Vote would not be required under the circumstances to which he had just alluded. He would ask, what was the use of appointing the Committee if the House had already decided the question? The House ought to have an opportunity of deciding whether it would sanction the expenditure of £1,500,000 on what might be right or what might be wrong, or whether it would complete the plan on which it had already expended £1,250,000. The supporters of the Government had a right to expect that in matters of that kind there should be economy, and that the House should not be called on year after year to vote large sums without any definite plan.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend (Sir Morton Peto) did not understand the effect of the Vote asked for the Ordnance Survey. A survey on a large scale was being carried out for a certain portion of the country, and that survey had been in operation for a considerable time; but it did not embrace the bulk of England. It embraced Scotland and the six northern counties of England. If he understood it, the question to be considered when the Committee reported was, whether that large 25-inch survey was to extend to the whole of England; but the Vote now asked for was not to extend that survey to the whole of England. He could assure his hon. Friend that that was a question which he was quite as anxious as any hon. Member to hear fully discussed in the House. The sum asked for was only intended to carry on the work at present in progress, and not an extension of it, involving any question of principle or any matter that was new to the House.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that whilst in previous years the item had been divided and apportioned to England, Scotland, and Ireland for some special purpose, that year one sum only was asked for the three countries; he could therefore understand the complaint that had been made that Scotland's portion had been diverted to some other part of the survey. Before the House entered upon the increased expenditure necessary for extending the large survey, they were bound to consider whether or not the sum proposed to be laid out could be laid out advantageously by a small annual Vote of £90,000 a year. A large portion of the Ordnance Survey was now so incorrect that there must be a re-survey, and a large portion of the expense to be incurred might go in aid of the large map contained in the Estimate. He might also add that the hon. Gentleman (Sir Morton Peto) had a precedent for the course which he proposed to take, for in 1859 the Committtee of Supply postponed the Survey Vote because the commission upon the subject had not made its Report.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the question was whether the 25-inch scale should he continued or not; and he was of opinion that the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury was right in stating that the Vote ought to be postponed until after the Select Committee had presented their Report.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that the ques-
  1480
  tion was not between the 6-inch and the 25-inch scales, but between those two scales and the 1-inch scale. The field survey was exactly the same for the 6-inch and the 25-inch scale. The survey of Ireland had been oh the 6-inch scale, which was so minute that the 25-inch maps required by the Encumbered Estates Courts were made out from the 6-inch scale field-book. For his part he was so convinced of the value of the 6-inch scale, that he did not consider it desirable to postpone the Survey.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he thought that if the Committee could not postpone the Vote, it must be passed or rejected altogether. He hoped the latter alternative would not be adopted. The Vote was merely for the salaries of the men engaged in the survey.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the survey for the 6-inch and 26-inch scale was only in progress in England in six of the northern counties. The Estimate before the Committee did not assume that the 6-inch and 25-inch survey would be carried over the rest of England, nor would the adoption of this Vote prejudice the Report of the Select Committee when it came before the House. The Government, in asking for the Vote, expressed no opinion for or against the 1-inch scale, and they would be quite free to act upon the report of the Committee if the Vote were agreed to.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he should divide the Committee against the Vote. The Report of the Select Committee would be ready in ten or twelve days.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he hoped that the Government would drop the item, and bring in a supplementary Estimate for the sum after the Report of the Select Committee had been delivered. It appeared that the Select Committee were of opinion that the Vote before the Committee would affect the question upon which the Committee upstairs were about to report, and it was therefore due to them to postpone the Vote. If they were obliged to go to a division, he should vote for the omission of the item, leaving it to the Government to bring it up afterwards as a supplementary question.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, if the omission of the item would in any way facilitate discussion on the point, he should not be so unreasonable as to refuse to consent to the course proposed; but the Estimate on the table did not affect the ques-

  1481
  tion of the 25-inch scale surrey as regarded that part of England which had riot been surveyed on that scale. If the Committee should not recommend the extension of the survey on that scale, the Government would have nothing more to do; but if the Committee should recommend it, and if the Government agreed with them, then it would be only necessary to propose a supplementary Estimate, without bringing it on in connection with the present Estimate, which did not affect the question.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item of £71,000 for the Survey of the United Kingdom be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 75: Majority 32.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  (3.) £750,000 Customs Department.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the Committee of Accounts which sat last year, reported that the audit of the income of the Revenue was very imperfect. He should be glad to learn how far the Treasury had been able to carry into effect the recommendations of that Committee.
  MR. PEELsaid, the Committee, after pointing out the defects in the present system of audit, had not proposed any particular form of remedy, but had contented themselves with calling the attention of Government to the subject. As soon as possible after the Report was presented the Treasury placed themselves in communication with the Audit Board, and had been informed from time to time that steps were being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. In compliance with suggestions from the same quarter, and the Act of Parliament passed last Session to give effect to them, an account of the expenditure of the revenue departments for the year 1861–2 would shortly be sent to the Audit Board, and by them dealt with as the Act directed. He had likewise taken care to comply with the final recommendation of the Committee, that the items for Works should be presented in greater detail than hitherto.
  Vote agreed to: as were also the following Votes:—
  (4.) £1,382,274, Inland Revenue Department.
  (5.) £2,084,687, Post Office Services, &c.
  (6.) £535,834, Superannuations, &c.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the Minister who had charge of this Bill described it, on the second reading, as a matter of little moment; but he differed in opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, for he thought this measure one of great importance. He believed Her Majesty already possessed ample powers to accomplish the object which the Bill had in view, by Her Royal warrant; and if that were so, the Bill was not only unnecessary but dangerous, because it invaded the Royal prerogative. He begged the attention of the House to what Lord Coke had said on the subject of commissions—namely, that they were of two classes, those which sprang from the Royal prerogative, and those which sprang from the statute law. Now, Commissions in the army and militia belonged to the former class. They are pure prerogative commissions. In the second volume of Blackstone, there is a passage illustrating this—
  "When Charles I. had, during his northern expedition, issued commissions of lieutenancy and exerted some military powers, which, having been long exercised, were thought to belong to the Crown, it became a question in the Long Parliament how far the power of the Militia did inherently reside in the King, being unsupported by any statute, and founded only on immemorial usage. The question became at length the immediate cause of the fatal rupture between the King and his Parliament; the two Houses not only denying this prerogative of the Crown, but also seizing into their own hands the entire power of the Militia."
  On this usurpation by the two Houses of one of the most important functions of Royalty, Mr. Hallam remarks—
  "The notion that either or both Houses of Parliament, who possess no portion of executive authority, could take on themselves one of its most peculiar and important functions was so preposterous that we can scarcely give credit to the sincerity of any reasonable person who advanced it."
  And he adds—
  "The power manifestly resided in the King."
  Again, the Royal prerogative is laid down

  1483
  distinctly in the preamble to the 13th Chas. II. c. 6, which declares that—
  "This power ever was and is the undoubted right of His Majesty and his Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England; and that both or either House of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same."
  Now, as military commissions are not statutory—as it is evident that they are issued solely by Royal Prerogative—the question arises whether any statute is required to give authority to direct the issue of such commissions in any manner the Sovereign may deem proper. On the 27th of May, 1830, Sir Robert feel informed the House of a precedent on this subject, which is extremely interesting at this moment. He said—
  "In the fifth year of the reign of Queen Mary, Her Majesty, in consequence of the great labour which she sustained in the government of the Kingdom, was unable without much danger and inconvenience to sign the commission, warrants, letters, missives, and other papers, and she therefore appointed certain persons, and gave them authority to seal the necessary instruments instead of the Queen. These persons were the Archbishop of York, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Horse, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Chancellor of the Order of the Gaiter."
  No doubt this patent of Queen Mary was framed on an example in her father's reign. A patent of Henry VIII. (which may be seen in the British Museum) gives power to certain persons named therein, to use a stamp bearing the impress of the Royal signature to warrants, and it is stated in the patent that it is given for a limited time and for the Royal convenience.
  Amongst the other Royal warrants which are not statutory are those relating to the care and custody of lunatics. This is a well-known branch of the Royal prerogative. In Mr. Chitty's work on the Prerogative of the Crown, he says—
  "This prerogative is generally, but not necessarily exercised by the person who has the custody of the Great Seal. It may be delegated to any other person, and even when granted to the Chancellor, as it almost universally has been, a special authority under the Royal sign manual seems necessary, for such authority does not appear to form part of the Chancellor's general jurisdiction. This warrant confers no jurisdiction, but merely a power of administration."
  Now, this delegation of the Royal authority by a warrant under the sign manual, and not by an Act of Parliament, is exactly a case in point, and he (Mr. Hennessy) would be surprised if any answer could be given to the conclusive precedent furnished by that warrant, which runs thus—
  1484
  "VICTORIA R.—Whereas it belongeth unto us in right of our Royal prerogative to have the custody of lunatics and their estates, they being in our immediate care, commitment, and disposal, which doth occasion multiplicity of suitors and addresses to our own person; we, therefore, for the ease of ourself and of the said suitors, do by these presents give and grant unto you full power and authority, without expecting any further special warrant from us, from time to time to give orders and warrants for the preparing of grants, and thereupon to make and pass commitments. And for so doing, this shall be your warrant. Given at our Palace of Buckingham House this 16th day of July, 1841, in the 5th year of our reign."
  The hon. Gentleman referred to certain other Royal warrants issued during the reign of the Georges, as well as during the reign of Her present Majesty, for the purpose of showing that the Grown by its own prerogative, and without Act of Parliament, had at various times authorized Commissioners to affix their signatures to documents otherwise requiring the sign manual. He called attention to the warrant of 1719, which runs thus—
  "GEORGE R.—Whereas we have determined speedily to go in person beyond the seas, and we therefore by the advice of Our Council have constituted and appointed the said Lords Justices to execute the office of guardians and justices; and our will and pleasure is that all writs, letters patent, commissions, and other instruments or writings, which should, or ought to have or bear teste by or under ourself, shall bear teste in or under the name of the first for; the tame being of the said guardians and justices."
  He dwelt upon the warrant of the 6th October, 1854, which not only regulated commissions in the army, but even the pay of the officers. He was informed that the Government relied upon various Acts of Parliament as sanctioning the course they had now adopted. The principal Act, of course, would be that of the reign of George IV, passed in 1830. But in its scope and its form, as well as in the procedure with regard to it, that Act totally differed from the one which the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to introduce. There had been a message from the King, stating that he was physically unable to sign his name, and recommending something to be done. The Royal message was responded to by an address from both Houses complying with His Majesty's gracious recommendation, and the day following the Bill giving effect to the new arrangement was introduced by the Lord Chancellor. That Act of George IV. applied to every exercise of the sign manual, whether in respect to statutory or prerogative commissions, and

  1485
  therefore the Act of Parliament was necessary; but the present Bill did not touch commissions effected by statute, but only such as sprang from prerogative. If, in everything touching the issue of commissions, the Crown had from time to time by numerous warrants vindicated the prerogative, ought that House now to consider a Bill such as this? Why should they now be discussing a Bill which professed to give to the Queen a power which she and her predecessors had exercised, and which he hoped her successors would continue to exercise? Under all the circumstances, he ventured to ask that the same course should be pursued in this instance as was adopted in the reign of George IV.—namely, that the question should be referred to a Select Committee, that precedents should be carefully examined, and that so delicate a matter as the Royal prerogative should not be dealt with in a hasty and imperfect manner. "With that object he moved that the Bill should be recommitted.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the words 'That the' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'said Order be discharged,'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he could not say that the hon. Gentleman was ipsis Hibernis Hibernior, but he was more Royalist than the King, for he set himself up as the champion of the Queen's Prerogative against the Queen's Government. He sought to show that Parliament ought not to legislate upon the subject, and that in passing the Bill they might invade the prerogative of the Crown. The second section, however, provided that nothing contained in the Act should interfere with the power of Her Majesty to sign military commissions if she should be so minded, and therefore there could be no diminution of the Royal prerogative. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was that the Queen could alter the practice by Her prerogative, and therefore it was superfluous to make the change by a Parliamentary enactment. He could easily satisfy the House that that opinion was unfounded. It was an error to suppose that military commissions were not as a rule signed by the Sovereign. As long as there had
  1486
  been an army in the country, it had been the unvarying practice for every military commission—not naval commissions, which were only signed by the Lords of the Admiralty—to receive the signature of the Sovereign; and it had been more than once decided by Lord Ellenborough at Nisi Prius, and was then settled law, that for a military officer to prove his character it was necessary that he should produce his commission, and that the mention of his name in the Gazette was not sufficient. The passage in the warrant to the Secretary of State to which the hon. Member had alluded referred only to the countersigning by the responsible Minister, which was necessary whenever the sign manual was used, and gave to the Secretary of State no power to sign military commissions. The argument of the hon. Member, if it meant anything, meant that it was competent to the Crown to make the change, and that it was unnecessary for Parliament to legislate upon the subject. Now, it happened that there had been a series of Acts of Parliament legislating upon that very matter; and if the Crown had possessed the prerogative of dispensing with the signature of commissions, those Acts would not have been needed. Originally all commissions lapsed on the death of the Sovereign who had granted them, but by the Act 7 & 8 Will. 111. c. 27, s. 21, which was passed in an excellent constitutional period, it was provided that in future that should not occur. By another Act passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, it was provided that commissions for civil or military employments should continue for six months after the death of the Sovereign. Then came the Act passed in the 11th year of the reign of George IV., to which the hon. Member had referred. That Act was passed nearly at the end of the life of George IV., when he was incapable of signing his name; and the reason why there was in that case a message to Parliament was, that the incapacity to sign was general, and did not apply only to military commissions. But military commissions were included in that Act, which, had the King had the power to dispense with the sign manual, would have been wholly unnecessary. He might further observe that in the Act of the present reign, entitled an Act for the Continuance of Military Commissions, notwithstanding the demise of the Crown, the following words occurred:—

  1487
  "Whereas great inconvenience resulted on the demise of the Crown with respect to the renewal of military commissions, be it enacted that all such commissions continue in force until cancelled."
  That provision appeared to him to be quite decisive of the point at issue; and having shown that the statements of the hon. Gentleman were contradicted by a long course of precedents, he trusted he need say nothing further in order to secure the sanction of the House for the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether what was termed the submission list was not in reality, when it received the sign manual, the effectual authority. All that the Bill did was to give effect to that authority.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would answer the question. The Commander-in-Chief submitted the names of persons whom he recommended for commissions. Her Majesty placed her sign manual at the top of the list if she approved of it, and there were written directions at the bottom to the Secretary of State to issue commissions to the persons named, and she signed that also.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to call attention to an objection in the Bill. As it stood, managers of the schools would be obliged to pay for the maintenance of the children to the extent to which the Government were at present responsible. He also wished to call the attention of the Government to the working of the Reformatory system, and to the fact that Justices of Assize were in the habit of sending to reformatories, to be there maintained at a certain expense, children who could scarcely be regarded as criminal. If the Government would give encouragement to Ragged and Industrial Schools, they would help to save great numbers of children from criminal and vagrant habits, and lessen the necessity for reformatories. By limiting the operation of the Act to two years, the Government had quite emasculated the measure, and placed reformatories in a worse position than before. He hoped
  1488
  the right hon. Gentleman would either propose an" extension of the period during which the Act was to be operative, or would refrain from opposing the Motion of any independent Member to that effect.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that the Limitation Clause was quite unnecessary for the protection of the Treasury. This was given by the Act itself; because the Secretary of State could either refuse to certify schools, and so limit the number; or he might discharge the children, or reduce the allowance. This Bill would be useless, because, as the commitments were at various dates, the schools would have to be kept up for an ever-lessening number of children, reduced at last to ones. The Colonial Office had allowed the Barbadoes Industrial. Schools Act (a similar measure) without the Limitation Clause, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would consent to prolong the operation of the Act of 1861.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was willing to own that the limitation of the operation of the Act to two years would prove completely destructive to the efficiency of the schools, because commitments could not be Carried out during that period. An extension of the terms of the measure was therefore necessary, but as it was only an experiment, it had been deemed advisable to prolong it only for another year, when Parliament would be better able to judge whether it was desirable to continue it for a series of years or at once to make it permanent. Nine schools had been certified under the Act, in addition to numerous others under the previous Act. He understood that the whole provisions of the measure would be operative in respect of children committed to these schools during the whole period of their sentences.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcould not but remark upon the haste in which the clauses of the Bill had been framed. He thought it only reasonable that they ought to have a copy of the resolutions which bad been issued to the schools before they proceeded with the further stages of the Bill.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he would suggest that, before the next stage of the Bill, full opportunity should be given to the House for the mature consideration of its provisions.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to give notice that, in Committee, he would move the repeal of the clause which limited the duration of the Act.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday next.

TRADE MARKS BILL.—COMMITTEE,

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th March], "That Mr. Moffatt be added to the Select Committee on the Trade Marks Bill."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that there were three parties who were affected by the Bill—namely, manufacturers, purchasers, and that important class who stood between both, namely, the wholesale vendor. When the subject was last before the House it was proposed that the name of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt) should be added to the Select Committee, and he (Mr. Crawford) was desirous that that proposition should be carried, as it was important that the Interest of the wholesale vendors should be represented. The legal profession and the manufacturing interest were represented, but the claims of the wholesale houses to be represented appeared to have been altogether lost sight of in the composition of the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  The EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I would afford him an opportunity, at the meeting of the House this evening, of setting either himself or me right with regard to a statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the last occasion your Lordships were assembled. Your Lordships, perhaps, may recollect that on that occasion I found myself called on to vindicate my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord Chelmsford) and myself from a charge brought against us by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, either of inconsistency or of great shortness of memory, in objecting to a clause contained in the Bill of Her Majesty's present Government, when we had given our support to a similar clause contained in the Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend Sir Hugh Cairns. I thought I showed conclusively that these two clauses were entirely different, although in pari materiâ, and therefore that we were perfectly consistent in opposing one and in supporting the other. I cannot give a better proof of the broad distinction between them than by stating that it is my intention, when your Lordships go into Committee on the Lunacy Regulation Bill, to move the substitution of the clause of Sir Hugh Cairns' Bill for that which appears in this Bill. In the answer which the noble and learned Lord gave he said that he was rather surprised that I should not have been aware that no inquiry before a jury could be had except on the demand I of the alleged lunatic, and accompanied I that statement with a rather sarcastic ob-

  1407
  serration about noble Lords speaking upon imperfect information. With great respect to him, I have to say, in the first instance, that the answer was wholly irrelevant to the point at issue, which was a comparison between two clauses in, pari materiâ, both referring to cases where a trial by jury was to be held, and both referring to the Judge who was to preside over the jury. The difference between the two clauses was, that in one instance it was required that in all cases the Judge who presided should be a Judge of one of the superior courts, and in the other it was permitted that in exceptional cases he might be so. Therefore, to, say that the law did not allow a trial by jury, except upon the demand of the alleged lunatic, was no answer, and had nothing whatever to do with the point at issue between us. I did not, upon a point of law venture to enter into a controversy with so high an authority as the noble and learned Lord. It was impossible for me to suppose that he could be speaking, as he represented me to have done, upon imperfect information; but I cannot help thinking that upon reflection the noble and learned Lord will think it right to qualify the statement which he then made with regard to the law; and, if he will permit me for a very few moments, I will state to him the grounds upon which I think that that statement of his was not a correct representation of the law. The noble and learned Lord's statement was that in no case could a trial by jury be held in a case of alleged lunacy, except upon the demand of the alleged lunatic himself. I turn to the Act of 1853, and, in the first place, I venture to say that, apart from any demand by the alleged lunatic, the Lord Chancellor has a perfect and indisputable right to direct that any case whatever that he shall think fit and expedient shall be tried before a jury, without any reference to the alleged lunatic. The 42nd section of the 16th and 17th of the Queen, cap. 70, states, that where the alleged lunatic does not demand an inquiry before a jury, and it appears to the Lord Chancellor upon consideration of the evidence adduced before him on the petition for inquiry, and of the circumstances of the case so far as they are before him, to be unnecessary or inexpedient that the inquiry should be before a jury, and he accordingly does not in his order for the inquiry direct the return of a jury, then it shall take place before a Master in Lunacy. This clause refers to cases
  1408
  in which the lunatic has not applied for a trial before a jury, and the words "where the Lord Chancellor does not deem it expedient to direct a trial by jury" would be absolute nonsense, and absolutely useless, unless the Lord Chancellor had the power to direct a trial by jury irrespective of the demand of the alleged lunatic. Then, turning to the 44th clause, I find that even where the Lord Chancellor has not seen it necessary to direct an inquiry by jury, the Master in Lunacy who is conducting the investigation may, whenever he thinks fit, stop the trial, and on his mere motion direct that a jury should be summoned, and that the case should be tried before them. Then there is a third case, where the alleged lunatic is not within the jurisdiction, in which the inquiry—not may, but shall be before a jury. Thus there are three cases in which, without any reference to the demand of the lunatic, a jury may be had. In one case the power is vested in the Lord Chancellor, and in another in the Master hearing the case, while in the third the trial must be by jury, although there may be no demand on the part of the alleged lunatic. I thought it necessary to bring this subject before your Lordships, because I feel quite certain that, after what I have said, the noble and learned Lord will perceive that he, perhaps hastily, committed himself upon a question of very considerable importance. It is of importance that your Lordships should receive every legal opinion which may come from the Woolsack with implicit confidence that it is an authentic exposition of the law. I think it, therefore, most desirable that the noble and learned Lord should have an opportunity of explaining any misapprehension which may have taken place, if there has been any; or, if not, of fairly stating that in a hasty debate he had given a representation of the law which, upon further inquiry, he finds to be inaccurate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl for his courtesy in giving me notice of his present question, or rather, of his intended speech to your Lordships; but I am sorry to say that that notice came to me during the morning, when I was engaged in the duty of hearing appeals, and the interval which has elapsed since your Lordships rose has been almost wholly occupied by interviews with persons having business with me as Lord Chancellor. I must, therefore, answer the noble Earl upon the

  1409
  information which I previously possessed, I am sorry to find that the noble Earl entertains some feeling of irritation at the recollection of what passed the other evening. I can only express my regret if any word fell from me which was calculated to give rise to any feeling of vexation or of offence in the mind of the noble Earl. I must, in justice to myself, say that I find constant appeals made to the duty of the Lord Chancellor to expound the law, but that I also find a constant disposition on the part of those who are desirous of obtaining his expositions to question their accuracy. Now, what occurred was this. You must recollect precisely the matter on which we were speaking. I had been charged—or rather, I will not use that expression charged, but in the speech made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), in opposition to the Bill, the proposition to try a commission of lunacy before one of the Judges of Westminster Hall was denominated a thing impracticable, a thing absurd.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: What I said was, that it would be so in some cases.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was denominated a thing impracticable, because it was said that the inquiry must always be at the residence of the lunatic.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: No, no. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I never said anything of the kind. What I said was, that in a great variety of cases—country cases—the inquiry must take place at the residence of the lunatic; and that in those cases it would be impracticable to send one of the Judges of the superior courts down to visit the lunatic for the purpose of the inquiry.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to fix upon the noble and learned Lord any particular expression, though I might appeal to the memory of your Lordships on that subject. Let that pass. The noble and learned Lord certainly spoke of the proposition as one which had nothing to recommend it. He certainly represented it as a proposition that no reasonable man would bring forward. Then, I desired in good humour, not with any disposition to be sarcastic, but very humbly to remind the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Earl who cheered him, of what they might have forgotten—namely, that the proposition was one of their own. [The Earl of DERBY seemed about to interpose an observation.] The noble Earl will probably curb
  1410
  his ardour and allow me to be heard without interruption. The proposition to try commissions before a Judge of a superior court is a point that was contained in a Bill of the noble Earl's late Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I am bound to prevent his going further when he is stating that which is not quite accurate. The point at issue between us was whether it was practicable in all cases, where a jury was demanded, to have the trial compulsorily before a superior Judge of the land. To that proposition my noble and learned Friend objected, and that proposition, I assert, is not to be found in the Bill of Sir Hugh Cairns.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must repeat again, even at the risk of being a third time interrupted—a third time interrupted—I am very sorry that the observations I am making are felt so much that noble Lords cannot sit still—now, my Lords, I repeat again that what I said was, that the proposition to try commissions before a Judge of the land was taken from the Bill of the noble Earl's Government. The noble Earl immediately fastened upon me a representation which I had never made, and, most acute in such things, he converted my words into a statement that the provision in my Bill was identical with the provision of Sir Hugh Cairns' Bill, and that he has repeated now. I said no such thing; but, dealing with the idea of substituting a Judge of the land for a Master in Lunacy—a most desirable thing—I said that the idea was to be found in the Bill of the noble Earl's Government. The noble Earl immediately fastened on me the representation that the provision of the one Bill was identical with that of the other; and that gave rise to the immediate subject of the present conversation. The noble Earl said, "But your Bill provides that in all cases the commission shall go to one of the Judges, and Sir Hugh Cairns' Bill provided only that the commission might go to a Judge in any case where the inquiry should be opposed by the alleged lunatic." My observation upon that was that my clause related to precisely the same case; and that was perfectly correct. The clause in Sir Hugh Cairns' Bill ran thus—
  "A commission in the nature of a writ de lunatico inquirendo may, in any case in which the inquiry shall be opposed by the alleged lunatic, and with a view to the ultimate saving of litigation and expense, if it shall be considered expedient,

  1411
  be issued under the Great Seal, addressed to any of the Judges of Her Majesty's Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, directing them to make by a jury the inquisition to be therein mentioned."
  In my Bill the clause is as follows:—
  "Every commission of lunacy which directs the inquisition thereon to be made by the oath of a jury shall be addressed to one or more of the Judges of Her Majesty's Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer; and the Judge, or one of the Judges, to whom such commission shall be so addressed, shall make the inquisition thereby directed, and shall return the same into the High Court of Chancery."
  The distinction attempted to be drawn was that the clause I have introduced applies to every commission, whereas the clause of Sir Hugh Cairns applied only to some commissions in particular. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] To that I answered that my clause related to a commission issued on the requisition of the lunatic, and that, therefore, substantially the two clauses were the same. The noble Earl now says that is incorrect, as a commission might issue directed to the Master to hold an inquisition by jury where the lunatic did not demand it. As the law stands, the commission is generally directed to a Master; but if he finds he requires a jury for his own guidance, he can have one without an order. The House will observe that the 6th section of my Bill and the 12th of Sir Hugh Cairns' both apply to the case where there is a commission directed by the Lord Chancellor, which is the same thing as an order. Now, the result is, that whenever a commission is issued it must be in consequence of the alleged lunatic demanding a jury; but wherever the Master thinks fit to have a jury he may have it without an order and without a commission. To that representation I entirely adhere. To a slight extent, however, my answer was inaccurate. In that very rare case, of which, in all my experience, I recollect only one instance, when the alleged lunatic is abroad, the commission may direct a jury without an application from him. Therefore I think, under all the circumstances, it was unnecessary to bring this matter before the House; but, at the same time, I am happy to have the opportunity of avowing the slight inaccuracy into which I fell, and to that extent my noble Friends are entitled to their ovation.
  LORD CHELMSFORDconsidered that it was of the highest importance, that the law laid down upon this subject should be perfectly correct. Unwilling as was the
  1412
  noble and learned Lord to admit the least inaccuracy on any subject, he was compelled to confess that the statement he had made the other evening was not perfectly correct; but he contended that the noble and learned Lord was much more incorrect than he was ready to admit, for his statement was this—that there would be no jury summoned in cases of alleged lunacy, unless upon the demand of the alleged lunatic. He was satisfied at the time that the noble and learned Lord was incorrect; but as he felt bound not to make any statement of the law to that House without being perfectly sure of his ground, he did not attempt to correct the noble and learned Lord. But they had now the Act before them, and they saw that the noble and learned Lord was perfectly incorrect in the statements he made. There were no less than three cases in which a jury might be summoned without the demand of the lunatic. First, where the alleged lunatic demanded an inquiry before a jury, the Lord Chancellor was to direct the return of one, unless he was satisfied from personal examination that the alleged lunatic was incompetent to demand one. Secondly, where the alleged lunatic did not demand a jury, and where the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that he was not mentally competent to demand a jury, the Lord Chancellor might direct the investigation of the subject before the Master, with or without a jury; and lastly, in all cases where the lunatic was out of the jurisdiction of the Court, a jury would be summoned. The noble and learned Lord said he was incorrect in only one of these cases, but he (Lord Chelmsford) contended that the noble and learned Lord was incorrect in all the three.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrepeated, that practically the provision in regard to a commission issued on the requisition of the alleged lunatic was common to his Bill and that of Sir Hugh Cairns. He did not think it necessary further to allude to the points to which the noble and learned Lord had referred.
  LORD CRANWORTHobserved, that for five of the eight years during which the Act had been passed he had had the honour of holding the Great Seal. During those eight years, in only twenty cases had juries been applied for. His impression was that during the five years over which his experience extended there never was an order issued for a jury except on the application of the lunatic. Therefore, though his

  1413
  noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack might be slightly wrong in point of theory, he was perfectly right as to the almost invariable and universal practice.

THE NEW FOREST—SHOOTING LICENCES.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYrose, according to notice, to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a circular sent to those persons who hold licences to shoot in the New Forest, as it is said, with the approval of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. It might be within the knowledge of some at least of their Lordships, that a certain number of gentlemen—between forty and fifty—by the indulgence of the Crown, received licences, on payment of certain fees, to sport and shoot game in the New Forest. During the last few days a circular had been sent by some of these gentlemen to others enjoying the same privilege, expressing dissatisfaction with the present arrangements with respect to preservation of the grime, and proposing a subscription for the purpose of encouraging the Queen's keepers or foresters to do their duty more efficiently. The writers stated truly that the New Forest was a preserve far more for vermin than game, and that it abounded with every kind of destructive animals, which were not only a nuisance to those who cared about sport, but to the neighbouring tenant farmers, who suffered from their depredations. They alleged that since the abolition of the office of Lord Warden, ten years ago, the foresters had received no positive orders to destroy the vermin, and with reduced salaries were naturally indisposed to expend money on powder and shot for the purpose. They stated, also, that poaching was very prevalent, and a great many head of game were stolen. They went on to propose a subscription for prizes to be given to the keepers who killed the greatest number of vermin, and to those who detected poachers. He submitted that this plan was not in accordance with the dignity of the Crown, that the Queen's servants ought not to receive directions from different masters; and that if they did not do their duty when fairly paid, they should be discharged. The circular stated that the permission of Mr. Howard, the Chief Commissioner, for the adoption of some such mode to remedy the grievance, had been asked and obtained. He believed
1414
that Mr. Howard had no cognizance of this circular; but he supposed that Mr. Howard had given permission for the keepers to be thus paid. The remedy was in Mr. Howard's own hands, and if the principle of rewards was a good one, it would be infinitely better to take £1 a year more for each of the licences and to distribute the money himself. It would be derogatory to the Crown, or even to any private gentleman, to have his keepers or servants paid in the way proposed. The Forest was not managed as well as it might be. The keepers were very inferior to the keepers whom their Lordships would appoint, and he did not think their orders were sufficiently definite. The matter was of more consequence than might at first appear. He had naturally a strong feeling in favour of preserving the last of our ancient forests, and one which had not its equal in the United Kingdom. But, with many advantages, there were certain disadvantages attending a forest of 60,000 acres in the middle of a civilized country. Surrounding property was deteriorated in value, and unless the Forest was strictly kept, it naturally became the resort of bad characters of every kind. He should be the last to wish to see it disforested and enclosed. He could not help having a certain affection for it, and he thought it was the duty of those who had the management of the Forest to lessen, if possible, the evils and inconveniences of which complaints were made.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, Mr. Howard had not seen the circular and was not responsible for any statement which it contained. Mr. Howard entirely denied that the men did not do their duty or were not sufficiently well paid. They were not keepers, but foresters. Their orders were definite, and those orders were obeyed. They were respectable persons, and respectable and competent men were ready to fill these situations at any time for the same pay. No orders were given with regard to the preservation of game, because their duties related entirely to the care and preservation of the timber. With regard to the preservation of the game, Mr. Howard had always said that the foresters had nothing to do with it, and he could not ask the Government to impose taxes upon the public in order to increase the amusement of a few gentlemen who lived in the district. Mr. Howard said that they might destroy the vermin, but they must meet the expenditure which would

1415
be necessary. If the men could assist without neglect of their proper duties, they might; but, if the experiment failed, it would be stopped. With regard to the alternative suggested by the noble Earl, of an extra payment for licences, the money would go into the Exchequer, and would therefore fail to effect the desired object.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEpointed out that this was a subject of great importance. He deprecated the want of care of the game, and pointed out that there was nothing more injurious than that the game should be half protected; it tempted the labouring population to trespass in search of game, and they filled the courts and petty sessions with cases.

RIVER SHANNON—PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to present a Petition with respect to the Regulation of the Waters of the Shannon; and to ask, Whether by the Answer of the Treasury to the Memorial lately presented to that Department through the Irish Government, respecting the better Regulation of the Waters of the Shannon, it is to be understood that the landowners who signed that Memorial shall pay the expenses of the engineers or other officers employed by the Government, or only of the engineer to be engaged in that inquiry upon their behalf, in conjunction with persons in the service of the Irish Board of Works? The noble Marquess said that the Petition had reference to the Commission appointed twenty-five years ago in compliance with an Act of Parliament, and to the works which under subsequent Acts were constructed by the Commissioners, involving an expenditure of nearly £ 600,000. The Petitioners complained that those works were improperly and unskilfully constructed, and that they were not in accordance with the Acts of Parliament which required them. They complained also that the improvement in the navigation of the Shannon was not such as had been anticipated from those works, and also that the drainage had been completed in an unsatisfactory manner, so that from floods and inundations the country was in a worse condition than before the dams and weirs were constructed. The destruction of property from this cause was so considerable that in several places the people affected rose, and would have committed outrages if means had not been used to quiet them, and to assure them
  1416
  that every effort would be made to draw the attention of the authorities to the grievance of which they complained. A Memorial, most influentially signed, had been forwarded to the Government upon the subject; but though it reached the hands of the Treasury in December, no answer was given to it until the 1st of March. The Petitioners prayed for inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee into their allegations; but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not propose to give a notice in accordance with that prayer, because in the answer to the Memorial an inquiry on certain conditions had been promised. Whether the memorialists would be willing or not to accept the offer, he was not prepared to say. He might say, however, that the offer of an inquiry upon conditions that they should not investigate the shortcomings of the Commissioners, and that the inquiry should be conducted under the sole guidance, superintendence, and control of the Irish Board of Works, while the Petitioners were to pay the cost, was not such an answer as the memorialists had a right to expect. On Monday he should move for a copy of the Memorial, and of the answer of the Government thereto.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought the accusation against the Treasury, as to the date of the reply to the Memorial, ought not to be pressed to any great extent. Considering the numerous applications made to the Treasury for the expenditure of the public money, it ought to take full time to consider them, rather than give a hasty answer, consenting to that expenditure. He understood that by the answer to the Memorial, dated the 1st of March, the Treasury consented to the appointment of two engineers, one by the Government, the other by the owners of the land, to report whether anything could be done, without injury to the navigation of the Shannon, to prevent or lessen the risk of flooding. This consent was given on three conditions—first, that the proprietors of the land pay half the expense of the inquiry; secondly, that nothing should be done that might in any degree injure the navigation of the river; and thirdly, that any improvements, when sanctioned, should be carried out at the sole expense of the proprietors. These conditions he hoped the memorialists would not consider unreasonable.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.