Sitting of 11 June 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Lieutenant Colonel Charles George Tottenham, for New Ross.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions reported—Adjourned Debate (9th June) on Resolution (June 5) resumed: Resolutions agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Newcastle-upon-Tyne (St. Mary Magdalen Hospital)* [Bill 162]; Ruthin Charities* [Bill 161]; Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity* [Bill 160]; Charitable Uses* [Bill 164]; Militia Pay* [Bill 163].
Second Reading—Regimental Debts, &c.* [Bill 149].
Committee—Offences (South Africa) (Lords)* [Bill 113], on re-committal.
Report—Offences (South Africa)*.
Considered as amended—Volunteers [Bill 152]; Cayman Islands (Lords)* [Bill 132].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [Bill 106], Adjourned Debate (5th June) resumed; Bill re-committed; considered, and reported; considered as amended;—Officers of Royal Naval Reserve* [Bill 142], and passed.

SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the efforts which have been made hitherto by the British Nation for the suppression of the African Slave Trade might not with advantage be extended to the continent of America; and whether the time has not at length arrived when it becomes the duty of Her Majesty's Government to enter into friendly negotiations with the Federal Government
698
of the United States for the purpose of concerting measures for the gradual but total suppression of the Slave Trade in the Confederate States?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the Federal Government have concluded a Treaty with the Government of Her Majesty, giving a mutual right of search, for the purpose of suppressing the Slave Trade carried on under the Federal flag. The Confederate States have passed a law which renders the Slave Trade highly penal, but my hon. Friend must be aware that the Federal Government have no relations at present with the Confederate States—except the relations of war—which, of course, will not permit any intercourse with reference to a mutual arrangement such as that to which his Question points. I may add, that as Her Majesty's Government have not yet acknowledged the independence of the Confederate States, and that independence not being established in a way which would justify our interference, no diplomatic communications can take place between us and those States. If, however, in the course of time, things should alter, we should hope the Confederate States, if they should succeed in establishing their independence, would enter into arrangements on the subject of the Slave Trade similar to those which the Federal Government has concluded.
MR. CONINGHAM: The Question I asked was, whether Her Majesty's Government might not enter into communications with the Federal States for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the continent of America?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I thought I answered that Question when I stated that the Federal Government have no relations at present with the Confederate States, save relations of war—a fact which, of course, would render useless any action such as that to which my hon. Friend refers.

THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask Colonel French, the Chairman of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee, What steps they are about to take to improve the state of the Refreshment Rooms, with a view to the next Session of Parliament?
COLONEL FRENCHreplied, that it was generally said in Ireland that the best way of answering a question was sometimes to ask another. That he believed was the most satisfactory manner in which he could answer his hon. Friend, inasmuch as the Committee were not able to give a direct answer without, in the first place, appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The attention of hon. Members had been already drawn to the great inconveniences connected with the refreshment department, owing to the rooms being so narrow and so badly ventilated, as well as to the fact that there was no certainty as to what number of Members would dine on any given day. It would, however, be seen by a Report which had been laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a plan had been prepared by Mr. Barry, with respect to which the Committee, which had met that morning, had reported—
"That having further considered the expediency of enlarging the dining-rooms, they were of opinion such enlargement was absolutely necessary; and having seen Mr. Barry's improved plan, they strongly recommended its adoption."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to consider the outlay required for the purpose was greater than the House would be disposed to sanction—the amount, as estimated by Mr. Barry, being somewhere about £4,000. It was, however, the opinion of several experienced Members of the Committee that the necessary improvement could be mode for a smaller sum; but although a number of plans had been laid before them, none appeared to them to be so satisfactory as that of Mr. Barry. It was found that a better supply of wine could not be had without materially diminishing the profits of the present manager, and he trusted the matter would be put in such a light before the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would see the propriety of securing proper accommodation for the Members of that House, which ought to be done all the more readily, seeing that the demands of the House of Lords in reference to their refreshment department were granted without the slightest hesitation.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN POTTERIES AND PAPER TUBE FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill this Session to limit the hours of la-
  700
  bour for children employed in Potteries and Paper Tube Factories?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, at present he had no intention of proposing a Bill on that subject, and for this reason, that the first Report of the Children's Employment Commission was only sent to him two days ago, and it was desirable to have it printed and circulated, with a view to its being fully considered before any Bill was proposed. With regard to Paper Tube Factories, no Report had yet been received on the subject.

SMALLPOX PATIENTS IN PUBLIC VEHICLES.—QUESTION.
SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether officials of Railway and Steam Boat Companies may lawfully remove from carriages or vessels under their supervision persons who are obviously labouring under smallpox; and whether individuals thus wilfully travelling from place to place at the risk of spreading so dreadful a scourge through a whole community are subject to any penalty on conviction before a magistrate? He (Sir A. Agnew) was aware of two cases in which patients, labouring under the disease in an aggravated form, were admitted as passengers in a railway carriage where there were other persons travelling.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he should like to know from the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there was no remedy in this matter. A case had come under his (Mr. H. Seymour's) own observation. He had seen a woman afflicted with small-pox placed in a second-class carriage which was filled with passengers?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he understood the hon. Baronet to mean, by the first part of his Question, that the persons described were those who were being conveyed in the course of a journey, the railway or other companies having undertaken to carry them. It appeared to him that by the Common Law the Officials of the company would not be justified in removing them. In respect of the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Seymour), he was not aware of any Act of Parliament having reference to the subject.

THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC AND THE BRITISH CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
MR. CLAYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have been

701
officially informed that the Commissioners appointed by the Argentine Government to settle British claims with Mr. Doria refused to acknowledge as conclusive that which had been accepted by Mr. Thornton, Her Majesty's Minister, and the former Commissioners; that Mr. Doria has, in consequence, suspended his sitting with the Commissioners; and, if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that it was true that the Commissioners recently appointed by the new Government of the Argentine Republic had refused to acknowledge the principle upon which claims bad been settled by a previous Government. In consequence of this refusal, Mr. Doria declined to concur in the sitting of the Commissioners. Her Majesty's Government had instructed Mr. Doria to inform the Government of the Argentine Republic that their proceedings in this case were contrary to international usage, and, if persevered in, might lead to serious consequences, He (Mr. Layard) trusted that they would see the propriety of taking such steps as would allow the Commissioners to resume their sitting.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.—QUESTION.
MR. FITZWILLIAMsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the union of the two Colonies of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia under one Governor?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied, that he could not answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman, because his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies would, in a short time, have occasion to bring into the other House a Bill relating to British Columbia, and would then make a full statement of his intention with respect both to that Colony and Vancouver's Island.

THE LATE FIRE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.—QUESTION.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the statement which appeared in the public papers in reference to the outbreak of fire on Monday last in the corridor of the House of Commons is correct? That statement was to the effect that there was a brick out
702
of the flue where the fire originated, and that it was supposed this defect existed since the construction of the building. If that were the fact, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for this. He also wanted to know whether the Government had directed any examination into the other flues similarly circumstanced, that was, with woodwork abutting on the flue? He happened to be in the library when the lire broke out, and he rushed into the corridor, where the woodwork was burning. There was a water main immediately over where the fire was, but the service tap was so stiff in the joint that no person there could lay on the water by reason of its being out of order. The water, however, was got in an adjoining corridor, and in that case no harm was done. But the delay of those few minutes might have caused great damage. He therefore wished to know who was responsible for the water service of the House being kept in an effective condition?
MR. COWPER, in reply, said, the fire did originate from a hole in the flue of the chimney of the kitchen of the House of Commons. That hole was about four inches wide. It appeared that the soot had been forced through this hole during the process of cleaning the floe, and had accumulated outside the flue, just above the wooden panelling of the ceiling of the corridor. A large quantity of soot having accumulated for several years, it ignited, and produced fire. There were no means of ascertaining how this hole originated. But from the size, appearance, and position of the bole it would seem to have been made during the construction of the building to receive one of the iron girders. As it was not used for that purpose, it ought to have been filled up, but somehow or other the bricklayer had omitted to do so. He (Mr. Cowper) had given directions that all the flues in the building should be examined so far as circumstances would allow, in order to ascertain whether such an accident was likely to occur in any other place; and the recurrence of such an accident was very unlikely. The fire was very rapidly extinguished, but the stand-cock at the spot was certainly found too stiff to be worked at the moment when it was wanted. The persons present ran immediately to the next stand cock and procured a sufficient quantity of water to extinguish the fire. The first stand-cock was afterwards put in proper order in the space of two minutes. Those stand-cocks must be made very tight,

703
in order to prevent the leakages of water from a tank which contained 12,000 gallons. The police who were employed in managing the fire arrangements of the Houses of Parliament, were required to examine those stand-cocks from time to time—about once a fortnight. When they were last examined, they were all found to be in good order. He thought it well to state to the House the precautions that had been adopted against the recurrence of a similar accident. The stand-cocks are directed to be examined at short intervals of time, and their condition registered every week. There was only a slight, stiffness in the stand-cock first tried, owing to its having been turned on too tight. But if no other stand-cock had been available, the stand-cock in question could have been easily made to act. The persons on the spot, however, thought, on the whole, that the most expeditious course was to go to the next stand-cock for the necessary supply of water required. There were thirty-seven stand-cocks in the building and twenty outside. The police force kept in the House during the night was one inspector, two Serjeants, and twenty-six men. A policeman was required to pass every portion of the building every half-hour. There were fire-hose places in various parts of the building and in the immediate vicinity of the stand-cocks. He believed the arrangements in this respect were perfect.

THE ROYAL VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), Whether, of the six ladies who were left on the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, after the resignation of the majority, one is the wife of the Chaplain of the Asylum, two are the wives of the two Secretaries of the Patriotic Fund, one is at present in Canada, and a fifth has been prevented by illness in her family from ever attending; and also whether any ladies have been added to the Committee; and, if so, when, and how many?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that as the Question had been put to him, he would reply to it; but as his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had succeeded Lord Colchester as Chairman of the Committee, such inquiries would in future be more properly addressed to
704
him. As the hon. Member for Bradford no doubt wished to have full information in regard to the state of the Ladies' Committee, he (Sir John Pakington) thought he should best answer his Question by making the following statement;—The Ladies' Committee originally consisted of thirteen members, of whom seven resigned, leaving upon the Committee six—namely, Lady Sarah Lindsay, the hon. Mrs. Wellesley, Mrs. Lefroy, Mrs. Fishbourne, Mrs. Morrison, and Mrs. Kirby. These six ladies had regularly visited the establishment from the disruption until the present time. To five of them the hon. Gentleman's Question had reference. Lady Sarah Lindsay had lately gone to Canada with General Lindsay, who had been appointed to the command of the Guards, and whose efficient services as a Royal Commissioner and a Member of the Committee had therefore also been lost to the institution. Mrs. Kirby was the wife of the chaplain, had not been in the habit of attending, and had now resigned. Mrs. Morrison was the lady to whom the hon. Member had referred, who had been prevented, by illness in her family, from attending; that impediment still existed, and she too had resigned. The two ladies mentioned as the wives of the honorary Secretaries were Mrs. Fishbourne and Mrs. Lefroy, who were still Members of the Committee, and lady visitors. The inference intended to be suggested by the Question, he presumed, was that they were not independent. The experience of the Asylum had, however, shown that husbands and wives were not, of necessity, of the same opinion with regard to the details of school management any more than with regard to other matters. He therefore earnestly hoped that they should retain the services of these two ladies, of whose independence of action he had no doubt. As, although the visitations had continued up to the present time, there was too small a number for the Committee, he had great pleasure therefore in informing the hon. Gentleman that on Tuesday last the Hon. Mrs. Lloyd Lindsay, Lady Pollock, Mrs. Jenkinson (the wife of the rector of Battersea, and sister of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary), and Mrs. Lawrence (the wife of Sir John Lawrence), had been appointed, and had consented to act upon the Committee. The number of lady visitors thus amounted to seven; but as the Executive Committee were of opinion that even that number

705
was rather too low, it was intended to increase it to nine. Lady Radstock had consented to become a visitor, and Lady Havelock had been applied to. He hoped that she would consent; but if she did not, some other lady would be asked to join the Committee.

GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government of Singapore will shortly be transferred from the Indian to; the Colonial Department; and in the event of such transfer, whether it will entail any charge on the Imperial Exchequer?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that a deputation of gentlemen connected with the Straits Settlements had an interview with his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle a few days ago, when they requested that the subject of transferring those Settlements to the Colonial Office might he again taken into consideration, representing that the revenues of Singapore and the other Settlements had been so far increased as to make it certain that no charge would fall upon the Imperial Treasury. In consequence of this, communications had been opened between the Indian and Colonial Departments, to see whether arrangements could he made for the transfer. He would at the same time remind the House that the arrange meat made on a former occasion failed solely on the ground that his noble Friend the Secretary of State was unwilling to bind the House to a Vote in aid of the revenues of Singapore.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state to the House the result of any communications he may have had with the Registrar General with reference to the collection of Agricultural Statistics; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps for the purpose of obtaining such statistics, either by means of the office of the Registrar General, or of Inland Revenue, or otherwise?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that in consequence of the obstacles found to exist in the way of obtaining agricultural statistics through the agency of the Poor
  706
  Law Board or the County Constabulary he had communicated with the Registrar General to ascertain what would be the prospects and probable expense of procuring the desired information through that department. The Registrar General had no doubt the information could be obtained; but as the officers employed under that department were engaged in different pursuits, and were not paid by salaries to give their whole time to the public, it would be necessary to provide about £15,000 annually as remuneration for the discharge of their additional duties. The Government felt, under the circumstances, that it would not be right to ask Parliament for a grant of that amount for obtaining statistics which, as the returns could not be compulsorily enforced, would be very imperfect.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, ha would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether it is clearly understood that the Vote for the purchase of land and buildings at South Kensington will be taken on Monday next?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought it would be more convenient to take the discussion in relation to the International Exhibition upon Thursday next. Two very important Motions, one on the subject of China, and the other upon Poland, stood for Monday evening, and it was impossible Supply could be reached till a late hour in the evening. Would the noble Lord consent to fix the discussion for Thursday next, with a general understanding that no opposition would be given to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We have no command upon Supply nights. It is competent for anybody who chooses to give notice preliminary to going into Committee of Supply; and if we are to wait till all these Notices are exhausted, this discussion cannot be taken till rather late in the Session. I am afraid, therefore, I shall not be able to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, in consequence of the reply of the noble Viscount, he felt bound to ask his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County, Whether he meant to discuss the affairs of Poland next Monday evening?
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should certainly take the liberty of proceeding with the notice which he had placed on the paper, on whatever day Supply was fixed by the Government. He believed it was intended to ask for Supply next Monday evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—STANDING ORDERS 1861—MORNING SITTINGS.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. BUTTrose to call attention to an Order made on Tuesday last, which he believed to be inconsistent with the letter as well as with the spirit of the Standing Orders of the 3rd of May 1861. He disclaimed any intention of bringing forward this Motion on account of the interest which he felt in any particular measure, presuming that the ultimate fate of the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill would not be affected by the day on which the morning sitting might be held. But he did think the question an important one in its bearing on the right of private Members to bring forward Motions upon going into Committee of Supply. In 1861 a great change was made in the proceedings of the House. Thursday was given to the Government, and the Motion of adjournment on Friday was dispensed with; two opportunities were thus taken away from private Members for bringing forward Motions which they thought deserved attention. To compensate for this, a Standing Order was passed, declaring that while Committees of Supply or of Ways and Means were open, the first Order of the Day on Friday should be either Supply or Ways and Means, and upon that Order being read the Question should be proposed "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair." He knew that since that Order passed morning sittings had been constantly fixed for Fridays, and therefore it was with some hesitation that he ventured to question a practice which had tacitly received the sanction of the House. But, in point of law, there was no distinction between morning and evening sittings; the House assembled at twelve instead of at four, and the sitting was merely interrupted, not terminated. If from any old book extracts could be taken showing that in another Parliamentary assembly it was the practice to fix Supply as the first Order of the Day, and then to take two or three other Orders before it, this would no doubt he pointed out as a method of conducting business peculiar to the Irish House of
  708
  Commons. It did not follow, that when the House met at twelve, it should of necessity adjourn at four; it was in the discretion of those present at the morning sitting to pass a Resolution resolving that the sitting should go on continuously till twelve o'clock at night. The practice of taking morning sittings upon Fridays defeated both the letter and the spirit of the arrangement contemplated by the Standing Order of 1861, two hours of the time which it was the object of those Standing Orders to give to private Members being practically de ducted by the morning sitting. There had already been one or two counts-out on Friday evenings, and he believed no arrangement was more likely to facilitate the recurrence of such events than a practice of taking morning sittings, and then suspending business for two hours. It might be said that the House was constantly in the habit of fixing morning sittings upon Tuesday, when Notices of Motion had precedence over the Orders; but no Standing Order specially applicable to that day had been passed. By the old law of the House Notices of Motion had precedence on every day of the week; but in 1811, for the first time, precedence was given on certain days to Orders of the Day, Tuesday remaining ever since under the old law. For the reasons which he had just given he begged to move that the Order relating to the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill be read for the purpose of being discharged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order of the 3rd day of May last, for the House to resolve itself into the Committee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill To-morrow at Twelve of the clock be read, for the purpose of being discharged."—(Mr. Butt.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Youghal has made a Motion to discharge an Order made by the House itself. His address has properly been made rather to the House than to myself; I should desire, before putting the Question, to consult the House, whether it would be its pleasure that I should remind the House exactly of what the practice has been. Before the year 1861 the practice was that Tuesdays and Fridays were the days on which morning sittings were ordinarily appointed; and on Fridays, when there had been a morning sitting, and a Motion had to be made in the evening that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday, the House met on those occasions at six o'clock exactly, as it would

  709
  meet at six now for going into Committee of Supply. Therefore, there is no further limitation put upon the discussion of the notices of individual Members by the Order as it now stands, than existed under the former Orders. But in May 1861 the House passed the Standing Order which has been referred to, and the House immediately proceeded to put its own interpretation upon that Standing Order, holding that it had not reference to the morning sittings, but only to the evening sittings; because the House, when the matter was fresh in its recollection, proceeded to appoint morning sittings on Fridays through the months of June and July in that year, and that practice was continued through the last Session of Parliament. With regard to the violation of the Standing Order, the same violation of the Order and practice takes place every Tuesday on which a morning sitting takes place. On Tuesdays, Notices of Motion have precedence of Orders; and so they still have in the evening sittings, but not in the morning. Therefore, both the order and usage of the House equally maintain the distinction between the morning and the evening sitting. It is now for the House to consider whether any reason has been given which should induce it to discharge this Order and to depart from its established practice.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the practice was new, commencing in 1861, in consequence of the Report of a Committee of which Sir James Graham was Chairman. There was, however, no foundation for the attempt to rescind the Order for going into Committee on the Fisheries Bill at the meeting of the House at twelve o'clock tomorrow. The practice of the House was altered in May 1861, and immediately afterwards morning sittings were held on Fridays, at which Bills, and not Supply, were taken. Last year the House also fixed Bills for morning sittings on Friday, Supply being taken, as now, when the House resumed at six o'clock. The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was therefore in opposition to all precedent, and, if it were agreed to, would only obstruct business.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope that the House will not go into a discussion of morning sittings. I trust that after the very clear and conclusive statement which you. Sir, have made as to the intention with which the Order in question was passed, and the practical construction which the House has put upon the Order, the hon.
  710
  and learned Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion, but that he will be satisfied with the authoritative declaration as to the rule and practice of the House.
  COLONEL DUNNEthought that due notice ought to be given by the Government of these morning sittings. He had a Motion on the paper to-morrow night relative to Ireland, which he had been endeaing to bring on all the Session, and he despaired of bringing it on to morrow if the House did not meet before six o'clock. He could not but feel that the Government had the power of getting rid of almost any Motion of independent Members by neglecting to make a House at six o'clock.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he did not wish to press his Motion.
  MR. SCULLYmust say that it was a great inconvenience to Irish Members not to know when morning sittings were to be appointed. He was told that the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave notice on Friday that there would be a morning sitting on Tuesday. The report in The Times was quite correct in this respect; but he was told that the Order for the meeting of the House on Tuesday was carried on Monday night. He therefore came down on Tuesday morning at great inconvenience, when he found that there was no morning sitting. He now learnt that there was to be a morning sitting to-morrow; but until he saw the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal on the paper, he was ignorant of the fact. He thought the notice ought to be put on the paper of the intention to move for a morning sitting, so that it might not be snapped at in this manner.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that his hon. Friend gave notice in his place on Friday of his intention to propose that the House should meet on Tuesday morning to consider the Irish Fisheries Bill. The proper time for doing that was when the Bill was called on the Orders of the Day on Monday night. The House being, however, counted out on Monday, it was impossible for his noble Friend to make his Motion. If the hon. Gentleman had looked in the Votes on Wednesday, he would have seen that the Motion was made then.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the right hon. Baronet was under a mistake, because the fact was that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland actually made the Motion at half past four o'clock, and the Irish Members who waited all night to support

  711
  the Motion if necessary, and who were not in the House when it was made quietly in the early part of the evening, found to their surprise that the Order was passed over when the list was gone through.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having been a Member of the Committee of 1861, he begged to remind the House that one of the chief causes of the change was the laxity of practice on Supply nights, which made it impossible for hon. Members to know with certainty when the Motions in which they were interested would be taken. He thought, that when the Government proposed that the House should sit on a morning, more than one day's notice should be given.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he agreed with hon. Members who thought, that if this power were to be exercised in so off-hand a way, some notice should be given to the House. Those novelties and countings-out were enough to baffle the ingenuity of the oldest Members. What he wished to say was that those changes contravened very pointedly the arrangements which were made two years ago. The noble Lord not long since found himself constrained to give a pledge that on notice days the Government would make a House. They would make a House at twelve o'clock, when nobody wanted it. But if there were to be morning sittings on Fridays, the pledge which the noble Lord had given would be kept to the ear and broken to the hope. Those movements were uncommonly like what would be called sharp practice elsewhere, for they entirely baffled any hon. Gentleman who might have a notice on the paper for half past four o'clock on Fridays, and who, but for them, would have a fair start at that hour.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the difficulty would be removed by merely taking care that there should be due notice when it was intended that there should be a morning sitting. That appeared to be the only thing wanting in the case, and the only thing now complained of was that due notice had not been given.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

ENDOWED CHARITIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid: Sir, I would not ask the attention of the House to the subject of endowed charities upon this occasion, were it not that the point of view from which I wish it to look at them is totally different from that to which it has been of late accustomed. I wish it to look at a certain portion of the endowed charities of this country, not as a subject for taxation, but for reformation. I wish to point out the enormous and most melancholy waste of power which arises from our not making the best use of those vast revenues, which the piety, or the vanity, or the enlightenment of our forefathers has scattered broadcast over almost all those parts of England which were tolerably populous and prosperous in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This waste of power, Sir, is all the more to be deplored, because it reduces the funds at our command for educational purposes almost to a level with countries over which the storm of revolution swept at the end of last century. In these countries, the kind of endowments of which I speak have generally ceased to exist; with us they continue to exist, but have become well-nigh useless. My object, Sir, in putting, some months ago, my notice upon the order book, with a view of bringing it on before going into the Educational Estimates, was to press upon the House what seems to me the very wise and statesmanlike proposal of the Education Commissioners who reported in 1861. That proposal, if carried out, will, I feel, at once diminish the sum which we vote for elementary education upon the Estimates, and will very greatly improve alike our elementary and our middle class education. In order, Sir, that I may impart into the few remarks which I wish to make as few facts which may be gainsaid as possible, I will make use of no instances of abuse of charities except those which are to be found in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, or in the Report made to them by their very able and zealous assistant, Mr. Cumin, which has been published under their authority. There are some most flagrant cases of abuse of charitable foundations, which I had marked for especial notice; but the country has recently, I need not say how, become so well acquainted with them, that it will be unnecessary for me to say a word about the Coventry charities, or about

  713
  Lovejoy's charity, or about that charity which has damned to everlasting fame the name and the folly of "Old Jarvis." It is more than probable that many hon. Members who have not given special attention to this subject have a very inadequate idea of the enormous amount of our endowed charities. The following sentences from the Report of the Commissioners of 1861 may, then, give them some idea of the magnitude of the interests which are being compromised by our pre sent system, or want of system, in our charity administration:—
  "The aggregate income of all the charities of England and Wales, educational, 'for the poor,' and for specific objects of other kinds, was in 1818–1837, £1,209,395. To this is to be added about one-fifth for subsequent increase of value. The Charity Commissioners had also, up to 1856, ascertained and registered the particulars of more than 3,000 charities of all descriptions, which had either been founded since the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, or had escaped their notice."
  Our endowed charities fall for the most part into six great classes:—(1.) Endowments now applicable to education; (2.) Loan Charities; (3.) Dole Charities; (4) Miscellaneous Charities, which have become impossible of execution; (5.) Apprenticeship Charities; and (6.) Alms Houses. I shall have a little to say of each of these in their order. The charities now applicable to educational purposes are of three kinds:—Classical schools, schools which are not classical, and endowments set apart for educating a certain number of children. In all these three classes great abuses prevail, and few indeed of them are doing as much for the public service as they ought to do. To make only a selection:—In the first place, for these vices, parents are aided by them in educating, clothing, and maintaining their children to a greater extent than is necessary. The leading case of abuse in this respect, is Christ's Hospital, where, amongst other things, £5,104 per annum is thrown away upon dressing the unfortunate boys in a mountebank costume; that is to say, the means of educating a thousand more hoys is squandered. Christ's Hospital, however, is merely one amongst many. A long list of similar schools—orange, blue, grey, and I do not know what, is given in Mr. Cumin's Report. One of the most ridiculous of these is Worrell's School, in the parish of St. Giles, Cripple gate, the boys of which are known, from their remarkable costume, as "yellow-hammers." Of this costume no one has a
  714
  good word to say but the rector, who thinks that any objection to it is overweighed by its picturesque appearance in church, and by the fact that it is a visible commemoration of a great event in national history. I do not wish to detain the House, otherwise I could read cases of this, which I have called the first vice of our endowed schools, gathered together from all England. For Mr. Cumin has collected some twenty cases for the Commissioners, and for us; but his Report is or ought to be in all our hands, and so it may be enough to refer to it The second great vice of endowed schools is, that they very often do not supply the kind of education which is wanted. There are many cases in which these schools are quite, or almost empty, because they offer only a classical education, and there is no demand for a classical education in the places with which they are connected. This vice is profusely illustrated in Mr. Cumin's Report. A third vice in our educational charities is the small amount of the little rent-charges which are often devoted to the educating one or more children. They are so small as to be practically useless; whereas, if they could be combined, they might often be made very useful. Then the masters of our endowed schools are often very incompetent, and there is no proper inspection. The whole of them, in short, require to be overhauled. But this is not all; there are in the country many other charities, not originally intended for educational purposes, which might, with great advantage to the poor, be wholly or partially employed for their education. First, then, Sir, we have the loan charities, the amount of which is very large, though not accurately ascertained, and with regard to which the Assistant Commissioner says, that so far as he is able to ascertain, the loans do little, if any good. Some of them appear to be mismanaged, while others have large sums lying in bank, which they are unable to use, for want of applications. Then come dole charities, representing an income of £200,000 a year, which is frittered away for purposes almost always useless, and generally mischievous. To this class belongs the charity of the immortal Jarvis; and the Smith charity, which is devoted to panperizing the Smiths; and the Guy charity, which is devoted to pauperizing the Guys. On these I will not dwell longer; but surely, while still keeping them for the poor, they might be so employed as to aid the education of the

  715
  poor. Next, there is a large class of charities, the objects of which have become impossible of execution. Thus a tobacconist left a field, with directions that the rental should be held in trust to supply six poor women with snuff at Barthelemy tide. The field became valuable building land. If all the revenue bad been devoted to buying snuff, the old women would have been buried in it. Should not this, which is only one absurd case taken out of many, be dealt with by the Legislature in a comprehensive measure, and the revenue no longer wanted for snuff applied, either to improve the quality and quantity of our education, or to diminish the Parliamentary grant, instead of being dealt with by Court of Chancery under the doctrine of ci-pres? Another flagrant case, to which the same remarks apply, is that of the Society for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, where, under a very recent Act of Parliament, a few gentlemen have now the power to devote to any charitable purposes they please the income arising from a capital of more £100,000. Another thoroughly bad class of charities are the Apprenticeship Charities. Will the House believe that not less than £50,000 a year is devoted to this purpose? This kind of charity is not only useless, but positively detrimental, because good workmen are not tempted by the small premiums which are given, and bad workmen are tempted to take boys into their service. The whole might be devoted to the direct encouragement of education, and taken in aid of the Parliamentary grant for pupil teachers, without the slightest injustice to anybody; or might be used as prizes in the nature of exhibitions to be given to the best scholars in the districts to which the Apprenticeship Charities are now attached, prises in the nature of exhibitions, intended to enable clever and deserving children to remain longer at school than the necessities of their parents might otherwise permit them to do. Then there are Alms Houses, with which the Commissioners of 1861 do not propose to deal. Perhaps they are right, but many of them are so badly managed that they do nothing but harm, and I fear too often the only persons who profit by them are often people who, under the title of masters, laugh and grow fat upon comfortable sinecures. We have seen the gross annual income of these charities, and we can compare it with the amount of the educational Vote which lies before us. Let us look at them now in another way. Let us take the case of three
  716
  counties, Bedford, Middlesex, and Lancashire, and see what large grants are made for their education by Parliament in spite of the numbers and wealth of their charitable foundations. The annual income of the Bedford charities in 1859 amounted to £13,720 15 s. 6d. Yet the county of Bedford received from 1833 to 1859 a sum of £18,388 11 s. 8d. in aid of its elementary education. The charities of Middlesex, including London and Westminster, amounted to £303,151 13 s. 1d. per annum. Yet Middlesex, including London and Westminster, received from 1833 to 1859, £296,570 0s. 4½d. from the lavish bounty of Parliament. The income of the Lancashire charities is £35,322 9s. 1d.; yet Lancashire received, during the same period, £386,539 7s. 5½d. The annual amounts which I mention are those of all endowed charities taken together in Bedford, Middlesex, and Lancashire respectively. But these three counties possessed an annual revenue of £1,985 12 s. 10 d., £81,682 5s. 8d., and £19,459 13 s. 11 d. respectively, belonging exclusively to charities which are even now treated as educational charities. And yet, in spite of all these funds, which, if tolerably regulated, ought to be amply sufficient, enormous sums were yearly drawn from the public to fill the void which is caused by local mismanagement and want of central direction. In the words of Mr. Cumin—
  "One year's income of the Middlesex Charities, including London and Westminster, exceeds all the grants towards education in the same county during the last twenty-six years. Eighteen months' income of the Bedford Charities would have supplied all the grants towards education made to the same county during twenty-six years. In the wealthy county of Lancashire, which has received most money from the Education Grant—a sum, in fact, of £386,539 within the last twenty-six years—it seems that, according to the digest, the charities amount to £35,222 per annum. But large as the Government grant is, it would have been covered by applying to education less than half the annual income of the charities."
  It is no part, Sir, of my object to go in detail into the question of the best remedy for the evils which I have pointed out. I have merely wished to call the attention of the House to the existence of great evils, and, above all, of great waste; to press upon it the recommendation of the Commission of 1861, to re-invigorate the Charity Commission by connecting it with a department of the Privy Council, and making the Committee of Council on Education the Committee on Education and Charities. Since I put my notice on the paper,

  717
  Government has shown itself not unwilling to deal with the question, and I sincerely trust that it will ere long bring forward some comprehensive measure upon this most important subject. There will be much opposition from two quarters—from those whose interests or fancied interests will suffer, and from those whose bugbear is centralization. Against the first, a Government will be sure to prevail, if once the honest opinion of the country is certainly on its side. With regard to the second, I submit, that although too much centralization is a very bad thing, too little centralization is just as bad. Let those whose bugbear is centralization go and preach decentralization in Paris, where a single man controls, by touching the wire of the telegraph, all the public functionaries, and all the newspapers from the Pyrenees to the Belgian frontier; let them go and preach centralization in Vienna, where M. Schmerling is perilling the splendid constitutional experiment which Austria is now making by too much neglecting the traditions of local liberties; but let them not run away with the idea that centralization is necessarily an evil in a country where no step can be taken in that direction without encountering an opposition which it will be utterly unable to surmount unless the reason of the country is convinced, and where a long practice of constitutional Government has made each Minister wise enough to remember that his successor will probably be his enemy. On a former occasion, when I had the honour to propose the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into our public and endowed schools, the Government met me half-way, and appointed a Commission to inquire into our public schools. I cannot expect them to go so far in this case, because it may be doubted whether public opinion on the subject to which I have now called attention is altogether matured; but I trust the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me will say a little on the subject, in order that we may know that the en lightened opinions which we heard some weeks ago were not those of only one member of the Government, however eminent.

REPORTS OF INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council of Education, Upon what conditions be in-
718
tends to allow the publication of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools for the information of the House. As far as he could gather from the reply given to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch (Sir John Pakington) in the early part of the Session, the plan his right hon. Friend intended to act upon was to suppress everything in the Reports which did not coincide with his own views, and to publish only what he himself approved. Many Members held that, to save expense, as few Reports as possible should be published; but the present question was not at all one of expense. The printing of the Inspectors' Reports in a complete form would add only in an inappreciable degree to the expense of the blue-book. It had been deemed desirable by the House and the Government that the results of the experience of the Inspectors should not be confined to the Education Office, but should be communicated to Parliament. That had been the usual practice, until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), when Vice President, formed the opinion that the Reports were rather redundant, and contained irrelevant matter. He accordingly issued instructions to the Inspectors to divide their Reports into different heads, selections from which were to be given in the blue-book. At that time, the right hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Government side of the House sat on the benches opposite, and thought it very important that the House should receive the information furnished by the Inspectors exactly as they gave it to the office. His right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works moved that the Reports should be laid on the table of the House unaltered and unabridged. There was a debate on the subject, in which the noble Viscount, the President of the Board of Trade, and other Members of the present Government supported the Motion, and the result was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) gave way, and issued a circular in which he expressly requested the Inspectors, after giving a statement of the condition of their schools, to add any practical suggestions which their experience furnished. Last year, however, his right hon. Friend effected a great change, not only in the conditions of the grant, but in the mode in which the Inspectors conducted their examination of the schools. That was just one of those measures on which the House would desire to have

719
practical information; but, at the very same time, the right hon. Gentleman issued a Minute which had never been published, but the sense of which, as he gathered from the reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, was, that if a Report contained anything of which the Vice President disapproved, it was to be sent back to the author for revision; and if after that it still contained matter which was objected to, it was not to be published. Now, in Yorkshire they had one of the ablest and most experienced of the Inspectors—Mr. Watkins—of whom a very high opinion was entertained in that part of the country, and whose Reports, he was sure, were all very valuable. Last year Mr. Watkins sent in a Report, which was returned to him to be altered; and as he declined to do so, the Report was not published. The Reports of two other Inspectors for last year were also suppressed; and he had heard that this year the Reports of Mr. Watkins and of two other gentlemen were to share a similar fate. In his opinion the House had also a right to complain that the blue-book had not been presented before they were called on to vote the money. There was no reason whatever for any delay, because the Inspectors were instructed to make up their accounts, and send in their Reports in January. If the blue-book was to be of any use to Members, it ought to be delivered before they passed the Estimates. He doubted, however, whether, under the peculiar management of his right hon. Friend the Vice President, the Reports would be of much value to the House, because they would either contain no opinions at all, or opinions all on one side of the case. He should, however, like to see the Report of the Committee of Council, and the Minute containing instructions to the Inspectors, the existence of which he should have hesitated to believe but for the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the right hon. Member for Droitwich. The right hon. Gentleman's reason why Mr. Watkins's Report was not printed was because it contained "controversial matter." He supposed that the House was not to infer that that meant polemical matter. He had never seen the Report, but he could not suppose that Mr. Watkins would do last year what he had never done before. No, Mr. Watkins's crime was that he had been so irreverent and blasphemous as to controvert opinions of the Vice President. What he wanted, then, was—first, the
720
information, unaltered and abridged, which Mr. Watkins had communicated; and second, an interpretation of what his right hon. Friend meant by "controversial matter." This was really a much more serious question than it at first appeared. It was not a question between the Council and the Inspectors, but between the Council and the House. The Reports were worth nothing unless they contained a full and complete expression of the opinions and experience of the Inspectors for the information of the House, and he held that they ought to be produced in that form. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to publish the unabridged Reports. The House ought to be allowed to judge for itself. If the Reports were not such as should be placed before the public, the right hon. Gentleman would stand acquitted; but if they were practical suggestions by able and experienced men, the House would derive considerable advantage from them in discussing the Education Estimates.
MR. LOWE: Sir, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that this is a matter of considerable importance. It amounts to this—whether in the Education Department there shall or shall not be that discipline which exists, and is found necessary, in every other Department of the State. The facts may be briefly stated—The Inspectors of Schools report to the Council Office, and the Council Office, having received their Reports, is to judge whether or not it is expedient to lay them before Parliament, printed as an appendix to its own Report. The hon. Gentleman asked me on what conditions I propose to exercise that discretion, and he said, that according to the present mode of dealing with them, the Reports of the Inspectors are "cooked." Now the fact is, as appears from his own statement, that they are not "cooked," but are sent back to the Inspectors for alteration and correction. The Council Office declines to interfere with them.
MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that he did not mean to convey the impression that the Reports were "cooked." What he intended to say was, that the blue-book was "cooked"—as containing nothing but one-sided statements.
MR. LOWE: The blue-book contains the Reports, and the Reports, says the hon. Gentleman, are not "cooked." How does the cookery get into the book? Of course, I may not be able to give a very definite or satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman,

721
but I shall give the best I can. It was in my time that the Minute was made to which he has alluded, and which declares that the Reports of the Inspectors ought to be confined to the state of the schools examined by them, and to practical suggestions for their improvement. That was no new doctrine, but was the result we drew from an examination of a great number of instructions issued by our predecessors. We accompanied that Minute with a statement to the effect, that if it appeared to us that a Report did not conform to the prescribed conditions, we should send it back to the Inspector, requesting him to make the necessary alterations. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless say, "Why not point out to the Inspector the parts to which you object?" That is an open question; but the reason why we have not acted thus is because we found, when we did point out the objectionable parts of the Reports, that we got into controversy with the Inspectors, who naturally defended what they had written, and refused to make the requisite corrections. They said that what we required was garbling, or, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, "cooking" their Reports. We therefore thought it best to send the Reports back without remark, leaving the Inspectors, who are gentlemen of great intelligence, and who know perfectly well what we mean, to make the necessary alterations themselves; but intimating that if the Reports were not made to conform to our Minute, we should not lay them before Parliament. That is the practice which has prevailed for the last two years. The hon. Gentleman represents me as saying in effect, that if the Inspectors agree with me, I will print their Reports, but not otherwise. I need hardly say that there is nothing of the kind in our Minute. I am afraid I cannot lay down any exact conditions under which we may think it proper to print the Reports; but I can tell the hon. Gentleman some cases in which we do not think it right that the Reports should be laid before the public. We do not think it proper to print and lay before the public a Report in which the writer states that the rural population of England are in the lowest state of vice and depravity, and that this is owing to their being of the Protestant religion. Nor do we think it proper to publish the Report of an Inspector who says, "I am not allowed to go into the discussion of matters on which your Lordships have made Minutes, but I may tell you what I constantly hear in my district;
722
they say—" and then follows everything that could he advanced injurious to the policy of the Department. I do not say that these matters are not open to controversy, but I hold it to be almost impossible to work any Department of State unless those gentlemen who fill subordinate offices in it, and on whose assistance the chiefs must rely, are loyal to the Department. They are not to surrender their opinions, to which they have as much right as any other persons in the world; and, indeed, their opinions may be more valuable than those of the men whom accident may have made their superiors in office—but, at any rate, they should maintain silence if they cannot agree with the heads of their Department. No person will say that subordinates ought to be allowed to write controversial letters in the newspaper disputing the policy of their superiors. So with respect to official Reports laid before this House. I hold that it is the clear duty of every Department to prevent the writers of Reports from entering into controversy as to matters decided upon by the chiefs of the Office—in other words, as to the policy of the Department. It is also the duty of every Department to prevent these gentlemen from entering into arguments in support of its policy. If the one is to be excluded, the other should be excluded also. Such Reports—Reports, for example, in which you find something like this—"I know I ought not to go into these questions; but if I had been permitted to do so, I should have said" so and so, giving along string of objections to the existing system—are not fit to be laid before the public. That is the view upon which we have acted with respect to the Reports made to us. If the House chooses to say that the Inspectors are to report directly to it, of course we shall instruct them to obey the order; but if the Reports are to pass through our hands, I hold it to be the first principle of official duty to enforce that sort of reticence and reserve which all official men are bound to practise. Men do not necessarily agree in opinion because they act together. They reserve those opinions on which they do not agree; and no public Department, but particularly one which has a most difficult and even invidious duty to perform, can be expected to carry on its operations with success, if it is to be obliged to print controversies maintained against itself by the very persons whom it employs to carry out the objects intrusted to its charge.
I come now to the Question of the hon.

723
Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff). I have no doubt the case he has stated is true in all its outlines, and rests upon evidence that cannot be refuted; but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says he thinks that the proposal of the Commissioners on Education, with respect to the mode of dealing with charities, ought to be adopted. That proposal is, that charities ought to be handed over to the Committee of Council for Education, who should decide on all matters connected with them, subject to an appeal to another Committee of Council. I will not insist on the great anomaly of an appeal from one Committee of the Privy Council to another, but it appears to me that the Commissioners concluded rather hastily that a necessity existed for disturbing the present arrangement. I am one of the Charity Commissioners, and I have no hesitation in saying that a more excellent or a more efficient tribunal does not exist. I can make that assertion without any breach of good taste, because I have no part in their decisions, being merely the medium of communication between them and the House of Commons. They have effected, and are effecting, immense improvements, and I cannot understand, no case being made against them, why those powers which they are using with so much discretion should be taken out of their hands. I think, further, that it would be most objectionable to arm any political Department with such powers. That would be placing in its hands an immense amount of local influence, and it would be quite impossible to escape the suspicion of partiality and corruption. When trustees have to be elected for a charity, there is sure to be a contest between the Whig and Tory parties, and how could a Department composed of gentlemen belonging to one or other of these great parties give anything like satisfaction? It appears to me, with every respect to the Commissioners, that their recommendation was ill-considered. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could throw out any suggestions on this subject. Let me offer some suggestions in the direction of improving and strengthening the machinery we already possess. In 1860 a Bill was passed for extending the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. It has been attended with beneficial results; but I was obliged to omit a few things which would enormously increase their power of doing good. One is that the Commissioners should be allowed to intervene in
724
the affairs of a charity, even though no inhabitant of the parish calls upon them to do so. The very cases which require interference most are in parishes where the people are so debauched, and so mixed up with the plunder of the charity, that not one of them will come forward and demand the assistance of the Commissioners. Let me suggest another improvement. It is now the law that the Commissioners can only intervene in the affair of a charity above £50 when they are applied to by a majority of the trustees. It is often very difficult to get a majority of trustees. I think that in such cases they should be permitted to act, unless expressly forbidden by a majority of the trustees. Again, the 14th section of the Act of 1860 allows a majority of the trustees to dismiss the schoolmaster, except in the case of a grammar school. If that exception were done away with, much litigation would be prevented. As to the charities themselves, it appears to me, upon the principles which regulate all kinds of property in this country, that it would be desirable to allow greater liberty to the Court of Chancery, after a certain period, to take cognizance of these matters. It seems to me desirable that not only the Charity Commissioners, but also the Court of Chancery, should have greater liberty in dealing with public bequests after a certain period had elapsed, and that in this respect charitable bequests should be put upon the same footing as private bequests, There should also be a larger power of dealing, with charities for which no one has a word to say. If anything is done, it should be in the direction of strengthening the existing machinery. With regard to educational charities, with which I feel more particularly concerned, I cannot wish very much that the number of endowed charities for the education of the poor were increased; for they seem to me very inefficient for their object, and to be likely to continue so It appears to me that the State has undertaken, by founding an Educational Department, to endow poor schools in the best way in which that can be done, if it is done at all—namely, by giving money only in exchange for efficiency as tested by examination and other means. It is precisely in that point that all endowed charities are deficient. Whether they are well or ill-conducted, they receive their money just the same. I may here mention that an alteration has been lately made by the Committee of Council in this respect. Heretofore it has been the

725
practice in making grants to schools to take no notice at all of their endowments, and to apportion them their share of the grant wholly irrespective of their endowments. That has very often led to great mischief and waste, because grants were given to schools which were already possessed of abundant resources. A new regulation has therefore been adopted, by which, wherever a school has an endowment, the amount of such endowment is subtracted from the amount of the grant. By that means endowments will be applied in aid of the educational grant; and that is the utmost we can accomplish with our present powers.
MR. WALTER: I confess, Sir, that I am more struck with the courage than with the discretion of my right hon. Friend in vindicating the course which the Committee of Privy Council on Education has thought proper to adopt in regard to the Inspectors of Schools. I think that that course is an extremely invidious one, and that it must necessarily detract largely from the weight due to the Reports made to this House. Indeed, I cannot see the use of those Reports unless they afford us information on which we can rely, bearing upon a difficult question which from time to time comes under our discussion. The Department of Education has thought proper to adopt certain arrangements for carrying on the educational system of the country. Some of those arrangements I hold to be extremely impolitic and unjust. I wish to know how they work; and where are we to look for information on that point, except in the Reports of the Inspectors? I happen to know that some of the Inspectors agree with me, and do not agree with my right hon. Friend. I want to ascertain, for example, how the pupil teacher system works. My right hon. Friend says that the Department has determined on certain principles, and that the Inspectors have no right to inquire into them or call them in question. But I am anxious to know from gentlemen of experience, who have the best opportunity of seeing and judging of the practical operation of those principles, how they actually do work; for it is by that means only that we can get at the truth. I happen to know that the Reports of several of the Inspectors have been so garbled by the Education Office that when presented to this House, if they are to be presented, and I believe they will not, they would be quite worthless. But where, I repeat, are we to look for
726
information to guide us, if not to the Resorts of these experienced gentlemen? Certainly, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) moves on a future occasion for the production of the Inspectors' Reports as sent in to the Committee of Privy Council, I shall give him my hearty support, and I trust the House will agree to that Motion. If any body will compare the Reports of the Inspectors as now laid before the House with those of the gentlemen on whose Reports he Report of the Royal Commissioners was winded, they will perceive a marked difference between the two. The Inspectors sent out by the Royal Commissioners, at all events, spoke the truth as it presented itself to their own minds. They complained of many things in the system of the Privy Council; Mr. Frazer, in particular, pointed out the preposterous length to which some of the Privy Council regulations were pushed. He showed that no school was allowed to receive the grant in which the desks were not of a particular pattern—namely, parallel desks—a restriction altogether absurd and ridiculous. That was the opinion formed by Mr. Frazer, after much experience. He also arrived at the conclusion that the masters' certificate was not necessary to be enforced. There are many points of that kind which these gentlemen, in making their Reports, lay before the Royal Commissioners; and those Reports are valuable precisely because the men who drew them up were perfectly free to express their own opinions. But if the Reports of School Inspectors are to be suppressed whenever they happen to be distasteful to the feelings or unfavourable to the policy of the Privy Council Office, they will not be worth a farthing; and it is mere playing with this House, and presuming upon its ignorance, to lay them before it. I trust, therefore, that the House will express itself so strongly on this matter that these Reports will not in future be kept back or tampered with, but that we shall be permitted to know, upon the authority of gentlemen most competent to judge, how the present system is really working.
MR. ADDERLEYpresumed that the object of having Reports from the Inspectors of Schools year by year was that they might know the condition of the schools for which they voted public money. He must confess, that for years before he had the honour of holding office in the Education Department he thought the School Inspectors had made Reports full of most

727
irrelevant matter, often almost degenerating into abstract disquisitions on the theory of Education, instead of giving an account of the condition of the schools to which public money was applied. He had therefore attempted to correct the character of the Reports by laying down a rule that they should be arranged under different heads, about five in number—such as the state of the school buildings, the state of education in the schools, the school apparatus; and the last head was a general one—namely, any suggestions which the Inspector wished to make. That proposal of his was brought under discussion in that House, when the House evidently thought it would be better not to lay down rules for shaping Reports in the office; and therefore he abandoned his proposition for reducing them under specific heads; but he distinctly retained for the Department the power—which he felt it not only his right, but his duty to do—of striking out of the Reports, notwithstanding that expression of the House's opinion, what appeared to be irrelevant matter, and such contents as were clearly not of the nature of a Report. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) sought to make the Inspectors the censors of their own Reports. Whether that plan was better than his he would not undertake to say; but the two plans had the same object—namely, to confine the Inspectors to a statement of the condition of the schools, and relevant suggestions about them. The House now seemed to take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, having apparently understood his remark, that the Inspectors had no business to enter into controversy with the office, to imply that he meant they had no right to impugn his policy. For himself, he still was of opinion that it was not the province of the Inspectors to enter into controversy on the theory of education or on the policy of the Government. The Minister who had the conduct of the Department was responsible to that House, which had laid down the general rules for his guidance, and intrusted the Department with by-legislation subject to their sanction. The School Inspectors were not responsible to that House, and their office was simply to inform the Department how their grants were being applied. It was natural, perhaps, that gentlemen of such high mental calibre and attainments as those Inspectors should travel a little beyond the sphere of the humble duty
728
assigned them by the Department, and when they had the opportunity should indulge in the display of their powers to deal with the philosophy of education; but it was distinctly incumbent on the Minister to prevent the abuse of that opportunity. Would the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) say, that if an Inspector sent in, under the disguise of a Report, what was really a pamphlet on Education, it was the duty of the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council to publish that pamphlet at the public expense and lay it on the table? [Mr. W. E. FORSTER expressed dissent.] If, then, the hon. Gentleman would not lay down broadly the proposition that these Reports should not be revised by the Office in order that irrelevant matter might be expunged, the simple question remaining was, whether in any specific case the right hon. Gentleman had not gone beyond that length, and struck out of any Report sent to him what he ought not to have struck out. It was a specific and not a general question that was before the House. Instead, therefore, of laying down a general proposition which would be disadvantageous to the public service, let the hon. Member move for the particular Report in regard to which he maintained that a too strigent censorship had been exercised. That was the legitimate way for the hon. Member to proceed, and he concluded that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would not resist the Motion, and then the House would be able to judge whether or not the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that unfortunately there appeared to be a natural antipathy between the Vice President and Inspectors. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given the weight of his authority to mislead the House as to the question before it. Nobody had said that Inspectors were to be allowed to put in their Reports just what they liked. All they objected to was that the Vice President should constitute himself, or force the Inspectors to constitute themselves, censors of their Reports, for the purpose of keeping out, not philosophical disquisitions, not matters which were totally irrelevant, but matters which were disagreeable to the Minister of the day. The Vice President had talked about the necessity of loyalty to the Department, and about not allowing subordinates to enter into discussion with the

729
Department on delicate subjects; but there was one thing more important than loyalty to a Department, and that was loyalty to the House of Commons. This arrangement, by which the Inspectors were bound in every case to back up the Vice President, by which they were forbidden to say anything to which he might object, or in any way to condemn the policy to which he had pledged himself, seemed to him to be nothing less than a conspiracy for keeping truth from the House of Commons. The Vice President had no independent interest in the matter; he held his office merely to carry out the principles of which the House approved; and he came forward and said that he had a right to intercept, in its way to the House, the evidence on which they were to judge of his policy. A more—courageous it had been said, but he must say outrageous—proposition had never been submitted to them. It was perfectly right that discipline should be maintained in the Education Office as in other public offices, but it should be maintained in the same way He did not object to discipline, but he objected to the instrument by which discipline was to be carried out in this case. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine that the Inspectors wrote their Reports, not for the instruction of the House, but for their own personal pleasure; and that if an Inspector did wrong, the way to punish him was to keep his Report from the eyes of Members. But conceive; the application of such a rule to the other Departments of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged a comparison. Well, take the Foreign Office. Suppose a Consul at Aleppo, Belgrade, or Constantinople had done anything to displease the noble Lord at the head of the Government, would it not be thought an extraordinary answer, if, when the Consul's despatches were moved for, they should be told that the Consul had been a naughty boy, and that it was impossible to lay his despatches before the House. Papers were written for the instruction of hon. Members, and not for the amusement of the persons who wrote them; and if the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to practice severe discipline with those under his charge, he must find some way of doing it other than that of keeping from the House information which the House required. It was worthy of remark that this difficulty had not arisen before. They had had two or three Vice
730
Presidents, and the system of Inspectors had been in existence twenty years, but never before bad there been any necessity to suppress the opinions of Inspectors. [Mr. LOWE: The necessity has arisen very often.] At all events, it has not been acted upon. [Mr. LOWE: Yes it has.] Then the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity, through one of his Colleagues, of stating the facts to which his interruption referred; but he doubted very much whether any previous Vice President had ever dared to mutilate a Report presented to the House, because it contained expressions hostile to his own policy, He could only remember one analogous case—that of the noble Viscount mutilating or suppressing despatches relating to Affghanistan; and he doubted whether among the noble Viscount's titles to fame that would take a very prominent place. He wanted the House to bear in mind bow the conflict had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman was an eccentric theorist; the Inspectors, being practical men, were obliged, in the execution of their duty, to report facts at variance with the right hon. Gentleman's theories. That was the reason why the difficulty had arisen. Previous Vice Presidents had not been theorists, and they had not quarrelled with their Inspectors. If they found the head of an Office, not brought up in it, systematically quarrelling with those in it, they might safely conclude that there was something wrong; and when practice and theory were so openly at variance, it was most probable that the theory was to be condemned. The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to a missive recently directed against the Inspectors. The Inspectors were men of education and high standing, and they were paid high salaries. This made them inconveniently independent men, who would not report what the Vice President desired. They would hold opinions of their own, and these opinions were disagreeable to the Vice President. It was therefore deemed desirable, if possible, to substitute for them a more dependent class of men. The right hon. Gentleman, fully alive to the necessities of his own position, had issued a Minute to constitute a set of assistant Inspectors—of men who had been pupil-teachers, who were to be paid only £100 a year, and who were to be intrusted with the power of sitting in judgment upon the managers of schools in the country, and of deciding whether they had conducted

731
the schools in such a way as to deserve the continuation of the grant from the Treasury. These assistant Inspectors, however efficient they might be, he need not tell the House, would be more humble slaves to the Vice President than the Inspectors. He did not know whether these assistant Inspectors were to send in Reports, but the decision whether the schools should receive the Parliamentary grants or not was to be committed to men who were to receive £100 a year, and who themselves had been pupil-teachers in the schools which they were called upon to examine. It was a serious degradation of the office of Inspector, and a still more serious degradation to which the conductors of schools would have to submit. It was all a part of the bureaucratic plan of the Vice President, by which he hoped to master his own office, so that when he appeared before Parliament there should be no one to bear testimony against him, and all the information for the guidance of the House should be percolated through himself, to the exclusion of all that was disagreeable or discordant to his views. He trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would take an early opportunity of moving for the Reports, so that they might have a definite issue before them.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would be much to be regretted if the statements made that evening should lead to a recurrence of what was a great evil some years ago—namely, the inordinate length of the reports of the Inspectors of Schools. Having, for several years, carefully looked at these Reports, he knew that as far as the convenience of Members was concerned, a great improvement had been effected, and, instead of a large mass of verbiage, Members had the views of the Inspectors submitted to their consideration in a clear and concise form. He had the highest opinion of Mr. Watkins, and he believed Mr. Watkins had done much for the cause of education, but he was a special offender in this respect. He found that in three years taken at random, the length of his Reports was respectively 78 pages, 84 pages, and 92 pages; while the average length of the reports of the other Inspectors in the same period was only 50 pages, and one most valuable Report did not exceed 40 pages. On the other hand, however, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President) would not persevere in his intention to refuse the House an opportunity of seeing what the views of the Inspectors were on
732
the controverted questions which it had to decide. If he did, the Reports would be looked upon as garbled, and the very object he had in view would not be accomplished. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should say to the Inspectors, not "I will refuse to print your reports," but "I object to your going into long arguments and disquisitions upon matters about which the House does not want you to report." What the House wanted to know was the results of their experience as to the working of the present law, the requirements of the particular districts visited, and the recommendations which they deemed necessary to make for improvements in the system.
MR. FERRANDunderstood the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President) to say that the Charity Commissioners possessed the confidence of the people, and that they should have larger powers on account of the power generally brought to bear in the election of trustees. In his own town he could answer for it that they had appointed trustees of a charity without any political bias. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Charity Commissioners should have more power in consequence of the political bias which existed throughout the country; but, in truth, it was the political bias of the Charity Commissioners themselves which had given such offence to the country. He had always looked upon the Charity Commission as a gross Whig job, and he believed that there was not a single Commissioner, assistant Commissioner, or other official connected with it who was not a Whig; while the vacancies which had taken place during the tenure of office of the present Government had invariably been filled up by the appointment of members of the Liberal party. That being the case, he should like to know from the Vice President of the Committee of Council how he could suppose, that if further powers were placed in the hands of the Commission, their duties could be likely to be discharged in a manner satisfactory to the country?
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he had often looked into the Reports formerly published by Inspectors of Schools, and that he had been struck by the fact, that whenever an article appeared in any of the Quarterly Reviews on the subject of popular education, he was sure to find a reprint of the article in those Reports, and that the same statements and arguments were repeated in them year after year almost ad nauseam.

733
For his part, therefore, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the course which he had adopted.
MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) seemed always to rejoice in the suppression of these Reports. At the close of the Session of 1861 he (Mr. Newdegate) complained to the House that out of three Inspectors of Roman Catholic schools the Reports of two of them were (suppressed, and one only was given to the House, which one was not of a satisfactory tenour. The hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) on that occasion declared that nothing could be more satisfactory to him than that the Vice President should keep the House in the dark on this subject. It now appeared that the same practice had been extended to the Reports of Inspectors of Schools other than Roman Catholic schools; and he really thought that the House was not justified in voting the public money upon the understanding that they were to be informed by Reports of the Inspectors, unless they had those Reports fully before them. If they were only to have one side of the question, and that the sunny side of this educational organization, presented to them, he thought that they would be better without any Reports at all, for such as were furnished would simply mislead them. It would be far better that the Vice President should give them his own account of what had been done, for then, at all events, the statement would be made on his own responsibility. He hoped that the House would represent to the right hon. Gentleman that they should find it their duty to express their opinion by a Motion and a division unless he corrected a practice which amounted to something like systematic delusion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman shielded and propped up his opinion by furnishing partial information—information that might assist his own views—whilst he suppressed those Reports which were adverse to his own opinion. This was a serious matter, considering the large sum which the House voted for education, and also considering that it was proposed to have an enlarged system of inspection; so that they would spend still more money on account of Reports which were furnished in so imperfect a manner.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(4.) Question again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £28,914, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for erecting and maintaining certain Light-houses Abroad."
Whereupon Question again proposed, "That the Item of £8,000, for the Little Basses Rocks Light-ship (re-Vote), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Childers.)
MR. CHILDERSasked for some explanation of this Vote. If satisfactory details were not given in relation to the item of £8,000 for the Little Basses Rocks Lightship, he should be compelled to take the course he had been about to press on a former occasion when the House was counted out—namely, of moving that the Vote be reduced by that amount.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that this sum was a re-Vote of the same amount voted last year, and which had been repaid to the Exchequer. The light-ship had arrived at Ceylon, but he did not know whether it had been actually moored or not. He knew that the ship was there, and that it must be paid for. The cause of the apparent delay in exhibiting the light from the ship was in consequence of a difficulty in securing a crew.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government were urged from the year 1826 to erect light-houses on the Great and Little Basses Rocks, which lay on the highway of the trade between India and this country. They took twenty-two years to consider the matter, and then from 1848 to 1854 inquiries were going on as to the best plan of lighting this part of the track. A proposal was made to place light-ships there; but on inquiry this was rejected. From 1854 to 1860 the Government came forward yearly asking Votes to place light-houses on each of the rocks, and thus £54,000 was obtained, and, he believed, spent. It was now said that the attempts to place the light-houses had been made, but had failed; however, he (Mr. Childers) had received different information, and believed that no efficient steps had been taken to put up the lighthouses. He thought that under the circumstances the Vote should he deferred for a year, to allow inquiries to be made.

735
No inconvenience would result, as the lightship had been paid for by the Bombay Government. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £8,000.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsupported the Amendment. There was no reason why the payment of this £8,000 should be thrown upon the taxpayers of England. Madras was the port which would benefit most by the proposed expenditure, and only 314 English ships annually left that port, as compared with 3,915 belonging to the island of Ceylon. There might have been some reason for showing consideration to the island of Ceylon at a time when its funds were not in a very flourishing state, but for the last five or six years it had enjoyed a considerable surplus revenue. He thought, therefore, there would be no hardship in making this charge fall upon Ceylon, which had by far the greatest interest in maintaining the lights.
MR. W. WILLIAMShoped the Government would agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers).
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUthought that the Government were bound to answer the statements which had been made with respect to this light-ship. Last year, the House had voted a sum for the crew of the light-ship, yet no crew had been appointed—and he believed, that would be repeated this year. If they did not, he should feel bound to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that two years ago the House sanctioned the lighting of the Little Basses Rocks by a lightship. A proposal was made for that purpose, and a sum of £8,000 was voted to carry it out. In accordance with the authority thus given to them, the executive Government had ordered the light-ship, which had been built at Bombay, on a plan approved by the Trinity House Board. The ship was now in Ceylon, and though the Government had no information on this point, it was very probable that she had been moored in her position. The money now asked for was necessary to pay for the ship. Whether it was right to attempt to light these rocks by a light-ship, he was not competent to say; but nautical men had given their opinion that, on the whole, a light-ship was the best plan of lighting for the place. Only one light would be placed there—on the Little Basses Rock—till it was proved whether a light-ship could remain there.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsuggested that the Government should endeavour to make Ceylon contribute to the cost of this light-ship.
MR. CHILDERSasked, on whose advice the plan of a light-ship had been adopted.
MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied, that the advice was founded on the recommendation of a Commission of several officers, well acquainted with the coast of Ceylon, which was approved by naval officers in this country.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHshould like to see the Report of those officers.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the papers containing the recommendation were in the Colonial Office, and he did not suppose there would be any objection to their production.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcalled attention to the item for the erection of a light-house at the Bahamas. He wished to know what was the nature of this lighthouse, whether it was to be built of stone or iron? He had been informed, that if built of stone, it would cost £35,000. There were already six light-houses in the Bahamas built for this country. As the ships which would be benefited by this light were chiefly colonial and American, he thought, that if more light-houses were required, the expense should be borne by the Colony. He would therefore propose that the Vote be reduced by this item—£9,000.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was a charge for a light-house in the Ionian Islands. Now, as these islands were to be surrendered to Greece, he thought that no further liability ought to be incurred by this country for them. The item in the Vote to which he referred was £300.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that hitherto we had paid for the erection of these light-houses, and as yet no alteration had been sanctioned. With regard to the Bahamas, if England did not put lighthouses on the dangerous keys and rocks which surrounded those islands, nobody else could do it, as nobody else had jurisdiction in the matter. To call upon the Bahamas themselves to pay for light-houses, was out of the question, because the inhabitants were not only very poor, but had no special interest in the lights, which were for the general trade. The American Go-

737
vernment had lighted the opposite side of the straits. This Vote had been always sanctioned, because it was felt that it was for this country to provide protection for its commerce.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHdid not see why the Colonial Government at the Bahamas should not be obliged to maintain these light-houses. The population only amounted to 27,000; but there was an increasing revenue of £36,000. If the Government of the Bahamas could afford to lay out £18,000 on a new hotel, they could afford to spend £9,000 on these light-houses.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Item of £9,000, for the Bahamas (Elbow and Great Stirrup Cay), re-Vote, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Augustus Smith,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) £6,000, Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland), agreed to.
(6.) £19,000, to complete the sum for Rates for Government property.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSrose to call attention to the Petitions presented from Deptford and Woolwich, complaining of the mode hitherto adopted in the distribution of the sum voted in aid of rates for Government property, and praying for an amended system of distribution. In 1858 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject. Sir George Lewis was chairman, and they unanimously recommended that all Government property should be liable to rates. A Bill was then introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who was then President of the Poor Law Board, which was read a second time, but did not proceed further. When the new Parliament met, Sir George Lewis, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was asked what were the intentions of Government in regard to the rating of Government establishments. Sir George stated that it was not intended to bring in a Bill, but that some arrangement satisfactory to the interests concerned would be proposed. With regard to the borough which he had the honour to represent (Greenwich), a valuation of the Government property in Woolwich and Deptford was made, and the Government, after some delay, paid the poor rates on that valuation. After paying the poor rates for two years, the Government, from some motive of economy, contended
738
that they ought only to pay that share which actually went to the relief of the poor. They consequently cut off about one-third of the poor rate, which went towards the county rate, the police, lunatic asylums, &c. The inhabitants of Woolwich thought this a great hardship, but they had no choice save to submit. The case of the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, was however peculiar. It was a very small parish, consisting of only seventy-five acres, of which the Government occupied about forty. The poor rates used to be 10 s. and 12 s. in the pound; and when the Government consented to pay the local assessments on Government property, it was felt to be a great relief in the parish. For many years, while the Government did not pay any rates, the persons who had yards in Deptford and carried on business there were burdened in their trade by the heavy rates that fell upon them. And more than that, the rates of 10 s. and 12 s. in the pound had the effect of making £10 houses amount to £16; and the consequence was that artisans and workmen were driven out of the parish, and they bought their meat and drink out of the parish also. In that parish the poor rates, which in 1861 were reduced by liberal payments on the part of the Government, were now about to be increased by the paltry economy which it was sought to carry out. Her Majesty's building yard was in the parish of St. Paul, which happened to be opulent; the Government property was valued at £6,000; they paid the rates for two years, and then they found that unless the ratable property of the Government amounted to one-sixth of that of the parish they were not bound to pay. In these days, especially when property on the Thames was so valuable, it was only fair that the same rules which applied to private property should also be applied to the property of the Government. It might be said that the parish of Deptford derived great advantage from having Her Majesty's Dockyard there; but it was no advantage at all, and a greater benefit could not be done to Deptford than to remove the dockyard altogether, for then they would have wealthy shipbuilders coming there, and Deptford would become an opulent parish, instead of being almost eleemosynary as it was now, asking Her Majesty's Government to pay that portion of the rates which they ought. He would not dare to risk dividing the Committee; but he would appeal to Her Majesty's Government and to every hon. Member in the

739
House to take this question into consideration, for there was no reason whatever why in these days Her Majesty's Government should take possession of this property and pay no rates at all.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, as the Committee had heard the representative of those who lived near the dockyard, it was only fair to hear what the representative of persons who were remote from the dockyard had to say. Now, the county he represented (Wexford) had no Government establishment; but his constituents would be glad to have one, and were willing that the Government should pay no rates in respect of it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Salomons) would wish to see the property of his borough made valuable by being in the possession of the Government, but that the community at large should be called upon to pay the rates. That was not very reasonable. The fact was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury were worried by deputations from Woolwich and Deptford, and good-naturedly yielded to their representations. In order to test the feeling of the Committee, and to obtain an expression of opinion on their part, he should move to strike out the Vote altogether.
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINcould not agree with the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford. It was a mistake to suppose that a Government establishment was necessarily any benefit to a parish. In the parish of St. Margaret's, Rochester, the land which the Government held was for the defence of the country at large. Men who were there in the public service might die and leave wives and children chargeable on the rates, and the Government contributed nothing whatever. Soldiers were taken down there for the benefit of the whole country, and not of the parish, and why should not the Government contribute to the rates?
MR. J. J. POWELLsaid, he was surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) argue as if the dockyards were placed in Woolwich, Deptford, and elsewhere for the benefit of those parishes, and not of the whole community. It was as much for the benefit of Wexford as for Deptford that there should be a dockyard there. It appeared to him that a strong case had been made out in favour of those places. In one parish no less than one-half of the land and one-third of the ratable value of the parish was occupied by Government offices, the whole of
740
which was exempted from the rates. That was surely a great hardship. A Committee of the House of Commons which sat on this subject in 1858, the late Sir George Lewis being one of its Members, bad reported that the non-assessment of Government property was an essential detriment to the other ratepayers, because it increased the common burden. It was very desirable, he thought, that their recommendation should be acted upon.
MR. DOULTONsaid, he was sorry to say that the Government were introducing their establishments into Lambeth, removing property which had hitherto paid rates, and so very considerably prejudicing the interests of the ratepayers. The Government seemed to have adopted a very singular principle with regard to the assessment of Government property, and he hoped that they would take the matter into consideration, and would revise their present arbitrary rule.
MR. BUTTagreed in thinking that there might be more Government establishments in Ireland; but he did not think that they ought to be exempt from local rates, The burden entailed by public establishments ought to be borne by the public.
MR. PEELsaid, the principles on which the Government acted in this matter were two. First, they maintained the principle of the exemption of Government property from local rates; but they consented to make a voluntary contribution in certain places, having reference to the proportion of Government property in the parish, and to the amount expended by the parish for the support of the poor. The parishes were divided into two classes, assisted parishes and the parishes which were not assisted, the latter being cases where the Government property was not so considerable as to establish a case of grievance which would justify the Government in coming to the relief of the local rates. The proposition of the hon. Member was that in those parishes where the Government did not grant assistance they should pay the same as they did in the other cases. It was quite true that the Committee of 1858, presided over by the late Sir George Lewis, recommended that all exemption from rating in the case of Government property should cease; but he certainly thought that the authority which would otherwise be due to the recommendation of that Committee was wanting to it—first, because the late Govern-

741
ment brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to that recommendation, but encountered so much opposition that they were compelled to withdraw the measure; and secondly, because when Sir George Lewis, the Chairman of that Committee, was afterwards at the Home Office, he suggested the very plan which they were now pursuing. In a letter to the Treasury, he recommended that the exemption of Government property from local rating should be maintained in principle, but that that exemption should not be claimed in places where the ratable value of that property exceeded a certain proportion of the whole ratable value of the parish. Afterwards, a limit was fixed of one-sixth. The proposal of Sir George Lewis was, that when this fixed proportion was exceeded, the Government should only pay upon the excess. Thus the assisted parishes now received more than was originally contemplated, because where the Government property exceeded one-sixth of the ratable value of the property of the parish, they paid not upon the excess, but upon the whole amount of Government property in such a case. He did not think that the tendency of Government establishments was to produce pauperism. Take Somerset House, for example, which occupied a large portion of St. Mary-le-Strand. It could not be said that that establishment had increased the pauperism of the parish; and even at the dockyards and arsenals, the practice of granting pensions to Government employés when superannuated must have the effect of preventing persons from becoming chargeable to the poor rates. It was a very exceptional thing for Government to purchase property already rated for the relief of the poor, and there erect establishments exempt from rating. In the majority of cases, the exemptions had continued for very many years, and the private property had been acquired subject to the rates being levied off part of the parish only. The hon. Gentleman said, that Government establishments were of no advantage to the parishes in which they were situated. In this statement he could by no means concur. He was convinced that the fact of the employment of a large number of persons in a Government establishment must have the effect of keeping a very considerable number of persons off the poor rates, and place at the disposal of the operatives lage sums of money, the expenditure of which was of advantage to the trade and commerce of the places where
742
Government establishments existed. He did not think that a parish ought to derive any profit, in reference to the rates, from the existence of a Government establishment within its limits, because the Government did not go to the parish like a private person to make profit, but for the sake of the public good, in which the particular parish was as much interested as any other part of the kingdom. All that the parish was entitled to demand was that it should not be injured. The reason why no rate was paid by the Government in St. Paul's, Deptford, was because the ratable value of the Government property was not one-twentieth of the value of the other property. The ratable value of the property in that parish was £130,000, whereas the value of the Government property was under £5,000. It was said, that though the Government subscribed in some instances to the poor rate, they did not subscribe to other rates; but the fact was, that the Government took the poor rate as the measure of their contribution to the local funds. With respect to the statement that the Government had contributed at one time to the police and county rate, he must observe that the Government were not aware, in the first instance, that they were subscribing to those rates as included in the poor rate; and he certainly did not think they were called on to contribute to such rates. It must be remembered that the Government granted great assistance to the parishes in respect to the cost of the police, one fourth of the charge for which was defrayed out of Votes of Parliament; and though the hon. Member was inclined chiefly to protect the interests of his constituents, the Government looked to the interests of the taxpayers at large.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGthought the case of Deptford a hard one, and deserving of a fair consideration. The Committee needed not to be alarmed by imagining that anything new was now demanded; because the Government paid certain other rates. It was not true that the exempted property had been exempt from time immemorial. There were large properties which had formerly paid rates, and which had only recently been taken by the Government. He confessed that the distinction which was drawn between one species of tax and another was to him perfectly unintelligible.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that this exemption from rating on the part of the Government was unjust and indefensible, us bearing

743
upon the question of the fair adjustment of taxation, and the Government of Lord Derby introduced a Bill to abolish it; the friends of certain charities, however, made so strong an opposition to the proposal, that the Bill was withdrawn, and the Government proposed, in certain cases, to grant a contribution in aid. The principle of recognising the liability of Government property had therefore been admitted, but such rigid and arbitrary rules were laid down as, to a great extent, to nullify that recognition. In the case of Deptford there could be no doubt that the sudden reduction of the Government establishments caused great demands upon the parish rates. In 1860 the rates in the parish were 8s. 3d. in the pound and this year already they amounted to 2s. 11 d. It had been thought fit tol egislate exceptionally for Lancashire, where the rates did not exceed 3s. in the pound. The payments which were made in respect of Government property were of a very limited amount, and none at all was granted Where the Government property did not amount to one-sixth of the whole property in the parish. In a parish situate in his own borough there was a considerable property which paid a large sum for poor rates. The Government became the lessee of the property, and, objecting to be assessed, made a contract with the landlord that he should pay the rates. The consequence Was, the landlord refused to pay the rates, and put the money into his pocket, to the detriment of the ratepayers. He thought the Government should not lend itself to such transactions, but should take care when leasing property to secure that that property should continue to bear the local burdens in the same manner as it had done before.
MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, that the Bill of Lord Derby had not been withdrawn on account of the opposition which it had excited; but on account of the opposition excited by one clause, and Lord Derby's Government promised to reintroduce it minus that clause. He did not think that any large amount of money was involved in this question, but besides the Consideration of cost there was the Consideration of justice. The right hon. Gentleman had said that almost all the Government property had been so long recognised in that Character that there was no need to alarm the public by inducing them to think that the area of taxation was being diminished. But In St. Nicholas, Deptford, where the whole parish comprised sixty-six acres, two acres had
744
recently been added to the Government property, and additions had been made in Woolwich and Plumstead. The area of taxation had also been reduced by a decision of the magistrates in sessions that officers' quarters were not subject to rating as they hitherto had been. That decision had been given after the Government assessor had been over the Government property to ascertain the quota which it ought to contribute. The payment made by the Government was now but a small contribution, and the present proposition was to still more reduce it.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he did not think, in the then state of the House, and especially of the benches of that side, that there would be any advantage in dividing, and therefore he should not press his objection. But he would remark that the case had been almost entirely argued by Members representing districts where Government establishments were located, and he regretted that more County Members were not present to express their views upon this matter. Did any one doubt, that if the Government establishments of Woolwich or Pembroke were moved to Cork, the people of that city would be quite ready to hold the Government harmless from any demand from local rates, in consideration of the advantages which would accrue to the district from these establishments? It might be that in and near London, where land was valuable, the Government establishments did not so much increase the value of surrounding property; but at Pembroke, for instance, the value of land had been enormously increased by the dockyard being made there. In the case of the parish near Rochester, which had been alluded to, he had no doubt that the value of land had risen since the Government appeared there, and consequently a corresponding benefit had attended an apparent injury. The wealth of the whole country was being poured into the metropolis, and he thought that some resistance should be offered to its demands.
MR. PULLERthought the question should be treated on a spirit of equity and justice, and should not be left in the hands of the metropolitan Members. If a railway company raised the value of property, was that a reason why that property should escape rating? Where an exemption bad existed a long time, giving it up might be making a donation to the parish, and be a throwing away of money; but not so where Government property was being daily en-

745
larged. It was admitted that they should pay for the new property, and he would treat all alike.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSremarked, that at Woolwich a considerable amount of ratable property had been brought under the exemption through being taken by Government. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the question, and remove the dissatisfaction which prevailed throughout the whole country on this subject.
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINstated that the land in the parish near Rochester, to which reference had been made, was adapted for building purposes, and would, it was believed be doubled in value if the Government buildings were removed. No pensions were paid to dockyard labourers, and there was a current saying, "Out of the dockyard into the workhouse." The parish, therefore, received no relief in those respects.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) Public Education in Great Britain.
MR. LOWE: Mr. Massey, after the very full debate which took place some weeks back on the subject of Education, it is not my intention to trouble the Committee with any lengthened address. This is a transition year, and cannot, therefore, be expected to possess as much interest as either the past year, which was one of considerable change, or the coining year, which will show how the change has worked. The Estimate for the present year amounts to £604,002, being £38,117 less than the Estimate of last year. The Estimate is not founded on very accurate data, but I believe it will not be exceeded. It is based on a calculation that half of the year will be under the old and half under the new Code, which comes into effect on the 30th of this month. Under the Revised Code the number of children is taken at half of the average attendance—that is, 457,000—and we anticipate that each will receive 10 s., which is the amount the Commissioners recommended. The expenditure for the grants of 1862 was £774,743. The number of children found present in the elementary day-schools by Her Majesty's Inspectors was 1,057,426, while there was accommodation actually provided for 1,378,000. These are, on the whole, very satisfactory results. During the year we have had some experience of
746
the Revised Code, for it applies to the new schools which come into existence. We have examined fourteen such schools, containing eighteen departments, under the Revised Code, The average aggregate attendance of children was 729, out of whom 512 were presented for examination. The House will observe that the practice here is different from that at the Universities, as the children have three chances of being "plucked,"—in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The number who passed in reading was 375, in writing 308, and in arithmetic 243; so that, dividing the children as it were by thirds, the total number who passed was 926. The proportion of those rejected to those who passed was as about two to three. The result was, that these schools earned by the examination, on the average, the sum of 8s. 3d. per child. That is, I think, a very gratifying act for the managers of schools, who feared they would be able to gain very little under the Revised Code. It must be borne in mind that these were all new schools, which had not had the advantage of being brought up to the standard of older establishments, and hence there is good reason to suppose that the children in the Council's schools would earn at least 10 s. per head. The question of the training colleges is one which has given us much trouble. We offered some recommendations in regard to them last year, but in consequence of the urgent representations made to us we agreed to reconsider them. I hope we have now hit on a system which is, in the main, satisfactory to the colleges, and which will also, in a great measure, protect the interests of the public. It does not certainly err on the side of being too severe. It is so exceedingly lenient to the colleges that it could hardly, perhaps, be defended on abstract principles. We must, however, remember that we brought these institutions into existence by our own act, and that if we were suddenly to alter our relations towards them, we should be doing a grave injustice. There were three great evils pointed out in the system of training colleges. In the first place, they had almost entirely ceased to be voluntary institutions. On the average they received 80 per cent from Government, and some even as much as 99 or 100. Another evil was, that though these colleges provided an excellent education for teachers, they did not give any security that the persons who received that education would devote the knowledge so acquired at the public ex-

747
pense to the business of teaching. It was possible that young men, educated in the training colleges, might apply their knowledge in other quarters. It might even happen that a school might go on under the name of a training college, receiving large assistance from the Government, and yet that not one of its students might follow the profession of a teacher. The third evil was one of principle. It is not the function of a Government to supply the demands of any trade. It was thought that in the business of teaching, as in the other departments of human industry, the ordinary law of supply and demand should be allowed to operate freely, and that the Government should not attempt to interfere with it. If the Government were to open its training colleges widely, and were to provide a large supply of teachers, it would always be liable to complaints of injustice on behalf of existing teachers, with whose labours these new teachers would compete. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act in a contrary spirit, and were to close the training colleges altogether, it was equally liable to just reclamation on behalf of the managers of schools, who would say that we were raising the market upon them. It was necessary to remedy these three defects—to reduce the contribution which the Government was to make within certain limits, which should not be exceeded; to apply the training colleges not only to the education of young men, but to the education of teachers; and to get rid of the responsibility of adapting the supply of teachers to the demand. This we have done by a Minute which has been laid on the table. The principle of that Minute is to consolidate the different payments made to the training colleges into one payment, that one payment to be made on the obtaining of the certificate, which is in about two years after a student has passed his examination, and only on condition that during those two years he has been teaching in a school, and has had the honour of receiving two favourable Reports of an Inspector. The difference, therefore, is, that instead of making the payment partly for the education of the student while in the training college, and partly on his examination when leaving it, we defer it till the student not only has passed his examination, but has committed himself by entering upon the profession of teaching, and been two years employed in it. It may be that even so some may escape us; but, on the
748
whole, we take every security on behalf of the public, that a student trained at their expense shall really devote himself to the profession of teaching. The change has this further advantage, that it throws upon the training colleges, instead of upon the Government, the responsibility of adapting the supply to the demand. It will be for the college which takes a student in, to consider whether he is likely to become a teacher; for it knows that if he does not become a teacher, it will not receive on his account any payment from the Government. There are some other provisions in the Minute with which I need not trouble the Committee. For example, we limit the amount which the Government will contribute to the ample sum of 75 per cent. so that no training college can hereafter receive more. I trust this will be the means of some reduction; at any rate, it will prevent the increase of the Vote, will relieve the Government from the duty it has heretofore undertaken, of supplying the profession with teachers, and will, I believe, secure that those who receive public money for their education, shall devote the knowledge so obtained to the purpose for which the grant was made. We have also made a Minute with regard to our Inspectors. It has given me great pleasure to be able to propose a small increase to the salaries of our Inspectors. We have thrown heavier duties on them by the Revised Code, and we were anxious that they should receive some small equivalent for that increase of labour. For the purpose of assisting the Inspectors and lightening their duties, we have made provision for giving them schoolmasters as their assistants. It has been represented as if this were done with the idea of lowering the class of Inspectors. Quite the contrary was our object. These schoolmasters—not assistant Inspectors, as they have been called, but Inspectors' assistants—are only to act under the direction of the Inspector. Their functions are limited merely to the examination of children; they have no power to report on the schools, nor have they anything to do with the management of the schools, or with the working of the grant. We thought it necessary to provide some machinery of this kind, because some of the schools are enormously large. There is a Jewish school in the Commercial Road, for instance, which has 1,800 children. I think it would be great extravagance if we took an Inspector with £800 a year, and buried him, so to speak, in the examination

749
of these children, which could be done almost as well by a person of the calibre of an ordinary schoolmaster, at a much lower alary. But we do not put this class in competition with the Inspectors. They are to relieve the Inspectors where the burden is too heavy for them. We do not contemplate introducing them largely at first, but there are a few populous districts where it is necessary to give the Inspectors assistance at once. Each case will be judged, of course, upon its own merits. I trust, therefore, the Committee will not share in the misconstruction which has been put upon this Minute. There are two objects in view—one is to assist the Inspector, and the other to save expense. All the duties of inspection, properly so called, as opposed to examination, will as heretofore be discharged by the Inspectors; and besides, each Inspector will himself examine, during the course of a year, at least 1,000 children. These are the principal Minutes made during the course of the year. It would be presumptuous to attempt to predict what will be the effect of these changes; but at present we see no reason to augur otherwise than favourably of them. The matter, however, is purely tentative, and we shall be ready to make any practical improvements that may suggest themselves to us. Before I sit down, I may point the little moral of my statement. The Committee will see how many favours the Inspectors have to ask and receive from the Committee of Council. If an Inspector is in indifferent health, it lies with the heads of the Department to give him leave of absence. So with promotion from one district to another. If, too, an Inspector has a heavy district, and finds his work too much for him, it depends upon the discretion of the heads of the Office whether they shall give him the assistance of a schoolmaster or not. I ask how the system would work if gentlemen, who have so many favours to receive from the heads of the Department, should, at the same time, be placed in a position of almost absolute independence as far as their Reports go. Would the tendency not be to make it be thought that something might be got by going, as it were, into opposition? Would the Department not be suspected of buying off a troublesome Inspector at the expense of his colleagues? I have only to add, in conclusion, that when I maintained, in an earlier part of the evening, that it is in the power of the Office to withhold Reports, I did not mean that observation to apply to facts
750
or information of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That a sum, not exceeding £604,002, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Public Education in Great Britain."
Motion made, and Question proposed.
MR. BLACKrose to propose a reduction in the Vote—the extraordinary item for pupil teachers. We had now 15,000 pupil teachers, and we paid for them £300,000 per annum. It would be an interesting sight to see this large army turned out in Hyde Park, and reviewed by the Prince and Princess. He understood they were intended to supply vacancies among the teachers in schools; but those teachers did not amount in number to more than 10,055. Every year we took in 3,000 apprentices. At the end of twenty-two years, which was the time a teacher was supposed to remain in his school, we should have at this rate 66,000 pupil-teachers to meet the demand in schools. He would suggest that they should take on no new apprentices for the next year; they would then still have a sufficient number of pupil teachers for any purpose for which they required them. It was impossible to employ the large number now annually turned out of the training colleges; and why, then, should so enormous a sum be expended on their education? It might be said, that if they did not all become teachers, still they were qualified to take situations for which, but for their previous training, they would not have been fit. That, however, he held was a pernicious system, and quite contrary to the natural law of supply and demand. Why should a certain class of young persons be educated at the public expense in order to be able to compete for clerkships and other employments which would otherwise fall to the lot of youths educated at the cost of their parents? He did not see why the State should undertake the training of teachers any more than that of surgeons or members of other professions. In the course of the five years' training given to these pupil teachers the State spent no less a sum than £180 upon each of them; and that not only without any advantage to the public, but counteracting the natural order of things, by which the work would be done better, and without any expense to the country. School managers should be left to employ

751
the best teachers they could find, whether they were pupil teachers or not. All these trammels should be done away, leaving those who had charge of the schools to do the best they could. If that course were adopted, there would he no necessity for squandering the public money as was now done. He did not wish to repudiate any existing obligations; he only desired that they should enter into no new obligations with respect to the 3,000 apprentices who, under ordinary circumstances, would be taken on during the next year. By preventing the introduction of these 3,000 young persons they would not only do no harm to their system, but would positively relieve it from the superabundance which they were at present creating. He begged therefore to propose that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £30,000, thus striking off £10 per head for those 3,000 apprentices.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £574,002, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861, for Public Education in Great Britain."—(Mr. Black.)
MR. LOWEsaid, he agreed with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not seem quite to understand how things at present stood. The money taken in the Vote was for pupil teachers who were now apprenticed. The Department came under a pledge to the House last year in the discussions on the Revised Code, that they would pay the full salary of all the pupil teachers now apprenticed until they had served their full term of five years. The hon. Member did not wish them to go back in any way from that, but only that no new pupil teachers should be engaged. Well, he had great satisfaction in telling the hon. Gentleman that no new pupil teachers would be engaged; because on the 30th of this month the Revised Code would come into effect in England, and, as far as that matter was concerned, in Scotland also. Although it would be competent for school managers to engage pupil teachers if they pleased, they would receive no Government money payment for doing so:—they would merely obtain the capitation grant on examination, which they could apply in retaining a pupil teacher, or in any other way they thought proper. Therefore, no Government stimulus whatever would henceforth be applied to the engagement of pupil teachers. With that
752
explanation he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, and not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a division.
MR. F. S. POWELLthought that more time should have been given for the consideration of the annual Report of the Committee of Council on Education before the Estimates were proposed. There was great anxiety among the friends of education as to whether the Reports of the Inspectors were to contain a full and comprehensive statement of the educational facts of the country, or whether they were to be purged of all things which were not agreeable to the Minister. If the House could not have complete Reports, they might at least have specimen Reports, by which to judge of the state of education in the manufacturing, mining, and agricultural districts, and he would like to see all the Reports brought up to some fixed and uniform date, to enable a comparison to be made between them and the Reports of future years. He trusted that the Vice President would, either by enlarging the present machinery, or by devising special and exceptional means, obtain information as to the effect of the extraordinary increase of school children in the cotton, districts, consequent upon the failure of employment, with a view to show what improvement took place in the educational condition of those districts. He believed that the pupil teachers were the backbone of the system, and he hoped that nothing which had been said to-night would produce an indisposition among parents to allow their children to occupy that position. When it was said that many who were trained in the training colleges at the public expense afterwards turned to other occupations, it should not be forgotten that while learning their duties they performed the duties of teachers, and gave their services in that capacity. He hoped the House would not be led by any wild statement as to the probable increase of the Vote to adopt a system of false economy, as he was convinced that both the House and the country were willing to give liberally towards the education of the people, provided that the education was sound, and was conducted on just principles.
MR. BLACKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. ADDINGTONasked, whether the attention of the Vice President had been directed to the unprotected position of young unmarried female teachers in parish schools, and whether some regulation as to

753
age could not be introduced? At present they were removed from their friends, and were open to great temptations, and to the arts of designing persons.
MR. LOWEsaid, it was a matter in which plainly the Government could not interfere. A case had occurred recently in which one of the female pupil teachers had sustained a very horrible outrage. The Committee of Privy Council were applied to; but although they deemed it a very proper duty for some one, they did not think it a duty which devolved upon them to prosecute the offender. There was less reason than ever for the Committee of Council to interfere, because these young persons were now entirely the servants of the managers.
MR. PULLERsaid, that although the managers of the training colleges consented to carry them on for the present, they could not do so as a permanent system. It was difficult to get voluntary contributions to an object which did not appeal to local interest, and, without some change in that respect, this mainstay of the system of education would fail. There was no doubt that occasionally the students in the colleges turned to other occupations, but the instances were by no means numerous. He had requested the Principal of the Training College at Battersea to inform him of the number of Queen's scholars who had abandoned the profession of teachers. In the ten years, from 1851 to 1861, there were 342 Queen's scholars, of which number 16 had died, leaving 328 to be accounted for. Of the 328, 300 were actually engaged as teachers, while of the remaining 28, 18 were employed in colonial or private schools, leaving only ten not accounted for in a satisfactory way. Having said thus much, he wished briefly to state in reference to the Reports of the Inspectors, which have formed a topic for discussion in the early part of the evening, that he could not approve of the course in that respect which the right hon. Gentleman adopted. The right hon. Gentleman, it seemed, justified the withholding of those Reports from the House, not because of their perplexity or their tendency to philosophical disquisitions, but simply and solely on the ground that the arguments which they contained, founded on facts, sometimes advocated views which were opposed to the opinions held in the Education Department. Now, looking at the tentative position of the education question, and to the uncertainty of the results which the changes in
754
connection with it made from time to time might produce, it would, he thought, be most unfair to the House to call upon it to vote £700,000 or £800,000 a year of the public money without the assistance which might be derived from some sixty gentlemen who were most competent to give information, and who were chosen for their attainments and talents from among the most rising men in our Universities, and spread over the country to collect facts and furnish Parliament with the impression which those facts made upon their minds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), who in 1859 filled the position of Vice President of the Committee of Council, in the course of a discussion which took place in that year stated that it might be frequently the duty of the Inspectors to report that certain regulations had failed to meet the wants of persons engaged in education in their particular districts; while they, upon the contrary, might have to report that the measures of the Committee of Council were approved, and that such observations, coming from independent and impartial witnesses, would possess the advantage of giving the authentic impression produced by the working of the system on different minds in different parts of the country. For his own part, he thought the greatest possible injury would be inflicted on the cause of educational progress if the House were deprived of that help which it had hitherto derived from the Reports of those Inspectors, which, so far as he could form an opinion, went to make up the most interesting of the blue-books which were published by the Government.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that though the House did not want a debate upon the National Education system, which was just now in a transitional or at least revisional state, yet now was the time to make a few remarks upon the process of change going on. The right hon. Vice President had given the Committee an interesting piece of information this evening with reference to the experiment that had already been made of examination under the Revised Code. The result was this, that the schools so examined obtained a grant upon an average of 8s. 3d. per child. He wished the Committee to bear in mind the proposition of the Royal Commissioners that 10 s. per head should be the lowest rate in aid which a good school might expect from the public grants; and when they considered that the average

755
cost of educating labourers' children was 30 s. per head, unless they made the least grant in aid 10 s. per head, he despaired of the remaining two thirds being raised by voluntary effort. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them one fact, whether the children who were found unable to stand the test were not of the age from six to eight years? He had seen the new system of examination under the Revised Code tried in schools with which he was connected, and he found that children of seven and eight years were incapable of passing an individual examination by the Government Inspector. The very appearance of a stranger and the manner of a highly-educated man were calculated to frighten a poor child of such an age. He confessed, indeed, his belief that his own children about that age would be unable to stand the test, if suddenly brought into contact with a Senior Wrangler, and examined even in the moderate subjects which children of that age could be at all examined in. He had come to the conclusion that the requirement of examination must be relaxed, and the age must be raised below which individual examination should not be required. Another point which had been alluded to was the new Minute respecting training colleges. It had been stated that they had almost ceased to be voluntary institutions. The fact was, that training colleges of all institutions were those least likely ever to be supported by voluntary contributions, and he doubted whether even 25 per cent of the amount necessary would be raised in that manner, as was proposed to be required by the new Minute. He concurred in opinion with those who considered these institutions most important, and believed that if training colleges were to cease as a part of the system, the best plan would be to drop the whole system at once. It was not at all likely that voluntary contributions would ever be adequate to the support of such institutions. England was the only country in which voluntary contributions had come even in aid of training institutions. In America, where all schools were supported by a popularly-voted rate, training colleges were not so supported, but were kept up by permanent endowments, and were taken out of the category of national educational institutions supported by taxation. If there was anything unsatisfactory in the Estimate, it was that Scotland did not appear under the same conditions with England, while uniformity became more
756
and more essential to the success of the whole. With respect, also, to the item for industrial schools, it created great confusion to find it divided between educational grants and expenditure for the "Maintenance of Prisoners." It had been a grievous mistake removing any of the industrial schools because they educated vagrants, or the reformatories because they educated culprits, from the National Educational Department, which ought to embrace all aided schools. It was gratifying to find, that although the number of schools and teachers had increased, and the number of children had been brought to within 200,000 of the maximum number that it was supposed by the Commissioners could ever be brought within the system, the Estimate was £38,000 less than it was last year. On the whole, he considered the Estimate satisfactory, and trusted that he should live to see the day when England, Scotland, and Ireland, would all be placed under one system.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the object of those who desired the production of all the Inspectors' Reports was not to encourage those officers in philosophical disquisitions, but to carry out the circular of the 4th of November 1858, which directed that the Reports should include all information, recommendations, and suggestions which were immediately based upon and could be illustrated by the Inspector's own knowledge and his experience in the course of his inspection. They complained that certain Reports were suppressed, and believed them to be suppressed, not because they were full of philosophical disquisitions, but because they were full of practical suggestions. If they were wrong, the right hon. Gentleman could demonstrate their error by the production of the Reports. This was a matter of great importance at present, and would continue to be so for a few years to come, because a great change was being carried out under the superintendence of the Inspectors, and it was impossible for them to show what was the effect of that change without giving their experience and their opinions. If the House only obtained such experience as was in accordance with the opinion of the Office, they would remain in the dark as to the effect of the changes.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARconsidered the attendance at the schools very satisfactory. When hon. Gentlemen found fault with the amount of the Vote, he would ask them to consider the great advantages which the country had derived from the

757
carrying-out or the system. No Petitions had been presented against it, and he believed that no hon. Member had been asked by his constituents to assist in putting an end to the Vote. In his opinion, no fairer system could be devised. If the system could be worked for less money than was at present voted, so much the better; but he believed it answered extremely well. The success of the system mainly depended on the employment of pupil teachers and certificated and assistant masters. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Bradford, that the Reports of the Inspectors should be presented unabridged to the House. He asked any hon. Member of that House whether on taking up the Report they could place any value upon it, when they were told that portions of it had been cut out, and therefore must know that it was but a garbled Report. He considered it of the utmost importance that everything that the Inspectors put forward in their Reports should be laid before the House Otherwise the materials necessary for forming a correct judgment as to the working of the present system of education would be withheld. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman below concurred generally in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council of Education. He (Sir M. Farquhar) would, however, maintain his own independent opinions, which were adverse to the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the Vote for education in this country was increasing from year to year. Some explanation was due to the House why Scotland was allowed so liberal a contribution four or five years ago, and was placed in a superior position to the other parts of the Empire. Education was properly supported by the State, but it should be carried out with economy.
MR. LIDDELLthought that an admission made by the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire—that the fact of 8s. 3d. being the average obtained by each child examined in eighteen schools argued that there was great difficulty in bringing young children of six, seven, and eight years of age up to the standard—was one of great importance. It was precisely the argument on which the opponents of the Revised Code relied last year. If that was the maximum, one of two things must happen—either they must be contented with inferior teachers, or the schools would go
758
down. The success of the school depended on the qualifications of the teacher, and that was the reason why he had always supported the system, expensive though it was.
MR. BLACKsaid, that the system of education prevailing in Scotland was superior to that which had been adopted for this country, and the people of Scotland, while they were not opposed to an enlargement and improvement of the system, would strongly object to the introduction of the English system.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthanked Her Majesty's Government for what they had already done, and expressed a hope that they would take into consideration the state of many of the Scotch schools, and render their educational system more applicable to the parochial system of Scotland than it was at present.
MR. PULLERobserved, that the new Minute altered the order of inspection. Under the Revised Code the Inspectors were not to proceed to an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, till they ascertained that the general state of the school did not require the grant to be withheld. The new Minute divided the general inspection of schools into two parts—one of which, religious knowledge, was kept in the first place; but, in all other matters, the general inspection was postponed till after the examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic. To Church of England schools this arrangement would make practically little difference; but it was just possible that, in some cases, where the children were examined by assistants under a written order, the grant might be paid without that general inspection, which, in many points, was of substantial importance.
MR. FINLAYcomplained, that the Western Islands of Scotland derived scarcely any advantage from this Vote.
MR. WALTERsaid, that before the discussion closed, he wished to recall attention to what he considered the real point of controversy—namely, whether Parliament was to continue for any lengthened period to find money to provide the machinery by which these schools were to be conducted. Personally, he believed that principle to be entirely wrong, and he would put the point before the House in a very simple manner. The Government did not, and could not, undertake—and, even if it were willing, the country could not permit it to undertake—the education of the people. But the Government con-

759
tracted with—or, perhaps, he ought rather to say, offered bounties to certain private individuals for undertaking that duty, and stipulated to pay a particular sum, called a capitation grant, for the production of certain manufactured articles in the shape of educated children; and the Government said this to the managers of schools, "We have on our hands a quantity of plant—namely, a number of pupil teachers and certificated masters, which we will compel you to use, on pain of forfeiting our assistance." Managers of schools made their bow to the Government, and proceeded to educate the children as best they could. In process of time Government sent round their Inspectors. In one school they found the children very Well taught, the proper instruments were employed, the Inspectors passed the school, and the Government was satisfied that its own machinery was in operation. The Inspector then went to another school, where he found results equally satisfactory, the children equally well taught, and the school—not, as an hon. Gentleman had said, "a Bedlam,"—but perfectly well conducted, clean, and orderly. But in this case, after the Inspector had expressed himself satisfied, the Government demanded to see the schoolmaster, with a view to discover whether he was of the Government stamp. The manager said, "No, he had tried the Government machine and it had broken down in his hands; he then tried a machine of his own, which answered the purpose much better, and with it results had been produced which could not fail to commend themselves to the approval of the Inspectors." The Government, however, replied, "You do not choose to use our machine, we shall not recognise the manufactured article you have produced." He put it to the House whether that was a state of things which could be fairly maintained. At the time he brought forward this question his right hon. Friend, among other arguments used in reply—and he believed it was the best of the arguments which he then put forward—suggested that the system had not had a fair trial. But his right hon. Friend now admitted that an Inspector would not be allowed to make a fair Report; and that if one of them ventured to state anything contrary to the policy of the Government, his Report would not gain publicity. Under those circumstances, how was the House ever to know when the system had received a fair trial?
760
He wished his right hon. Friend would answer that Question, and state how, next year or in any future year, it could be shown that the system he maintained had received a fair trial?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £82,883, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the General Management of the Department of Science and Art, of the Schools throughout the Kingdom in connection with the Department, and of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and Ireland, &c."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, this was a Vote which increased regularly year after year, and, after all, it by no means included the whole of the expense incurred. There were a variety of items of various amounts, and in reality there was about £20,000 more expended under this head than appeared in their Vote. With regard to the buildings at Kensington, he should like to know whether certain apartments called "rooms for officers" were not in reality residences for officers. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £72,883, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the General Management of the Department of Science and Art, of the Schools throughout the Kingdom in connection with the Department, and of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and Ireland, &c."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKalso expressed his opinion that some explanation on the subject of the buildings "for officers" ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council.
LORD HENRY LENNOXhoped that in answering the question just put to him the right hon. Gentlemen would state whether those buildings had not been sanctioned by a Committee of which his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck) was a Member.
MR. LOWEsaid, that the buildings in question had been erected in pursuance of a recommendation of the Committee which sat in 1861. The buildings were for four officers—the Secretary of the institution, the resident engineer, the superintendent

761
under the secretary, and another officer. The Museum was open to the public till ten o'clock at night, and the officers were there till that hour. With the exception of the House of Commons, it was, he believed, the only public institution in which business was conducted so late at night. The Committee thought it necessary there should be a residence for officers whose attendance might he required in case of fire or other accident to the Museum. The arrangement would, in the end, be an economical one for the public, because there would be a deduction from the officers' salaries, to go towards meeting the interest on the outlay for those buildings.
MR. VANCEasked whether the Report on the scientific institutions of the city of Dublin would be laid on the table.
MR. LOWEsaid, there was no objection to the production of the document; but this Department had not yet received the decision of the Treasury on the subject of the Report.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in reference to what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord H. Lennox), said, that the recommendation of the Committee proceeded on the assumption that the buildings at Kensington were to be of a plain character. He now found that they were assuming an ornamental character, under the direction of a gentleman who was an officer of engineers, who was styled "the inspector of buildings." He thought they ought to be under the direction of some one who had undergone the professional education of an architect. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Department to allow them to continue under the direction of a gentleman who had not received such an education.
MR. LOWEsaid, that the gentleman just referred to by his hon. Friend as the "inspector of buildings" was Captain Fowke. For the information of his hon. Friend and the House he might state that the gallant gentleman, who was a captain in the Engineers, had been first employed by the Government in connection with the construction of a barrack, which cost £100,000. He then became Secretary of the English Science and Art Department of the Paris Exhibition of 1855. He gave such satisfaction in that capacity that he was appointed one of the inspectors under that Department in England. He was not the designer of the iron portion of the structure. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Of the boilers.] He was not the designer
762
of what had been called "the boilers," which were erected by Sir William Cubitt; but he was the designer of the Vernon and Sheepshanks Galleries, for which works he deserved the highest credit. He not only distinguished himself as an architect, but as an inventor. He first investigated and showed the true theory of lighting a picture gallery. He laid down a formula that could be applied to any gallery; and he applied it himself at Kensington. He also made the gas in those galleries—what it was much to be desired it should become in that House—not only a means of lighting, but also of ventilating the building. Captain Fowke had made the plan of the Irish National Gallery, which he believed gave great satisfaction; and his design for the Industrial Museum of Scotland had also received the preference. He had built the lower arcade in the Horticultural Gardens from his own plan, and that structure was considered to be an excellent one. He had laid before the Select Committee a plan for buildings for the Department of Science and Art. To him belonged the credit of building at the small expense of £17,000 those new quadrangular courts in the Kensington Museum, which presented such an exceedingly handsome appearance. From the works Captain Fowke had executed for his Department, he must say he had the highest opinion of him. He was a most excellent officer; there had never been any complaint of him; and he was superior to most professional architects in this respect—that he never exceeded his estimate. Under these circumstances, there was no intention to displace Captain Fowke.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. Captain Fowke might be a very excellent engineer but he denied that he knew anything about architecture. As long as he was employed in constructing sheds and devising plans for ventilation, he was a very proper person to be selected; but the moment the Government went out of this into art it was only right that the country should have the best advice. When he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was placed on the South Kensington Committee, he found that the only case put forward for Captain Fowke was the building of sheds; but the moment the Department of Science and Art rushed into what might be termed the height of art the buildings were the contempt of every one who knew anything about art. Some persons admired

763
the Gothic, and others the modern style of architecture; because each of these represented what was beautiful in itself; but Captain Fowke's style was the barbarous, as was seen in his great masterpiece, the Exhibition, which the Government now wanted Parliament to buy—those melon glasses which were the scorn of Europe—and yet the designer of these was the man whom the right hon. Gentleman called the architect of the Government. [Mr. LOWE: The architect of my Department.] He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his Department in that it had such an architect.
MR. LOCKEdesired, as a Member of the South Kensington Committee, to say, that the hon. Gentleman's estimate of Captain Fowke was not that taken by the rest of the Committee. The frightful building at South Kensington was not an original design of Captain Fowke. The Commissioners required a building to be put up here for one purpose, and another there for another purpose; and Captain Fowke was then called upon to prepare a plan for moulding them all into one. Hon. Members were told to look to the Society of Architects, or some other society, which enjoyed a pre-eminence of taste in this country. He (Mr. Locke) would be glad to know where any society which had this pre-eminence was to be found. He would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to point to any man who could put up a better building than Captain Fowke had put up? The fact was, there was nobody in this country who knew anything about taste in architecture, and no one who had any taste to guide them. If there was a man worthy of their confidence, that man was Captain Fowke; but he (Mr. Locke) had not entire confidence in him. That noble building of brick, the International Exhibition, was not built for the purpose of ornamentation. It was built so that it should have the most frightful exterior; and this in itself showed the ingenuity of Captain Fowke, for now he could say, "Is not this building which I have raised hideous? but now let me have the ornamentation of it." And why was he not to have it? He (Mr. Locke) did not see why Captain Fowke was not to be trusted as well as any other man; and no doubt hon. Members would all get accustomed to the building. Captain Fowke ought then to be allowed to go on in his course, and not be interfered with in his plan for the South
764
Kensington Exhibition. He (Mr. Locke) hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would think over the matter before the Vote to the Exhibition Building came on, which the Government proposed to buy, but not, he trusted, at the expense of £484,000; and if the Government proposed to take the building down and put up another, Captain Fowke would do it as well as any other.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYwished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the manner in which the picture gallery at South Kensington was warmed. Such a stream of hot air entered the gallery just beneath the pictures that the varnish was contracted, and after a certain time became desiccated and fell off. He was told that some of the pictures had already been injured from this circumstance since their removal from Marlborough House.
MR. LOWEsaid, he would give attention to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had heard nothing to diminish his objections to the Vote. He desired to know whether the "rooms for officers" were all in one house, or were in separate buildings.
MR. COGANrose to protest against the amalgamation of the Royal Dublin Society and the Museum of Irish Industry, both institutions of the city of Dublin. The Commission appointed to investigate the question of amalgamation was unfairly constituted, two of the gentlemen composing it representing the Treasury, and the other two being connected with the Royal Dublin Society. He also complained of the delay which had taken place in laying the Report of the Commissioners on the table—a thing which was most unusual in similar cases.
MR. LOWEsaid, the Commission appeared to him to have been very fairly constituted, the gentlemen composing it being men of the highest character. They had made their Report, which was now before the Treasury; it had been moved for, and would be produced. It could not, in any way, affect the Estimate now before the House. As to a question put by the hon. Member for Truro, he begged to state that the residences were all in one house.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, a very strong feeling existed in Ireland and especially in Dublin on the subject of the proposed amalgamation of the Museum of Irish industry with the Royal Dublin Society, and he trusted before the House came to a decision upon it they would allow

765
the opinion of the country more immediately interested in the matter to be expressed.
MR. WYLDwished to call attention to the item for the geological survey. It seemed to be a rule, that when an item once got into the Estimates, it was to be continued indefinitely. Only 8,000 square miles of the geological survey of Great Britain was completed, and would cost £7,861, when for half the money double the amount of work might be done by any private parties. There was great reason to complain of the slow progress of the work.
MR. CONINGHAM, reverting to the subject of the Exhibition building at Kensington said, it was all very well to turn professional architects into ridicule; but when they were about to erect a great building which, he ventured to say, was extremely ngly, it would have been well to have taken their opinion. When he looked at the building yesterday from the Horticultural Gardens, it struck him that a fine opportunity had been lost; and he believed, if a skilful architect had been consulted, very little difficulty would have been experienced by the Government in the purchase they intended to make. But when they saw a building such as that now at Kensington, everybody wished to have it removed.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 129: Majority 98.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

VOLUNTEERS BILL— [BILL 152.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 7—Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the words "for any subscription or fine, or on any other account."—(The Marquess of Hartington)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. COXmoved the adjournment of the debate, for at that hour of the morning; (half past twelve o'clock) it was hardly fair to bring on such a discussion. When the Bill was last before the House, it was on the evening of the Ascot Cup, and there was a very thin attendance of Members in consequence, nor could there now be such a full discussion as a Bill of this importance demanded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was perfectly aware, that if the hon. Member and his friends chose to obstruct the further progress of the Bill, it would be in their power to do so. But he would remind the House that this measure had been fully considered in Committee; and as the House was now well attended, and the only Amendment of importance on the paper was that of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir Robert Clifton), which had been discussed very fully the other evening, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would now allow the debate to proceed, and would not do anything calculated to obstruct the Bill.
  COLONEL EDWARDShoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion of adjournment. He believed the country generally was favourable to the Bill; and as a large number of Members were now present, there could not be a better opportunity for discussing it. Many important discussions had taken place in the House after half past twelve o'clock, and he trusted there would be no attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the Volunteers were very anxious that the Bill should pass, whatever difference of opinion there might be on one particular clause. He did not know where the hon. Member had been when he talked of half past twelve o'clock being too late for the discussion of the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 (Discipline of Volunteers while on actual Military Service).
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, that since he last addressed a few words to the House on this clause he was more than ever convinced that the feelings of the Volunteers in general were nearly unanimous on the subject of the clause. If he were to judge by leading articles in local newspapers, and by letters he had received, it was very generally obnoxious. He contended that a Volunteer once dismissed by his commanding officer had no power of appeal; for the demand for inquiry must pass through the hands of the commanding officer who dismissed the Volunteer, and he thought he should be able to show that Volunteers so dismissed had appealed to the Lord Lieutenant, and likewise to the War Office; but that the colonel commanding his regiment, by whom

  767
  he was dismissed, never forwarded his petition. [The hon. Baronet here read two letters From Volunteers, complaining that, after being dismissed, they were unable to obtain a hearing of their case, and that their applications for inquiry received no attention.] On the last occasion when this subject was discussed, a good deal was said about a letter written by a Mr. Hutchins. That gentleman was said to have written a most improper letter; but he would show how far that statement was to be relied on by reading the letter. [The hon. Baronet here read the letter, in which the writer Stated that he had delivered over to the sergeant all the Government property issued to him, and he had no wish to continue a member of the South Middlesex Rifle Volunteers, feeling obliged to resign in consequence of the dismissal from the regiment of one of the corps without trial, and not choosing to render himself liable to similar treatment.] Now, he left the House to judge whether that letter could be termed a very improper one. It might be deemed so by Volunteer colonels, who wished to hold the despotic power which the present Bill gave them of dismissing without trial men who came forward patriotically to serve their Queen and country. In one case he had heard of a whole company resigning. If the House wished to annihilate this great movement, he had nothing more to say. He had received a hundred letters, and he had got upwards of sixty leading articles on the subject. These unfortunate Volunteers were liable to be posted in shop windows, and a Volunteer who was summarily dismissed from the Queen's Westminster Rifles was posted as having been dismissed from gross carelessness and negligence. Now, he thought that those who came forward to support the movement ought to be well treated, and that the Volunteer ought not to be worse off than the common soldier; but, like every other man, was entitled to have a fair trial.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 17, after the word "cause," to leave out to the word "Officer" in line 19, and insert the words "such cause or causes respectively to be committed to writing, and communicated to the accused by the Adjutant of such corps, and the existence and sufficiency of such causes respectively to be judged of by a court to be summoned by the Commanding Officer, and to consist of one Captain, two Subaltern Officers, and two Non-Commissioned Officers or Privates of the same corps."—(Sir Robert Clifton.)
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHthought the House should receive the explanation of the
  768
  Government upon this point. The strength of the Volunteer force depended upon the rank and file, and any conditions which were likely to be opposed to the feelings of the members of the Volunteer corps would tend to destroy the force. As an honorary member of several corps, he had been enabled to ascertain the views of the members generally, and he had found great dissatisfaction prevailing as to this clause especially. It was said that the power now complained of was given by the Act of 1804; but Volunteers could not be expected to be familiar with the details of an Act of Parliament passed more than half a century since. The War Office in 1859 issued model rules authorizing courts of inquiry for the dismissal of Volunteers, and therefore the principle now contended for was sanctioned. That House was rather a House of colonels than one of privates, but he thought that courts of inquiry would be found useful to commanding officers as relieving them from the opprobrium that might sometimes attach to their own independent action in dismissing Volunteers. He was informed by Lord Ranelagh that in the case of Mr. Meyrick a court of inquiry was summoned, but that gentleman declined to attend, and his dismissal took place with the sanction of the court of inquiry. So, in the case of Mr. Reece, of the Queen's Westminsters, a court was summoned, which suspended that gentleman from practice at the butts. There was a subsequent dismissal by the commanding officer, into the reasons of which he would not enter. Those cases proved the necessity of having the machinery of courts of inquiry to assist commanding officers.
  MR. COXsaid, that when the Volunteers entered the force, they had no conception that the colonels possessed the power of dismissal with or without cause. They were led to form that opinion by the rules issued by the War Office, which stated that the Act 54 of George III. applied to them, but made no mention of that particular power, and further stated that it should be lawful to assemble courts of inquiry to investigate any irregularities that might be alleged to exist. He could mention a great many cases of injustice and oppression on the part of commanding officers towards Volunteers; but at that hour of the morning he would mention only two. Mr. Fricker, a respectable auctioneer at Kingston, having absented himself from parade in consequence of a difference with one of

  769
  the officers on a matter of business, was called to account for his absence, warm words ensued, and he resigned. Before, however, the fourteen days had elapsed, he received a dismissal. His two sons also resigned, and were treated in the same way. The truth was that some commanding officers behaved towards their men as though they were the mere scum of society, while others regretted that they had not the power of flogging. ["Oh!" "Name!"] He referred to Lord Ranelagh, whose evidence before the Commission showed that his desires lay in that direction. A resemblance was suggested between Volunteers criticising their commander and schoolboys criticising their teacher, and Lord Ranelagh was asked what he would say to the latter proceeding. His Lordship replied that boys ought to be well flogged, and added, "But how can you correct Volunteers? You can't flog them,"—as though he would fain have had authority to do so. The misconduct of the commanding officer of the Lanarkshire Volunteer Artillery had led to the resignation of an entire battery. The corps elected a certain gentleman to a vacant captaincy; but the commanding officer refused to transmit his name. The Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary for War were both appealed to, but replied that they could not entertain any memorial unless it came through the commander. Then the corps sent their complaint to their commanding officer, requesting him to forward it to the Lord Lieutenant; but he refused. After another vain attempt to procure redress, the entire battery of fifty men, officers and privates, resigned en masse. If Volunteers were to be used in that way, the movement would quickly come to an end. He therefore supported the Amendment.
  LORD ELCHOthought there had been some misapprehension as to Lord Ranelagh's evidence before the Commission. Some time ago precisely the same statement which had now been made by the hon. Member for Finsbury—namely, that Lord Ranelagh was in favour of flogging Volunteers—was printed and circulated by two gentlemen in London for the purpose of casting odium on Lord Ranelagh. Thereupon Lord Ranelagh proceeded against his accusers in a court of justice; the magistrates who heard the case decided that the statement was libellous, and it was only by signing a humble apology, dictated by Lord Ranelagh, that the gentlemen escaped the penalties they had incurred. He believed
  770
  that the other cases referred to by the hon. Member, if they could be properly investigated, would be found equally groundless. The truth was that an association had been formed for the purpose of exciting a bad feeling between Volunteers and their commanding officers; but it had not succeeded, nor would it ever succeed. It was all very well to hold up commanding officers as tyrants and ogres; but he protested against such statements, which had no foundation in truth, and had not been supported by a single well authenticated case. The rule of the War Office, which had been cited, merely permitted a commanding officer to call a court of inquiry if he should think it necessary to do so; but there was nothing in that discretionary power inconsistent with the clause now under consideration, which was similar to one in the existing Act. He trusted the House would adhere to the decision which, by a majority of 113 to 31, it came to on a former occasion.
  COLONEL EDWARDSremarked that the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) who had just preceded him, had so completely demolished the calumnious insinuations of the hon. Member for Finsbury with respect to the evidence of that energetic officer, Lord Ranelagh, before the Commission, as to any desire to see flogging introduced into the Volunteer force, that he did not think it necessary to add one word on the subject to weaken the effect of his Lordship's rebuke. He (Colonel Edwards) had always felt the deepest interest in the movement, and had seen a great deal of the Rifle Volunteers since the first organization of the force, and he had no hesitation in stating that it was their great ambition to be acknowledged by the Government as a contingent of the regular army, and, when under arms on duty, to be placed as far as possible under military discipline. An hon. Member had alluded to letters by the hundred, and Petitions about to be presented against the provisions of the Bill from Members of different regiments, but he had heard of none. If disaffection existed, why, he asked, had no Petitions been presented to the House? The hon. Member for Finsbury said, he could mention many cases of injustice and oppression on the part of commanding officers towards Volunteers, but he had utterly failed in the examples he had adduced. His (Colonel Edwards's) conviction was, that if the opinion of the entire force could be obtained, out of the 150,000 men at present enrolled there would be found but very few

  771
  who would not be satisfied to leave the decisions with their commanding officers, and they looked for no other tribunal to settle disputes arising amongst them. He believed the cases of dissatisfaction were very rare, and hoped the noble Marquess would persist in retaining the clause under discussion. He would take the opportunity of adding that the Bill introduced and carried up to its present stage with so much ability by the Under Secretary at War did him infinite credit as his first effort on the Treasury bench, and, as a whole, he had no doubt that it was most popular with the force throughout the kingdom.
  MR. HENNESSYwas surprised at hearing it said, that this Bill merely embodied that which had heretofore been the law in England on this subject. Why, the famous Volunteer Act of 1794 provided that no Volunteer should be liable to be punished except by a court martial composed entirely of officers serving in Volunteer corps; while Blackstone had laid it down that the peculiarity of our military system was that there was no such thing as punishing any one on the arbitrary authority of a single individual. He had heard something about the impracticability of this Amendment. In the rules of almost all Volunteer corps there was a provision that it should be lawful for a commanding officer to summon a court of inquiry. It was admitted, then, that there might be a court of inquiry. Surely that showed the thing was practicable. He hoped the House would not refuse to Volunteers that which every man already had by common law—a fair trial when accused of an offence.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would not so ill reward the House forgoing on with this Bill at so late an hour as to trespass at any length upon their time. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) had said that Volunteers of the present day could not be expected to be acquainted with all the details of an Act passed fifty years ago. He admitted that neither in the rules nor in the circulars issued universally to the Volunteers had this power been specially alluded to; but as early in the progress of the Volunteer movement as 1860 a circular was sent from the War Office to certain of the corps, in which this power given to commanding officers was expressly referred to, and never till now had any complaint been heard against it. The Volunteers had greatly prospered under that rule, and until it was discovered in this new Bill, and the ques-
  772
  tion was so sedulously agitated as it had been within the last few weeks, not a single complaint of the misconduct of those officers had arisen. Nobody denied that courts of inquiry might generally be useful for the purpose for which they were prescribed—namely, for supplying the commanding officer with the information he required; but in the regulations it was distinctly stated that the object of those courts was to procure information which the commanding officer could trust, and not to pass any sentence whatever. If therefore the clause was altered, as the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir R. Clifton) proposed, the functions of the court of inquiry would be changed. It was said that the power of appeal given to the War Office would he entirely nugatory, because it was necessary that the appeal should be forwarded through the commanding officer. That was quite an error. When a Volunteer had been dismissed, he was no longer a Member of his corps, and therefore he could bring his case to the notice either of the Lord Lieutenant of his county or of the Secretary of State in the form he thought best. The circumstances connected with the Lanarkshire Volunteers had been referred to; but although those circumstances might be an argument in favour of the Volunteers having the power of electing their officers, they did not apply to the summary power of dismissal in the commanding officer. The case of Mr. Reece, which had been placarded in the streets of London, had also been adduced; but the sentence passed upon that gentleman was passed by a court of inquiry by the very process which the hon. Member for Nottingham proposed to make compulsory. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) admitted that the commanding officer ought to be responsible for the discipline of the regiment; but then he proposed to take away the only power given to him for preserving it. He did not believe that any such feeling as had been stated existed in the Volunteer force; but even if there were such a feeling, the object of the Government was not to show a force numerically large upon paper, but a force whose efficiency and discipline proved it to be worthy the assistance which the House had decided on granting them.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYalso showed that by means of circulars the Volunteers had been informed that they were subject to dismissal by the commanding officers.
  MR. WYLDsaid, it was not correct that Mr. Reece's sentence had been passed by

  773
  a court of inquiry. That gentleman had not been dismissed by such a tribunal, but by the Lieutenant Colonel commanding.
  Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 29: Majority 71.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 106.]

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [5th June], "That the Bill be now rend the third time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. Hennessey.)—instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading discharged.
  Bill re-committed, in respect to Clause 58; considered in Committe, and reported; as amended, considered; to be read 3o To-morrow.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th June], "That the Resolutions which upon the same day were reported from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
First Resolution being read a second time;
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE (amid repeated cries for a division)rose to object to the Alderney Vote. He objected to the extravagant expenditure of money at Alderney, where no less than £800,000 had already been expended, and it was proposed to add a larger sum. He moved a reduction of this Vote by £80,000.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "£165,000," in order to insert the
774
words "£85,000."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
Question put, "That '£165,000' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 40: Majority 4.
Second Resolution agreed to.
Third Resolution being read a second time; Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "£89,000," and insert the words "£79,000."—(Mr. Lygon.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolution agreed, to.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (SAINT MART MAGDALEN HOSPITAL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOWE, Bill for confirming a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the Charity called the Hospital of Saint Mary Magdalen, at Newcastle upon Tyne, in the County of Northumberland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOWE and Mr. BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 162.]

  RUTHIN CHARITIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOWE, Bill for confirming a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the Charities in the borough of Ruthin, in the county of Denbigh, comprising the Hospital of Christ and its subsidiary endowments, the Grammar School, Edward Lloyd's Foundation, and Bishop Goodman's Charity, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOWE and Mr. BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 161.]

  SIR ROBERT HITCHAM'S CHARITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOWE, Bill for confirming a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the Charity of Sir Robert Hitcham, Knight, King's Serjeant, for the benefit of Framlingham, Debenham, and Levington, in the county of Suffolk, and of Coggeshall, in the county of Essex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOWE and Mr. BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and road 1o. [Bill 160.]

  CHARITABLE USES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Bill to further amend the Law relating to the Conveyance of Land for Charitable Uses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 164.]

  MILITIA PAY BILL.
  Bill to defray the Charge of the Pay, Clothing, and contingent and other Expenses of the Disembodied Militia in Great Britain and Ireland; to grant Allowances in certain cases to Subaltern Officers, Adjutants, Paymasters, Quartermasters,

  775
  Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, and Surgeons Mates of the Militia; and to authorize the employment of the Non-Commissioned Officers, presented, and read 1o. [Bill 163.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inland Revenue* (No. 128); African Slave Trade Treaty* (No. 129); Local Government Supplemental* (No. 130).
Report—Vaccination (Ireland)* (No. 108).
Third Reading—Bakehouses Regulation* (No. 122), and passed.

POLAND—CONVENTION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND PRUSSIA.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON:—My Lords, the other evening the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary deprecated discus-

689
sion on the subject of Polish affairs. With regard to the Question which I am about to ask the noble Earl, if I thought that Question, however important it may he, would tend in any way to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in dealing with so grave a subject, I should not put it on this occasion; but the Question I wish to ask this evening, though relating to Polish affairs, is one which cannot, as I conceive, exercise any prejudicial bearing whatever, as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, on the negotiations in which they are engaged. I feel very great sympathy, for my own part, with the Polish nation in their present struggle; and I feel, what I think every reasonable man must feel, that there is the deepest danger to the other States of Europe in the continuance of the present state of affairs, arising from the circumstances now in progress in Poland. At the same time, I am of opinion that even this evil is less to be dreaded than the wanton and gratuitous intervention of Prussia, or rather of the Prussian Government. When hostilities unfortunately break out in a country, it is the natural duty and the natural wish, I should say, of every professedly neutral power, not only to abstain from intervention, but, as far as possible, to reduce the scope of the hostilities. Unfortunately, the Prussian Government have not thought fit to adopt this policy. I do not think it at all necessary to enter into an argument upon the internal affairs of Prussia. If Prussia chose to change the fair prospects of her earlier career, to abolish her Parliament, to put down her press, and to suppress all free expression of thought—if she chose, in fact, to merge her constitutional monarchy into the coarse form of a military despotism—we have no right to criticise such acts. She is the mistress of her own actions, and must be responsible for them. But when her policy carries her beyond the limits of her own country, when her action is carried across her own frontier, then it affects the relations of other countries, and we, like every other nation in Europe, being affected by that policy, it is our right and our duty to speak out. It is undeniable, as well from the papers which have been laid before Parliament as from common report, that there exists a convention between the Governments of Prussia and Russia. In pursuance of that convention, as far as we can judge from the reports in the newspapers, Russian troops, when beaten by the Polish insurgents, have crossed the frontier and taken shelter in Prussia, have there
690
been recruited with food and arms, and have been sent back with all the facilities which the Prussian Government could give them. On the other hand, when Polish insurgents were defeated and driven across the frontier, they appear to have been immediately captured and handed over to the Russian authorities. Nay, more than that, we have evidence in the papers presented to Parliament that Poles entering Prussia from the south, intending generously to devote their lives to their country, have been arrested by the Prussian authorities and handed over to the Russians to be dealt with as the latter might think fit. I have looked through the papers laid on the table with every wish to satisfy myself as to the state of the case, and I must say that the bearings on this particular point, as to the nature, significance, and precise terms of this convention, are wholly unintelligible to me. I will take the language which is held by the different parties to the correspondence. There are no less than five parties—two contracting parties, Russia and Prussia; and three others materially concerned—namely, Austria, France, and England. I will take, in the first instance, the statement made on the one hand by the Russian and on the other by the Prussian Government. There is no denial of the existence of the document, but these two parties call it by different names. The Prussian Government call it a "Convention," the Russian Government say it is not a convention, but simply an "Engagement." The Prussian Government say that this convention or engagement was pressed upon them by Russia. The Russian Government, on the other hand, as far as we can judge from those papers, seem to have been hardly so eager to enforce it as the Prussian Government; and we have, curiously enough, a reference to part of the draught of the convention having been drawn up, not by the Russian, but by the Prussian negotiators. When our Minister pressed for some information on the subject, the Prussian Minister expressed himself perfectly willing to give the information, to place the text in our hand, if it were not for the objection raised by Russia. When our Minister goes to the Russian Government, he is told that they would be delighted to hand it over; but objections have been raised in another quarter. What that quarter is, the Russian Minister does not say; but we may draw our own conclusion on that point. The Prussian Minister, M. von Bismarck, objected to producing the convention, saying that the ra-

691
tifications had not been exchanged, and that, consequently, it was an incomplete and informal document, and as such ought not to pass into the hands of another Power. But, as Sir Andrew Buchanan, the English Minister at Berlin, pointed out, this document being a convention between Russia and Pussia, depends for its validity on the will and pleasure of the contracting parties. When we push the matter a little further, one of the contracting parties says that the object of the convention is simply to provide for a safe transit of the Russians across the frontier, when pursued by the Poles. The other goes beyond that, and says, it is for the purpose of enabling the Prussians to apprehend and give up insurgents. There is this difference when you come to deal with the parties concerned. But you find just as wide a difference in the views of Austria, who was the first Power with whom it was proposed to enter into a convention. Austria was, no doubt, placed in a difficult position. It was difficult for her, perhaps, to speak her mind; but she refused to have any part in it. France speaks with greater force. She tells you that this is a very grave question; that Prussia, by entering into a convention, forfeits her neutrality, extends the area of hostilities, and makes an incident in Polish affairs a grave question of European policy. We now come to the opinion of the Government of this country, as expressed by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. What is the view he takes on this subject? On the 2nd of March he writes to our representative at Berlin in language clear and forcible. He tells Sir Andrew Buchanan that it was the duty of Prussia to observe neutrality, but that in acceding to this convention she has departed from neutrality. On the some day the noble Earl appears to have received at the Foreign Office a despatch from Berlin, in which Sir Andrew Buchanan tells him that M. von Bismarck has had a conversation with him, and that in his opinion the convention is informal and incomplete. Three days afterwards the noble Ear writes to Lord Cowley that the importance of the convention is gradually diminishing, and nine days afterwards he writes to Sir Andrew Buchanan that the convention is a dead letter, and that he need not trouble himself to ask for any copy of it. That despatch went forth on the 11th of March. On the 14th the despatch of the noble Earl was crossed by a letter from Sir Andrew Buchanan, who said, "I do not
692
believe that either Government has declared the convention to be null." He then adds the expression of his opinion that that convention is not cancelled, but is to be acted on during the remainder of the war. Subsequently, on the 31st, you have the account of a debate in the Prussian Chambers, in which this convention is spoken of as still existing—admitted to be still existing by the Prussian Minister, and denounced by the Prussian Deputies in the strongest possible manner. Now, I do not care to dwell upon the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Prussian Government on this subject. I do not care to impute to Prussia equivocation or falsification of the facts; but I do say, that if Prussia had desired to appear in the eyes of Europe as equivocating, contradicting, and using an official mystification in this matter, it would have been impossible for her to adopt a course which would have answered that end more completely. My Lords, that closes the first stage in these proceedings; but there comes a second stage, and a very important one it is. On the 27th of February, Sir Andrew Buchanan goes to the Prussian Prime Minister at Berlin, and asks for an explanation of the nature and provisions of this convention, requesting that he might see the text. M. von Bismarck answers in the manner I have already described, but says, that though he cannot place the text of the convention in his hands, he is quite willing to read it to him. Accordingly he reads a paper which, to use Sir Andrew Buchanan's own words, M. von Bismarck represents to be the convention in question. Eight days afterwards—namely, on the 2nd of March—Sir Andrew Buchanan returns, and asks M. von Bismarck one of the most singular questions which was ever asked by one diplomatist of another—namely, whether the paper which M. von Bismarck had represented as being the convention, was in fact the whole, or was only a part of that convention. It was a very singular question; but I think the answer was still more singular; for it appears that Count Bismarck then stated, that that paper was neither the whole nor a part of the convention, but was simply the draught as proposed by Prussia. However, in order to put an end to all doubt, M. von Bismarck proposed to read the actual convention, as it was signed at St. Petersburg, and he read it accordingly. Now, here should have been the solution of every doubt on the subject; and if no other view came out in those papers, I confess

693
that I should have been perfectly satisfied with such an explanation from the Prime Minister of any country. But a little further on comes a most remarkable despatch from Lord Napier, our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, in which he describes a conversation he has had with the Duke of Montebello, the French Ambassador, who says he has seen the convention, and that allusion is made in it to a secret article. That despatch is only an extract. The secret article is spoken of as being to a certain extent known, and one to which previous reference has been made; but I find no explanation whatever of it, except in one single isolated passage. Now, I do think it is time to ask, not only whether this is the only secret article, or whether there are more—not merely what is the meaning of all this official mystification, but what can be the bearing of a paper which requires a secret article at all? Secret articles are not usually appended to State papers which are declared over and over again by the contracting parties to be devoid of all political significance. But when there has been a good deal of obscurity and reserve, it is sometimes convenient and important to inquire into the grounds of necessity which justify such a transaction. Sometimes it is possible to infer the nature of transactions from the necessities of the case. Now, what are the grounds of necessity here? Could the convention have been necessary in any sense either for Russia or Prussia? You have in these papers the Cartel Convention of 1857, under which Russia has a full and absolute right to the extradition of all offenders, whether political or criminal M. von Bismarck himself—no slight authority on such a subject—tells you that this convention is so elastic as to comprise every species of offence. I should have thought that that was enough to satisfy Russia, if she merely wished to obtain the surrender of political offenders; and I should have thought, that if Prussia were merely ambitious to fulfil the duties of the high police of her neighbour, such a convention would have satisfied her. But against whom, or for what object, was the new convention entered into? No one will tell me that these unhappy Poles could have meditated carrying the war into the territories of Prussia. Was it rebellion, then? Was it the fear of insurrection? Why, we never heard a whisper of anything like disquiet or political disturbance in the Polish territories of Prussia. Was it, again, any do-
694
mestic pressure or any national sentiment which urged Prussia on? Why, we have in these papers the Report of a very stirring debate in the Prussian Chamber, in which the convention is denounced In far stronger language than I would venture to use before your Lordships. Well, then, there is but a single reason which I can imagine after having employed this exhaustive process. Incredible as it may seem, this convention must owe its existence to the jealousy of Prussia—to her fear, to a vague and indefinite dread of anything like constitutional life arising on the other side of her frontier. I dissociate the action of the Prussian people from that of their Government, and I shall not consent, without much larger evidence than that now supplied to us, to believe that the mind and feeling of Prussia are enlisted in the course taken by her Government. But the Prussian Government think it possible, that out of the present wreck and chaos in Poland, and out of the bloody strife now going on there, may arise some freer principles of government, some more liberal constitution than that which Poland has for a long time enjoyed; and this, I believe, is the phantom which has so scared them—this is the ghost which M. von Bismarck has conjured up, and is now endeavouring to lay. My Lords, surely it is a most unworthy policy to grudge this measure of freedom and this new constitution to Poland. More than that, it is unnecessary and unwise to do so, because by such conduct Prussia isolates herself, and drives back the sympathies of those nations who have been her best allies in former years. In such a policy she goes back, not by years, but almost by generations, and gives up entirely the prize for which she has been so long struggling—the leadership of Germany. More than this, I think it will be admitted that such a policy is not only unworthy, unnecessary, and unwise, but that it is eminently unsafe. Are Prussian statesmen positively so blind, are their eyes so judicially darkened, that they cannot see the excessive danger of the course they are now pursuing, and are not aware of that which any child can discern—how nicely balanced and how critical affairs now are in Europe? Is it possible for them to fancy that they can act while others hereafter will sit still, and that the mischievous precedent of intervention will not he exercised some day by some other Power? In one word, to put it in the strongest form, do they think that their western frontier is so secure that they can

695
venture to trifle with their own fortunes and the peace of Europe? It would be well if Prussian statesmen had solved these questions clearly and distinctly in their own minds before they ventured upon this dangerous course. I have made these observations because I feel, that if I allowed this time to pass by, the opportunity might be lost of calling attention to this questionable and unsatisfactory transaction. I have endeavoured to keep clear of all questions which are in; any way involved in the negotiations now being carried on by the Government, and I shall conclude by asking the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can add any further Information respecting the Nature and Provisions of the recent Convention concluded between the Governments of Russia and Prussia beyond that contained in the Correspondence respecting the Insurrection in Poland laid before Parliament?
EARL RUSSELL: My noble Friend has certainly avoided any question which, could at all embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the; negotiations now going on with respect to Poland; and with regard to the particular Question which my noble Friend has put to me, I cannot say that I can add anything to the present information to be derived from the papers which have been laid before Parliament. The noble Earl says, very truly, that what was represented as a convention at Berlin was represented at St. Petersburg as a mere military arrangement; that what was represented at Berlin as done at the request of the Russian Government, was represented at St. Petersburg as having been done at the request of Prussia. In short, there has been a kind of contradiction, a kind of obscurity, with regard to this convention. What, however, appeared to Her Majesty's Government, and I believe to the Government of France, to be the most important part of this convention or military arrangement, whichever it may be termed, was this:—It was believed that if Russian troops entered upon Prussian territory—that is into Posen or Silesia—they would be there at liberty to carry on hostilities against the Polish insurgents whom they were pursuing. Now, we find that Count Bismarck denies that any authority is given for that purpose, and says that the convention in that respect is a dead letter; and he states that no instructions have been given to the Prussian authorities, without
696
whose sanction Russian troops could not go in pursuit of the insurgents, or carry on hostilities in Prussia. That being the state of the case, I certainly said that the importance of that convention was very much diminished, and Count Bismarck repeated that it was a dead letter. That, however, does not appear to be the case. The noble Earl made some general observations at the commencement of his speech with which I cannot but agree. Here was an insurrection broken out in Russian Poland, with the motives and provocations of which the Prussian Government had nothing to do. It certainly appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the wise course for Prussia to pursue was to take every precaution; to preserve tranquillity on her own frontiers among her own subjects in Prussian Poland, and to adopt such measures of conciliation on the one hand, and military vigilance on the other, as would prevent the insurrection from spreading into the Polish provinces of Prussia. Such was very much the policy pursued by Austria; but it has certainly not been the general policy pursued by Prussia. Prussia has considered that the insurrection in Russian Poland was a danger to Prussian Poland; and, without going the extreme length of allowing Russian troops to pursue the Poles on her own territory, she has done everything in her power that was not quite open to the charge of being a breach of neutrality to assist Russia. That being the state of the case, I think it is very bad policy on the part of Prussia, and a policy which at one time seemed likely to involve disagreeable negotiations with France and England.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that although reluctant to take any part in the discussion, he would not have his silence construed into the slightest approbation of the conduct of Prussia. He agreed with all parties in this country, and all on the Continent, except the Government of Prussia, in reprobating the conduct of Russia towards Poland. Viewing with reprobation that conduct, and trusting that it would not produce any effects inconsistent with the peace of Europe, he must express his astonishment and his sorrow for the conduct of Prussia in regard to her own subjects and her own constitution. He believed that the Prussian people had the sympathy of all Europe, except, perhaps, the army of Prussia, in their present position with regard to the Crown.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My noble Friend has said nothing as to the secret article. I should be glad to know, whether he can give us any information as to the nature of that secret article, and whether he will lay upon the table any despatches, or parts of despatches, relating to it?
EARL RUSSELL: Some mention has been made of a secret article, but we have not such information as we can rely upon, and which we could produce to the House, based upon any satisfactory authority.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.