Sitting of 11 July 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Sheriff in Chancery (Scotland)* [Salary].
Second Reading—Ionian Islands States Acts of Parliament Repeal, &c* [Bill 197]; Militia Pay*; Expiring Laws Continuance* [Bill 193]; Bleaching and Dyeing Works Acts Extension [Bill 181]; Militia Ballots Suspension*; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [Bill 196]; Election Petitions Act (1848) Amendment* [Bill 182]; Criminal Justice Act (1855) Extension* [Bill 190].
Committee—Isle of Man Harbours Act Amendment* [Bill 1S5]; Naval and Victualling Stores (re-committed)* [Bill 178] (Lords); Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)* [Bill 164] —R.P.; Thames Embankment and Improvement (Loans)* [Bill 191]; Improvement of Land Act (1864)* [Bill 187] (Lords)—R.P.; Mortgage Debentures* [Bill 169] (Lords), Debate adjourned; Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &c.* [Bill 192],
Report—Isle of Man Harbours Act Amendment* [Bill 185]; Naval and Victualling Stores (recommitted)* [Bill 178]; Thames Embankment and Improvement (Loans)* [Bill 191]; Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &c. (re-committed)* [Bill 192].
Considered as amended—Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland)* [Bill 174] (Lords); Trespass (Ireland)* [Bill 195].
Third Reading—Inland Revenue (Stamp Duties)* [Bill 159]; Public Schools* [Bill 168] (Lords); Administration of Trusts (Scotland)* [Bill 179], and passed; Joint Stock Companies (Voting Papers) [Bill 198] (count out).
Withdrawn—Court of Chancery (Ireland)* [Bill 78]; Juries in Criminal Cases* [Bill 120].

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Exchequer Bonds, Account [presented 5th July] referred.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE BRADFORD RESERVOIRS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, two years ago he had directed the attention of the Home Secretary to the state of the Bradford Reservoirs; and on the bursting of the Sheffield Reservoir he again noticed the matter, and his statements were described as being greatly exaggerated by the Mayor of Bradford, who had been communicated with by the Home Secretary, and who stated that the Bradford Reservoir had been emptied. After that statement he received communications from persons residing in the neighbourhood of the reservoir, complaining of the great danger to which they were exposed. At his instance the Home. Secretary, after some hesitation, directed Mr. Rawlinson, the Government Inspector, to visit the works in his neighbourhood, and that gentleman's Report had been laid before the House. There was this alarming fact in connection with these hill reservoirs—that the people resident in their neighbourhood had no protection whatever for their lives or property. In the case of a recent Bill in regard to a reservoir in Lancashire, an application was made on the part of Colonel Towneley, for a clause enacting that the Water Company should not impound water, without having a certificate from a competent engineer that the works were secure. The Parliamentary Committee, however, who considered the Bill, refused the application, with the remark that the parties had a remedy by an action at law. Yet in that very case the embankment of the reservoir had twice before that time given way. Of what value was a right of action against a bankrupt company, and it appeared that the shareholders in the company would only be liable to the amount of their shares. The Sheffield Company, for instance, were ruined by the inundation; and if it had not been for the subscriptions collected throughout the country, the sufferers would have received no relief. There was no personal responsibility attaching to the

  1319
  owners of such works. Just before the dreadful calamity at Sheffield, one of the shareholders was heard boasting that the waterworks were one of the best speculations going. Now, he held that in regard to the supply of water there ought to be no speculation whatever. It ought to be furnished at the cheapest possible price as a necessary of life; and ample protection ought to be afforded to the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of every reservoir for their life and property. The sole aim of the companies, however, seemed to be to obtain high dividends; and in order to effect that object the lowest tender for the construction of a reservoir was accepted, and thus the reservoirs were too often badly constructed in the first instance, and afterwards grossly neglected. The frightful catastrophe at Holmfirth in 1852 would be in the recollection of the House. The reservoir burst in the dead of the night, and destroyed a great many lives and a vast amount of property. The jury found a verdict, declaring that the reservoir was originally defective, and that the Commissioners had been guilty of gross and culpable negligence, and regretting that they could not return a verdict of manslaughter. Notwithstanding that warning, Parliament took no steps whatever to insure the improved construction of embankments. These works continued to be erected on the same false principle as formerly, and the consequence was the Sheffield inundation in the previous March, when 265 lives were sacrificed, property was destroyed to the amount of about £1,000,000, and 20,000 persons were reduced to destitution. The jury in that case expressed their opinion that there had not been that engineering skill and attention in the construction of the works which their importance demanded, and that the Legislature ought to take such action as would result in frequent, regular, and sufficient inspection of all reservoirs of that character. In the inquiry as to the Bradford Reservoir, the engineer, under whose advice and authority it had been constructed, distinctly confessed that the embankments were all more or less dangerous. Even after the awful experience of the recent inundation the same engineer designed another reservoir for the Sheffield Company on the same unsound principle as that which gave way. Mr. Rawlinson, as soon as he heard of it, drew the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact, that every objectionable feature in the Bradford Re-
  1320
  servoir was reproduced in this new one. The jury stated in their verdict that in their opinion the Legislature ought to take such action as would result in a governmental inspection. But Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Beardmore declared that they could not recommend the adoption of that suggestion, inasmuch as the Government could not ensure ultimate safety, and the responsibility must rest with the engineers. He could not understand that advice. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did interfere. He wrote to the Waterworks Company and told them that they would incur the gravest responsibility if they continued the embankment; and he had no doubt that if they had persevered, the right hon. Gentleman would have applied for an Order in Council to stop the operations. Precisely the same thing had been going on in his own neighbourhood at Bradford. Eleven reservoirs were in the course of construction there on the same false and dangerous principles as the reservoir at Bradfield. One of the principal causes of the bursting of the Bradfield reservoir was that the embankments were formed of material scooped out of the interior. Mr. Rawlinson had pointed that out as a most dangerous principle, and yet every one of the reservoirs in the neighbourhood of Bradford was being constructed in accordance with it, and, as a necessary consequence, every one of them was in a dangerous state. It was under such circumstances that he had been requested by a number of persons in his own neighbourhood to bring the question under the notice of the House. At present they were in a state of constant alarm lest their lives should be sacrificed. In his opinion it was necessary that some alteration should be made in the mode in which Parliament legislated upon the subject of waterworks. Parliamentary Committees did not devote sufficient attention to the evidence brought before them in connection with water schemes, and they ought to insist on the most rigorous measures for the preservation of human life. Most of the schemes themselves were originated by engineers and land surveyors, who went all over the country in search of a water supply, and having found it, induced persons connected with the locality, under the promise of a high rate of interest for their money, to embark their capital in a speculation of this sort. Their first step was to buy off all the influence which might be used against them, and having once accom-

  1321
  plished that object they announce the fact to a Parliamentary Committee, who were satisfied with the mere assertion of the fact, and never considered it their duty to inquire into the means by which it was brought about. The Bradford Waterworks' scheme had been promoted entirely in that way; and he believed that a large majority of the water schemes which came before Parliament were got up in a similar manner. In 1853 Bradford had become a corporate town, and the Waterworks Company sold their waterworks to the corporation at a profit of cent per cent, many persons connected with the company being also members of the corporation. The corporation, in the face of an opposition from some of the most respectable inhabitants, then came to Parliament for power to go a distance of twenty-two miles from Bradford to collect water for the supply of that town and eight other places. In carrying out that gigantic scheme, not the slightest protection was given to the landowners or farmers of the district, who were deprived of the natural flow of the water, the only persons who were protected being the mill-owners, who went to the heavy expense of appearing before Parliament in their own defence. The corporation obtained borrowing powers to the extent of £383,500. In 1858 the corporation again applied to Parliament for powers to supply ten other places with water, and to borrow to the extent of another £200,000. In 1862 they applied again to Parliament for powers to borrow a further sum of £100,000, and for an extension of the time for completing the works. A large number of the inhabitants were opposed to that gigantic expenditure, and he believed that the whole sum for which borrowing powers had been obtained, or nearly £700,000, had been expended, or would very shortly be so, and yet it appeared when Mr. Rawlinson was sent down the water had not been conveyed to the borough of Bradford, or to any one of the other eighteen places. He was in formed that a Bill had been passed through that House, called the Sheffield Waterworks Bill, contrary to the Standing-Orders, and that it was before the House of Lords, where the corporation of Sheffield were opposing it. The promoters of that Bill proposed to raise £400,000 to pay their liabilities, and to increase the water rates of Sheffield 25 per cent. A petition from 12,000 householders in that borough against the Bill had been sent to him, and the petitioners complained of the at-
  1322
  tempt to tax them for the consequence of the misdeeds and scandalous negligence of the Waterworks Company. Having endeavoured to give the House some idea of the way in which Waterworks Companies were got up as speculations and jobs, he would now touch on the means used to procure water. In the borough of Bradford the spring water of the district, one of the best gifts of Providence, had been recklessly destroyed, and the corporation had gone twenty-two miles off for water, thus creating a dearth in some of the mineral districts, where the article would yet be much needed. When a spring disappeared from a district there was no legal right given to examine whether the water had not been taken away underground, by stealth, in pipes. These parties collected all the spring water that could be found for miles around and left nothing for the supply of the district but what was collected in the compensation reservoirs. In many instances in his own neighbourhood farmers and others had been deprived of their spring water; on three occasions his own property had been deprived of it by stealth, and once he was obliged to apply to the Court of Chancery for redress. These reservoirs were filled by the rainfall mostly during summer thunderstorms, the gush of which was necessary for cleansing the streams in which the filth and sewage of the district were pent up. No authority was placed in the hands of any local board or any magistrate to insist that the owners of these reservoirs should let sufficient water rush down the streams in order to purify them. Hence the course was stopped, malaria arose, and the health of the district was affected. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to see that a clause was inserted in all future Waterworks Bills empowering local Boards of Health to order the flooding of these streams during the summer months:—

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  LORD PROBY [The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD] reported HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER to Address [8th July] as follows:—
  I have received your Address thanking Me for directing the Correspondence on Denmark and Germany, and the Protocols of the Conference

  1323
  recently held in London, to be laid before Parliament.
  I share your deep concern that the sittings of that Conference have been brought to a close without accomplishing the important purposes for which it was convened:
  I am happy to be assured of your satisfaction with the course which I have felt it My Duty to take in abstaining at this conjuncture from armed interference in the War now going on between Denmark and the German Powers.

THE BRADFORD RESERVOIRS.
MR. FERRANDresumed: He thought Mr. Rawlinson had great cause of complaint against the corporation of Bradford in keeping back from him information prejudicial to their works which it was most important for him to possess. His Report, however, was very unsatisfactory. That Report stated that the Bradford corporation had eleven of these reservoirs under their control, of which three required special notice, leaving eight on which no particular remarks were made. Now, he was prepared to assert, on the authority of those who perfectly understood the question, that five of these eight were not only unsafe, but many of them dangerous to a very serious degree. If the right hon. Gentleman were to visit the neighbourhood of the Silsden Reservoir, and call at the houses of these people, he would have a great deal of sympathy with them. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman to pay some attention to the question, and to put a stop to the great alarm which prevailed in the North of England on the subject. In almost the concluding sentence of his Report Mr. Rawlinson said, "This Report must not be considered to involve the Government or myself in any responsibility;" but who was to be responsible? The people themselves had no power, and the magistrates were very reluctant to interfere. The public had a right to expect that some stringent power would be brought to bear to protect them. It had been suggested that none of these reservoirs should be allowed to be brought into operation after their construction until they had been reported to the Home Office as being safe by some competent engineer. Having made these observations, he left the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Office, and he trusted that the Report of Mr. Leather would be laid on the table.
GAME LAW PROSECUTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Return of Prosecutions under the Game Laws, from 1857 to 1862 inclusive, ordered by the House, was printed before the wanting Returns, 105 in number, were obtained. He could not but complain of the negligence of the clerks of the peace with respect to the Returns, but defective as they were the result of the Return as presented was, that there had been 30,673 convictions in England and Wales under the Game Laws from 1857 to 1862, and 3,326 prosecutions in Scotland. It was to the credit of the judicial authorities in Scotland that none of the Returns in reference to that country were wanting. In England, however, Returns were wanting from as many as 105 places, among which were Southampton, Horsham, Lewes, Uckfield, Marlborough, Exeter, Buckingham, Swansea, and Leamington. He might, perhaps, be told by the Home Secretary that he had no power to obtain the wanting Returns, but notwithstanding it was a just cause of complaint that £700 of the public money had been expended in printing defective Returns. No doubt that House had the power to insist that the order for the Returns should be obeyed; and if that order was not complied with, then the parties refusing to comply with it might be summoned to the Bar of the House. He thought that there ought to be some other method of getting the Returns so ordered; but, if not, he would not shrink from his duty, and would have the parties summoned to the Bar of the House, if necessary, when the parties would find themselves subjected to much heavier expense than the several Returns would have entailed upon them. Under the circumstances, he had had recourse to the annual judicial Returns of the Home Office, which were lucid in their details, and exhibited the moral condition of England and Wales in connection with offences. According to the Returns of the Home Office, the total number of offences against the Game Laws in 1857 numbered 5,480. In 1862, however, under the present most stringent law, they rose to 10,101 prosecutions, being an increase of nearly 100 per cent. In the six years ending in 1857 the prosecutions amounted to 30,673; but in the six years ending in 1863 they amounted to 49,845, of which 8,556 persons accused were dis-

  1325
  charged, and 41,209 were convicted; whereas the defective Return of which he complained comprised a total of only 30,673 for England and Wales, and 3,326 for Scotland. In the Scotch Return a touching observation was made, In reference to the 3,326 cases, some of the offenders were described as having "deserted," which meant that in consequence of some trifling trespass, perhaps, they had been obliged to abandon their home and family and desert their country, It is lamentable that so many poor persons are annually consigned to a prison or fined under the Game Laws; but there is no prospect of the number being diminished, while the poor continue to think that there can he no individual or personal property in migratory birds or animals. The people are irritated by the apparently arbitrary manner in which fines and costs were adjudged. He would just give the House a specimen of the relation between the penalty and the costs in some cases. In one case in England the penalty was 3d. find the costs 7s. 6d.; in another case, at Eastwood, Notts, the penalty was 6d. and the costs 19 s. 6d., or about thirty-eight times the amount of the penalty, and, generally speaking, the costs were four times the amount of the penalty. Surely there ought to be some more just ratio between the costs and the penalty. It had been calculated by a writer in one of the newspapers that, taking the prosecutions from 1857 to 1862, as 30,673, and assuming that the cost of the prosecutions bore a certain relation to the total cost of the judicial establishments, the result was, that every landowner out of the towns and cities of England and Wales (the number of such landowners being reckoned at 30,000) had £60 a year paid to him for the preservation of his game. He did not pretend to say that the calculation was correct, indeed it could not be correct, but such was that writer's statement. In the six years in question the number of convictions for offences and crimes, great and small, was 2,354,720, and the total cost of the medical establishments, prosecutions, &c., £5,725,197. The average cost of each offence was, therefore, £2 9s. per head. He hoped the Home Secretary would inform them why the Return had been presented in so imperfect a form.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman opposite, who drew attention to the state of the reservoirs in the country, through all
  1326
  the details of the particular works to which he referred. His suggestion is, I understand, that in accordance with the opinion expressed by the jury at Sheffield, there should be regular and official inspection by Government of all the reservoirs throughout the country. Now, on the part of the Government, I must altogether decline to assume the responsibility which that system would involve. It is a duty which it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to discharge. Mr. Rawlinson said it was out of the question for Inspectors to take the responsibility of saying that reservoirs were safe. I have also had a conversation on the subject with the eminent engineer Mr. Hawkshaw, who said that no engineer, however competent, could, by merely looking at an embankment, pronounce whether it was safe. No doubt an Inspector might find occasionally a reservoir which was obviously not safe, and that is what Mr. Rawlinson did in certain cases, where an engagement was obtained that the water should not be let in till the works were made secure. The owners of these reservoirs are naturally rather in favour of the course now suggested, for it would relieve them from the legal responsibility which rests upon them. If it he true, as has been alleged to-night, that there are reservoirs in a condition so dangerous that they excite the greatest alarm among the population in the neighbourhood, then I recommend the hon. Gentleman, or any others who may be concerned, to take legal proceedings by indictment. If the works are in the state which the hon. Member has described, the law provides a remedy. Moreover, there is the criminal responsibility which rests on those against whom culpable negligence can be proved, leading to loss of life, and the pecuniary responsibility which is involved in the possible destruction of large and costly works. It would be well, however, when any Water Bill comes before Parliament, that the Committee should insist on proper clauses being inserted to secure, as far as possible, the safety of the public. There was one remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman which I heard with deep regret. I believe he sometimes speaks under great excitement, and is not really aware of what he: says. He has accused Mr. Rawlinson of certifying the soundness of a work, knowing it to be unsound. Mr. Rawlinson is well known to many Members of this House, and it is hardly necessary for me to say

  1327
  that he is a civil engineer of great eminence, experience, and of very high character; and that he can have no possible motive whatever for in any way concealing the truth in such cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would not repeat the charge in his cooler moments.
  As to the question which has been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), the reason why the Game Conviction Return has been presented in an imperfect form is simply because it comprises all the information which it is possible to obtain. It is a Return of extraordinary length. It occupies in type 481 closely printed pages, with seven columns of figures on each page; and it was several months in passing through the press. Application was made for the required Returns by a circular letter to the clerks of the peace, of petty sessions, and so on. Many of these officers, however, declined to furnish returns which entailed so much labour without remuneration. The Government have no power of remunerating them, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be aware of the only means of compulsion, which he can put in force if he thinks it worth while.
  MR. FERRANDdisclaimed any intention of saying a word against the character of Mr. Rawlinson. All he meant was that twenty years ago Mr. Rawlinson himself pointed out a substance which he said rendered a certain work dangerous, and yet he did not allude to it in his recent Report.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed that Mr. Rawlinson's inspection had given satisfaction at Bradford, and his Report had tended to remove the alarm which previously existed on the subject. Two reservoirs were found to be unsound, and an undertaking had been required that they should not be filled till they were rendered quite safe. There could be no doubt that there was a strong feeling in the country in regard to the matter; and it was not surprising when they recollected the catastrophes at Holmfirth and Sheffield. He quite agreed, however, with his right hon. Friend, that Government could not assume the responsibility of inspecting all the reservoirs with a view to determine their soundness. The result of such a system would be to shift the responsibility to a great extent from the shoulders of those who constructed or owned the works to the Government. It appeared to be unquestionable that the engineering science of the
  1328
  day was not up to the construction of these embankments; and if so, that was a rather disgraceful fact. He thought the Government ought to issue a commission to the most scientific men they could obtain, to inquire whether any general provisions could be devised applicable to all reservoirs and waterworks. For instance, both at Holmfirth and Sheffield it was known be forehand that the works were going to break; but the water could not be run off in time to prevent an inundation. It was only fair, in his opinion, that some provision should be made for such a contingency. Again, he thought that the water should not be allowed to be above a certain height in the reservoir. He thought the Government ought to appoint a commission to inquire into the whole subject, so as to ascertain whether engineering skill might not devise some means for preventing the calamity which had occurred in the case of the Sheffield reservoir.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that no expense had been spared in securing the best engineering skill for the construction of the Sheffield reservoir; and he believed the bursting of the Holmfirth Reservoir had been occasioned by an accident which it was impossible to foresee. If there had been the slightest intimation given to the directors that there was any danger, this loss of life would never have happened.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexplained that he did not mean to say that there was time for the directors to be aware of it. What he wished to intimate was, that when the accident appeared imminent from the state of the water it was possible there might be such an opportunity of letting the water out as would very much have lessened the evil that had occurred.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE WAR IN DENMARK.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given private notice. Upon that day fortnight, when the noble Lord favoured the House with a statement in reference to the policy of the Government, he made use of a remarkable expression with regard to certain contingencies which might arise in the Dano-German war, which would justify the interference of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was out of order in referring to a

1329
speech delivered in the course of a past debate.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the noble Lord had on a previous occasion mentioned in general terms certain contingencies which might occur, and which might justify this country in taking part with Denmark in the present war. He understood by that that the Government were prepared to prevent any attack upon the independence of Copenhagen and the personal safety of the King of Denmark, but it was doubted by many persons out of doors whether such was the intention of the noble Lord. To refrain from interfering until after Copenhagen had been bombarded would be very much like shutting the stable door when the steed had been stolen. It had been said that the Austrian fleet had received notice that if they appeared in the Baltic the English fleet would accompany them, and he wished to know if that intention would still be carried out now that the Conference had broken up. It was of immense importance to the country to know what was likely to be the course which the Government would pursue. A great debate had just taken place on the policy of the Government, in which that policy had received the approval of the majority of the House; but there were many matters still left unexplained, of which this was one of considerable interest. He would remind the House that at the commencement of the Crimean war we sent our fleet to the Dardanelles and into the Black Sea as soon as we heard of the outrage committed by the Russian fleet at Sinope. He would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to favour the House with an explanation of the real meaning of the expressions he had used a fortnight before.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the best answer I can make to the question of the hon. Gentleman is to say, that as far as Her Majesty's Government are informed at present, they have no reason to believe that there is any intention of attacking Copenhagen.

ARMY—FORAGE MONEY OF CAVALRY OFFICERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to call attention to the anomalous and unfair practice of making deductions from the pay of certain Cavalry Officers for the Forage supplied to their horses. Those officers must have horses in order to perform their duty,
1330
and it was most unjust to make them bear the cost of feeding them. The whole expense to the country for remedying the injustice would not exceed £20,000 a year, an amount which could not break the Treasury, especially as they had a prosperity Budget, with the prospect of everlasting peace. It was not an affair of the Horse Guards—all the evil must be laid at the door of the Treasury, as he believed that if the Commander-in-Chief could do what he liked the complaint would not have to be made. He hoped it was only necessary to mention this matter to the noble Marquess to induce him to make such a representation to that obstinate Department, the Treasury, as might cause an act of justice to be done to a very meritorious body of officers.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the pay of the officers of the army had not been altered for the last seventy or eighty years, and the stoppage in question had always been exacted from cavalry officers, in consequence, he supposed, of the increased pay given them. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was nothing less than a simple suggestion to increase the pay of cavalry officers by the sum of 16 d. a day in the case of subalterns, and by a larger sum in the case of captains and field officers. It was more a Treasury than a War Office question; and on the abolition of the stoppage being proposed by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) when in office, the Treasury, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) was then Secretary, refused to entertain it. The argument of the Treasury was that these officers had purchased their commissions with the prospect of receiving a certain amount of pay, and that to increase it would be a boon to the present holders of commissions only, and would not benefit their successors, because the price of the commission would rise in proportion to the extra advantage attached to it. Whether that was a good argument or not he was not prepared to say; but there did not appear to be any reason which should induce the Treasury to assent now to a proposal which it had rejected in 1859, and again in 1861, when Lord Herbert was in office, and when there existed a reason for offering some additional boon to cavalry officers. In 1861 there was the greatest difficulty in finding cavalry officers at all, and a great number of commissions were vacant. The

1331
attention of Lord Herbert and the Commander-in-Chief was then directed towards a remedy for that, and an increase of pay was recommended, but the Treasury professed to be unable to see that such an increase would benefit any future class of officers, and therefore it refused to carry out that part of Lord Herbert's plans. The plans of Lord Herbert had been perfectly successful, and there was no longer any difficulty in finding cavalry officers. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be idle to renew that proposal at the Treasury, and he did not believe the army required it.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that he had brought forward that matter almost every year for the last ten years. It might be all very well to insist on the stoppage of forage money if these officers were not bound to keep horses, but in the exercise of their duties they were obliged to keep two. The noble Lord said the pay of the officers of the army had not been altered for seventy or eighty years, but the same argument would have equally applied to the allowance of command money, which he had succeeded in getting altered last year. The stoppage was a very great piece of injustice to cavalry officers, and he did not blame one Administration more than another, as every successive Treasury had refused to meet the case. He regretted that the Treasury always refused every fair demand for the army or navy.

THE SERVICES OF SIR FRANCIS BOND HEAD.—RESOLUTION
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he rose to call attention to the Memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head, Bart., to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, laid upon the table of the House on the 6th day of June last, and in conclusion, That in the opinion of this House the great but hitherto unrequited services rendered by Sir Francis Bond Head, when Governor of Upper Canada, in the year 1837 and 1838, call for the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had acted in a handsome manner in causing all the documents which Sir Francis Head wished to have published appended to the memorial; but these documents having been laid before the House, he thought the House was entitled to express its opinion on the matters to which they referred, and he was sure they would
1332
at least express their sympathy with the very strong case which Sir Francis Head presented to the Colonial Secretary. The case of this distinguished man was quite distinct from the question of mere superannuation, on which the memorials of ex-Governors turned. He admitted that the excitement in home politics during the period when Sir Francis Head's services were rendered was not favourable to the full appreciation of the benefits of his administration: some time must necessarily elapse before their full bearing and effect could be appreciated. Therefore he did not blame the then existing or any particular Government for allowing these able and important services to pass unrequited. The policy then inaugurated in Canada has now been adopted as the true colonial policy, and had proved eminently successful; and he thought that, in comparison with a subject so deeply affecting the British empire, the discussions of the last two weeks were of secondary importance. The object of our colonial administration had been to make our colonies self-governing and self-dependent to the utmost possible extent. If ever a man had succeeded in furthering this object that man was Sir Francis Head; for at a critical period of our colonial history that individual had accomplished one of the greatest ends of colonial administration—namely, inspiring the colonists with the habit of self-defence. So successful had his administration proved, that when the rebellion broke out he was able to denude his own government both of troops and militia, and to send the whole to the assistance of Lord Colborne, It was the spirit of loyalty and self-dependence which he had inspired into the Canadian people that had enabled him to effect these great results. To the merits of Sir Francis Head an immense array of testimony presented itself from the colonies and from home. On Sir Francis Head's resignation of the Governorship in February, 1838, Her Majesty's Minister in the United States, Mr. Fox, wrote in these terms—
"I must be permitted to express to you my sincere regret and sorrow at your retiring from the Government of Upper Canada at the present moment, after the noble manner in which you have vindicated the honour of the British name, and of the British Constitution. The triumph which under your auspices have been achieved for the principles of English Constitutional Liberty over American Democracy, will render the period of your administration of the colony a conspicuous part of history."

1333
On the 17th January, 1838, the Upper House of the Canadian Parliament voted an Address containing this testimony to the merits of his Administration:—
"We feel that not Upper Canada only, but the empire, owes to your Excellency a large debt of gratitude for your firm and manly avowal, upon all occasions, of those sentiments which became the representative of a British monarch; and for the unwavering support which your Excellency has never failed to give to the established principles of the Constitution. It is this fearless adherence to right principles, rather than to expediency, which has enabled your Excellency to rally round the Government in a moment of danger, the arms of an united people; and to exhibit this province to our Sovereign and to the world, in a posture which must command for its brave and loyal inhabitants the highest admiration and respect."
And the Commons House of the Canadian Parliament voted a similar Address on the following day, January 18, in which they say—
"Upon looking back at the various important communications which have been made by your Excellency to the House of Assembly during the present Session, we cannot but congratulate you and the country upon the firm and noble attitude assumed by your Excellency in all those public documents which have emanated from your Excellency. When we reflect upon the occurrences that have taken place in Upper Canada, and upon its borders, within a few months past, and upon the distinguished part taken by your Excellency to maintain the honour and interests of our country, during that short but eventful period, we find equal cause of gratulation. Rebellion has been crushed; the attacks of perfidious citizens of a foreign Power have been repelled, and peace reigns triumphant within the bounds of your Excellency's Government.
"The people of Upper Canada will ever retain a grateful recollection of the services of your Excellency; and they feel assured your Excellency will meet with a due reward at the hands of our youthful and beloved Queen,"
The rebellion took place six months after Her Majesty's accession; and yet up to this time no reward had been offered to Sir Francis Head, with the exception of the baronetcy conferred by William the Fourth, His successor in the Government, Sir George Arthur (to whom Sir Francis Head was entirely unknown), bore a remarkable testimony to the ability of his administration; for he said—
"Having, of course, had an opportunity of reading your correspondence with the Colonial Office, I can say sincerely that I most heartily and cordially concur in all your political views and measures, as far as I can collect them from that source, and most anxiously desire to maintain them."
And the instructions of Lord Glenelg to
1334
Sir George Arthur amounted, in fact, to instructions to follow implicitly the policy of his predecessor. Lord Glenelg says—
"Your conduct will also be subject to comparison with that of your immediate predecessor, an officer justly enjoying the confidence and gratitude of the great majority of the people of Upper Canada, and highly distinguished by the energy and success of his political career. In the general policy and conduct of your immediate predecessor, you will find an example worthy of imitation. I refer not, of course, to the comparatively few and unimportant measures in which I was most reluctantly compelled to dissent from his opinions, but to the main course and spirit of his policy, in which it was at once my duty and my happiness to signify to him the approbation of His late Majesty's Government,
"Deeply regretting that on any ground Sir Francis Head should have considered it necessary, at the present moment, to resign his office, and, most sincerely lamenting that decision, Her Majesty's Government felt themselves compelled to submit to this inconvenience. I cannot, however, on this account, forget the nature of the services which he has rendered, nor can I testify my sense of them more strongly than by pointing out to your imitation the uncompromising firmness with which he resisted every endeavour to subvert the political institutions of Upper Canada, the energy with which he opposed himself to the enemies of order and of peace, and the frank and open bearing with which he threw himself upon the loyalty, the reason, and the public spirit of the great body of the people.
"Guided by the general principles to which I have referred, and animated by Sir Francis Head's example, you will. I trust, successfully contend with any difficulties you may have to encounter."
This was twenty-six years ago, and up to this moment Sir Francis Head remained unrewarded for his great services. It was Sir Francis Head's misfortune at the period of his retirement to be supposed to be entangled in party politics, Now, he (Sir William Jolliffe) knew no man more free from political bias. The mistake arose out of the confusion which reigned in the political atmosphere of the period. The Ministers of the day, however, were very explicit in their opinions. In 1839, upon a question being raised by the Earl of Durham, Lord Melbourne expressed his regret that the publication of the Earl of Durham's Report should have anticipated its presentment to Parliament; and in the same year the Duke of Wellington brought forward the subject, when Lord Aberdeen said that the publication of Lord Durham's Report was an unprecedented occurrence. On that occasion Lord Durham denied that he had any intention in his Report of bringing any charge against Sir Francis Head. He believed that Sir Francis Head by his ser-

1335
vices had secured the attachment of the colony to this country. There was scarcely a Member of that House who was not acquainted with Sir Francis Head by means of his writings, and who had not been delighted with them. Sir Francis Head was now seventy-two years of age, and if the country acknowledged that they owed him any debt of gratitude, they must lose no time if they intended to pay it. The papers laid on the table would enable the House to judge whether Sir Francis Head had done well, and he trusted the House would come to the decision that there should be some recognition of his great services. He believed his conduct might be regarded as an example and a lesson to any public officer charged under circumstances of great difficulty with the administration of public affairs. Sir Francis Head on going out to Canada at the request of the Government gave up a lucrative situation at home, which he would willingly have filled again on his return home, but according to etiquette he could not do so. He regretted that the question had not fallen into abler hands; but he was willing to leave the case in the hands of the Government, in the hope that they would prove to Sir Francis Head, now in his old age, that his services were not forgotten.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was quite sure that no one could feel the want of an advocate who could command the assistance of his right hon. Friend (Sir William Jolliffe.) He (Mr. Cardwell) had the pleasure of enjoying not only the literary but the personal acquaintance of Sir Francis Head, and, without entering into the controversial matters involved in the case, was quite ready to confirm all that had been said as to the abilities, courage, and zeal for the public service that had been displayed by him. As it had been justly said, this was a case which occurred not far from thirty years ago, and was then the subject of much controversy. Into that controversy it might, perhaps, be his duty to enter at some future time, and to state the views of the Colonial Department. He reserved that question now, as it was not necessary to enter upon it at the present moment; and he was glad to avoid the necessity of doing so. The observations which had fallen from his right hon. Friend he understood had arisen in this way, A proposal had been made to Parliament for conferring pensions upon Colonial Governors, and several memorials which had been received on the subject from Colonial Governors had
1336
been moved for and had been laid upon the table. Amongst others a memorial had been addressed to the Government by Sir Francis Head, and having received it, though Sir Francis Head had not served out his whole period of time as Governor, he (Mr. Cardwell), nevertheless, thought it his duty, in preparing the Return for Parliament, not to exclude that memorial. Nor had he any desire to exclude it; on the contrary, his desire was that when the question came before Parliament the just claims of every Colonial Governor should be fairly disposed of. Well, then, recognizing, as he had said, the merits of Sir Francis Head, and not entering upon the disputed parts of his conduct, his answer to his right hon. Friend was this—that the subject was under the consideration of Parliament. It was only a few nights ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on his part, and that of the Treasury, had said that the matter should be carefully considered during the recess, with a view to an answer being given early in next Session. The Colonial Governors who had chiefly moved in this matter had in fact framed a draught Bill, which contained a provision that pensions should be given to Governors only who had served a specified time. Sir Francis Head observed that that proposal would exclude him, and he naturally objected to it, more, however, on the ground that it would imply some disrespect to him, rather than from any pecuniary considerations. No doubt, in whatever Bill might be passed, it would be desirable to consider whether there should be a provision to enable the Government, in cases of distinguished services, to grant pensions, even where the specified length of time had not been served. That, however, would be a subject for consideration with the Government in framing the Bill, and with Parliament in reviewing it; and it appeared to him that the best time for considering this particular case would be when the general subject was before them, and when they were dealing with the Bill which might have to be prepared by the Government. If the arrangements then made on the subject should not be satisfactory to his right hon. Friend, it would be open to him to make a proposition of his own. He rejoiced to be able to concur in all those parts of his right hon. Friend's observations in which he referred to the abilities, zeal, and public spirit of Sir Francis Head. Into the disputed points of controversy respecting his

1337
conduct he declined to enter at present; and the best advice he could offer to his right hon. Friend was to reserve any Motion on the subject until such time as the Bill came under the consideration of the House.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that nothing could be fairer than the manner in which the Colonial Secretary had met the statement of his right hon. Friend; but he hoped that the public services of Sir Francis Head—who, by his courage and public spirit had undoubtedly saved the Province of Upper Canada—would be met with something stronger than fair words. He inferred with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to meet this question fairly; but there was this one weak point in his speech—that he made the whole case of Sir Francis Head turn on the decision of the Government on the general question of pensions to Colonial Governors. The case of Sir Francis Head, however, did not stand on the same footing as that of other Colonial Governors: it was undoubted that by his spirit and firmness he had preserved Canada to the British Empire. He would only further notice the fact, that when Sir Francis Head was persuaded, against his own inclinations, to accept the Governorship of Canada, he gave up a permanent appointment which he then held as Poor Law Inspector, with a salary of £1,000 per annum. When he returned from his successful Governorship, Sir Francis Head applied to be permitted to resume his old office; but his request was refused. The consequence was that he had been a poor man ever since, although his claims in point of justice and good feeling were irresistible. It was to be hoped that when the House met next Session the Government would be prepared to show that they had taken a generous view of the case.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he had known Sir Francis Head all his life. He was a member of the Corps (the Royal Engineers) to which he belonged, and he could hear testimony that there never was a more energetic man, or one who commanded more universal respect. He (Sir Frederic Smith) happened to know the circumstances under which Sir Francis Head went out to Canada. He was then an Inspector of Poor Law. He did not apply for the appointment. It was offered to him by Lord Glenelg. The messenger came to Sir Francis Head late in the day—he was then living at Croydon; and with
1338
his usual energy he immediately ordered a post chaise and came to London, and presented himself to Lord Glenelg in his bedroom, between three and four in the morning. Lord Glenelg said he had not I expected to see Sir Francis Head so early, and asked him when he would be prepared to start. He replied, "To-morrow morning." Sir Francis Head, when in Canada, had done what was a most dangerous thing, but which exemplified his sagacity and his reliance upon the support of the people. He denuded himself of almost the whole of his military force, relying solely on the friendly spirit of the people; and the successful result showed the sagacity with which he acted. Had he failed, his name would have been as much execrated as it was now beloved. Sir Francis Head had deserved well of his country; and he (Sir Frederic Smith) hoped an effort would be made, not only by his right hon. Friend, with whose friendliness of disposition he was well acquainted, but by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to act in no parsimonious spirit, but to treat a gallant old soldier with the liberality which became a generous Government. They should remember that Sir Francis was now seventy-two years of age; and they should, therefore, admit of no delay in bestowing on his services the reward he had so well earnt.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not intend to express any opinion on the general question, except to say that it would be found that the question of pensions to Colonial Governors was not so simple as was supposed. It was mixed up with the question of the self-government of the colonies. Formerly they were considered appanages of the Crown—mere dependencies of the Crown, to be managed for the advantage of the mother country. Now, however, we had acknowledged the rights of the colonists to self-government, and as a consequence the colonists were beginning slowly to pay the expenses of their own Government. It was nothing to say that Governors were appointed by the Crown, and, therefore, should be paid by England, for the Crown was the Crown of the colonies as well as of Great Britain. Nor was it anything to say that the services rendered by the Governors were public services, because they were public services to the colonies, and not, therefore, to be charged to another part of the empire. But the question now before the House was a wholly distinct question from the general question

1339
of Governors' pensions in the present day. When Sir Francis Head served as Governor of Upper Canada, the self-government of the colonists was not acknowledged at home, and therefore, as his services were rendered to the Crown of England, which at that moment regarded the colony as a sort of appanage, he was entitled to look for his reward from the English Treasury. It was not possible to consider his claims at the time of his return to England, as there then existed too much exasperation and bitterness of feeling to permit the subject to be calmly discussed. It was true that the rebels whom Sir Francis Head was sent out to subdue ceased to be considered rebels even during his administration, and became the rulers of Canada; but the fact did not diminish the value of his services, which were in strict and successful execution of his orders, nor his claims to a just and generous reward. The circumstance that his vigorous administration led, through the decomposition of the rotten old system he had to administer in very troublesome times, to the establishment of self-government in the colony, was an additional ground why his claims should be no longer overlooked. It was said that Sir Francis had not occupied his Governorship the full time; that was true; but he was brought into such violent collision with the Executive at a moment of recognized revolution that he was compelled to resign. He would impress on the Secretary for the Colonies that the case of Sir Francis Head ought not to be mixed up with the general case of Colonial Governors; and he hoped as Sir Francis was seventy-two years of age the Government would act promptly and liberally. In doing so, he was sure they would be supported by the country.
MR. ANGERSTEINalso supported the claim, and concurred in the appeal just made by the light hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire. He thought that the Government could not mix up this case with that of ordinary Colonial Governors, but should look to the merits and services of those who had served a great colony at a most peculiar conjuncture of affairs.
MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed his opinion, that to the constitutional loyalty infused into the colonists by Sir Francis Head the ready acquiescence of the people in the measures considered necessary for the suppression of the rebellion was in no small degree to be attributed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he rose to call attention to the proceedings of Government in the case of James Hoey, convicted of offences against the Revenue Laws. Hoey was convicted of the offence in February, and convicted in the penalty of £50, or twelvemonths' imprisonment in default of payment. On the 14th of June he memorialized the Government for a mitigation of the sentence. On the 17th of the same month the matter was referred by General Larcom, the permanent Under Secretary for Ireland, to Sir Henry Brownrigg, the Inspector General of Constabulary, who reported, and added to his report a recommendation that the sentence ought to be mitigated to a much smaller penalty or a term of imprisonment. What the committing magistrate complained of was, that the authority of the police should override that of the Judge, for the Government had acted on the recommendation of the Inspector General, without any reference to the committing magistrate, This was one case illustrative of a general system.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that nothing unusual had been done. There was no intention of setting aside the authority of the magistracy in Ireland, but in this case the mitigation of sentence had taken place because the Inspector General had reported that the man had not the money to pay the heavier fine.
COLONEL DUNNEhad no doubt that Sir Henry Brownrigg had given correct advice; but the committing magistrate and his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Archdall) complained, not because the case was an unusual, but because it was a usual one.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £236,770, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: It may be desirable, Sir, that I should make a short statement with regard to some of the details of the Vote, in order that the Committee may have an opportunity of forming a correct judgment upon it. I will first

1341
advert to the great increase which has taken place both in the schools in operation in Ireland during the past year as compared with 1861 and 1862, and also the increased number of children upon the rolls, and the average daily attendance in these schools, as showing a most satisfactory state of things. In the year ending December 31, 1861, there were 5,830 schools in operation, the average daily attendance being 284,726 children. On the 31st of December, 1862, there were 6,010 schools in operation, with an average daily attendance of 284,912 children; whereas on the 31st; of December, 1863, the schools in operation numbered 6,163, with an average daily attendance of 296,986 children. Thus, comparing 1862 with 1861, there is an increase of 180 schools, and, comparing 1863 with 1862, an increase of 153 schools, the average daily attendance of children in 1862 above that of 1861 being 186 children, and that of 1863 above 1862 showing an increase of over 12,074 children. This is an immense development during the past year. It is satisfactory to find in the schools in operation that the religious denominations of the children are, on the whole, proportioned to those of the country. For instance, in 1862 there were 812,527 children on the rolls, of whom 51,021 belonged to the Established Church, 666,438 were Roman Catholics, 89,566 Presbyterians, and 5,502 belonged to other persuasions. In 1863, according to the Report just laid on the table, the total number of children upon the rolls for the entire year amounted to 840,569, who were divided as follows:—Established Church, 54,248; Roman Catholics, 687,076; Presbyterians, 93,431; other persuasions, 5,814. That is to say, in 1863 there were in these schools 18 per cent of Protestants of all denominations, whereas the Roman Catholics amounted to 81 per cent, so that the proportion of children due to the relative number of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant population is maintained in the schools. Now it is very remarkable and very gratifying that this enormous increase of education throughout the country has had a wonderful influence upon the criminal statistics of Ireland. In 1851 the number of convictions was 14,377; that is to say, there was one conviction in every 453 of the population. But in 1862 the total number of convictions amounted only to 3,796, or only one in 1,528 of the population, showing an enormous diminution of crime during this period. I will now take
1342
the juvenile offenders under 16. In 1855 there were convicted, of juvenile offenders under 16 years, 556 boys and 175 girls; whereas in 1862, which, owing to the prevalent want and privation, was marked by a general increase in crime, the convictions were only 159 boys and 36 girls, showing a most conspicuous diminution in crime during that period. The Inspector General of Prisons, in his Report for 1862, makes this important statement:—"Nearly one-half of the female juveniles committed to our gaols during 1861 were destitute of the first rudiments of education, "showing that if we could have got those children into our schools, and given them the education which is imparted there, in all probability they would not have become a burden to the country. In a letter he had received from the Chief of the Constabulary Office, Dublin, it was stated that "crime was never so low in Ireland within the memory of any one in this office." It is impossible to receive a more satisfactory statement than this, and I think there can be no doubt that, as regards juvenile offenders, this gratifying result is to be attributed in great part to the general spread of education in Ireland.
With these remarks I will pass now to the general summary given in these Votes. Out of the thirteen items there are, as compared with 1863, an increase in three and a decrease in eight of them, while in two the amount is the same. The normal establishment shows a net decrease of £90, the increase being £110, due principally to the increased salaries of the two professors, and the decrease £200, which arises from a reduced scale of travelling expenses of teachers to and from Dublin. The Metropolitan Model School shows a decrease of £239, owing to a smaller attendance at the West Dublin Model Infant Schools. In the District Model Schools there is a net increase of £1,744, which is owing to a rectification in the teaching staff. In 1862 there were 75 assistant teachers, who are now reduced to 72; in 1863 there were 150 pupil-teachers, and there are now only 126; and instead of 210 monitors, there are now only 155. A saving is also effected consequent on the abolition of one assistant lecturer of physical science. In the item of minor model schools, there is a net decrease of £267, due to greater economy in printing, stationery, and gratuities to pupil-teachers. I come now to the most important item—that of salaries of teachers, &c. It is im-

1343
portant that that body should be well provided for, because they are the heart and soul of the schools, and it is fair that they should enjoy the regular increment to which they are entitled by the regulations of the service. There is an increase under that head of £12,500, which is made up in the following manner:—For payment of salaries and natural increment we have allowed an increase of £8,500. In 1863 we had 5,638 teachers, whereas in 1864 we have 5,816, showing an increase of 178. In 1863 there were 1,236 assistant teachers; in 1864, 1,546, giving an increase of 310. In 1863 the number of capitation schools was 130; in 1864, there are 136; and perhaps there may be two or three more. A diminution of £400 is effected by greater economy in the salaries and travelling expenses of the auxiliary staff, and £1,000 in gratuities to incapacitated teachers. But, on the other hand, £1,000 additional will be required as the payment to teachers of additional schools, and increased pay to teachers on promotion. There is an increase of £4,000 for monitors, £2,000 for increase to staff, and £2,000 for new class of advanced monitors. There are two classes of monitors, the junior class from 11 to 14 years of age, who receive a salary of from £2 to £4; the senior class from 14 to 18 years of age, whose salary is from £5 to £10; and the new class of monitors, as to whom there has been some discussion in this House, whose age is from 18 to 20, and whose salaries, as proposed by the Commissioners, range from £15 to £17. £1,000 is to be given to lay schools under male teachers, £500 to lay schools under female teachers, and £500 to convent schools. I must say that, on the whole, I regard this as a very equitable arrangement. Then, there is an increase of £400 for premiums to teachers of singing, drawing, and navigation schools. The result of these arrangements is that there is an increase of £13,900, and a decrease of £1,400, giving a net increase of £12,500. The cost of the navigation schools has been decreased by £100. These schools are, in my opinion, of the greatest possible advantage to the country. I paid a visit to one of them some time since and saw men between 30 and 40 years of age benefiting by the instruction which is given in them. I now come to the Albert Agricultural Schools, and on this Vote there is a diminution of £135. I may here mention that two model schools, one at Enniskillen and the other at Cork,
1344
are in course of erection. In the year 1862–3 the sum voted for the Albert Agricultural Schools was £2,351; in the year 1863–4, £1,781; and in 1864–5 the sum proposed is £1,646. I think that the school is a great and valuable institution, and I am grieved to find that Dr. Kirkpatrick, under whose efficient management the school has been conducted, will not be likely to resume his duties, owing to the state of his health. It has been stated in this House that the young men who have been educated in this school are for the most part employed in Dublin as drapers' assistants. I have taken the trouble to extract from a Report made by Dr. Kirkpatrick the following particulars relating to the occupations pursued in after life by 175 pupils who left the Albert Agricultural Training Institution between the first of January, 1858, and the 31st of December, 1861. Of these 175, there were employed in farming at home, either for themselves or their relatives, 68; land stewards and assistant land agents, 41; agricultural teachers, 3; nurserymen, gardeners, and assistant gardeners, 9; National school teachers, 10; planters in the Islands of Jamaica and Antigua, 9; clerks in the offices of merchants, land agents, and in the Customs, &c, 14; entered the Queen's and Catholic Colleges, 6; emigrated to the Cape of Good Hope and Australia, 5; left in delicate health, and from other causes, 10. On the item for agricultural schools, I regret to say that I gave a pledge that there should be no increase; and I find that the estimate for the ensuing year is exactly the same as for the last twelve months—£3,750. I find, however, that since the year 1861–2 there has been a considerable reduction in this portion of the expenditure. On the book department there is a decrease of about £2,000, owing partly to the fact, that the money granted last year for the revision of the books will probably extend over several years, and partly to the circumstance that £1,000 has been saved by economy on books and requisites. In the school apparatus department there has been a decrease of £200 consequent upon the abolition of the office of the superintendent, whose duties are now added to those of the storekeeper. The increase on the official establishment is £278, and this increase is owing principally to the addition of eight temporary clerks to the permanent staff. These additional clerks have been chiefly employed in preparing

1345
the voluminous Returns which have been made to this House, and upon this point I wish to say a word or two as a caution. The hon. Member for the county of Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) moved for a Return some time since, and that Return, which it was deemed desirable to grant, cost the country over £400. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin proposed moving for a Return which, if granted, would have cost the country over £800. I think, therefore, that the cost of those Returns should somewhat cool the ardour of those hon. Members who are so eager for their production. At this moment there is a heavy Return in preparation in connection with the convent schools. As the Committee is aware, a Report of each of those schools was ordered to be drawn up at the instance of the hon. Member for Limerick. I did hope that that Report would be ready for the Committee to-night, but I find, consisting as it does of over 400 pages, that it will be impossible to lay it upon the table for another ten days, I am bound to say, however, that having looked through the book, the Reports, as regards the management of convent schools generally—I may almost say universally—are of a highly satisfactory character. It is fair to say that in King's County, the Inspector has reported unfavourably of one or two schools, but then he has reported most favourably of some others. The Report, I am convinced, will show the House that the children in these convent schools receive every attention, and that the institutions are conducted in a most able and efficient manner. I shall be willing to answer any questions as to details, but I trust that without further delay the Committee will proceed to pass the Vote.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the Vote with respect to Irish education differed in several particulars from that for education in Great Britain. In England and Scotland the money voted was distributed among the different denominations, and no school received a grant in which religious was not united with secular instruction. In Ireland exactly the reverse was the case. Again, while the population in England was increasing, the Estimates for education had been diminishing, but strange to say in Ireland it was just the opposite. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: The number of children is increasing.] Well, it was something of a mystery that while the people were diminishing, the children should be on the increase. The right
1346
hon. Baronet had slated that there were 840,000 children on the rolls. But what would the Committee think when they discovered that if they were to take any one clay in the year, the attendance in the National schools would not be found to be more than 296,000? It thus appeared that there were what might be described as something like 500,000 myths on the rolls. Nor was that all—the best education given in Ireland, was not given in the National schools. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for the decrease of crime in Ireland, and had attributed that result to the National system. Well, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at a recent meeting, had said that the National system "had stirred the stagnant level of the peasant's mind, and had caused the people to emigrate." That night, however, they had heard that the decrease of crime was to be attributed to it; but he was of opinion that the decrease was to be attributed to other causes. It was interesting to notice as a great political question that they gave in Ireland a Government system of education, to which beyond dispute the vast majority of the Irish people objected. It was not merely the Presbyterians who objected, or the Protestant body whom his hon. Friend (Mr. Lefroy) so efficiently represented, but the objection was felt by every religious denomination in Ireland. He had no inclination to move to cut down the grant. The fact was that money in any shape in which it was given was wanted in Ireland, so little did the people of that country get out of the national exchequer. On the subject of convent schools he wished to say that he had lately received a letter from Dr. Murphy, Dean of Cork, in which he said that he had found it to be true, as stated by the Rev. Mr. Kirby, that there was a convent school in the county of Cork in which the children had made the sign of the cross, and continued to do so up to the present day; his former denial was with reference to the city of Cork. The practice of making the sign of the cross was against the rules of the National system; but he believed that it prevailed, for all that, in the vast majority of the convent and other schools. He had seen a letter from Professor Kavanagh, who had been a Government Inspector, and he said that in nine out of ten schools the practice prevailed. He would ask the Government whether it was not absurd in a country like Ireland, and in regard to convent schools, to have rules of that kind

1347
which were broken over and over again, and would continue to be broken. The right hon. Baronet had said that there had been a complaint against some school in the King's County. He (Mr. Hennessy) was in the habit of visiting the schools there, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake. [SIR ROBERT PEEL: I said a report as regards one of the schools was not so favourable.] He thought that school must have been in the Queen's County. Was it not a shame for Government to send out Inspectors to hunt up every little violation of rule. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt with satisfaction upon the results of the Albert Model School. Now, he found that the farm attached to it consisted of 179 statute acres. It had been established to teach the best modes of farming and rural economy, and yet the sum total of its expenditure was £3,296, while its receipts amounted to only £1,650, leaving a total loss upon that model farm of £1,646.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the last point referred to by the hon. Member was easily explained. The expenditure included the maintenance of fifty-eight agricultural pupils and teachers, which cost £1,250; salary for a lecturer on botany, £60, and for a practical instructor in agriculture, £200. Everybody knew that in the case of a model farm it was impossible to make the two ends meet. He believed there was a general adherence to the rules of the Board, and as regarded devotional services that they were performed after school hours. The system in Ireland brought together children of different denominations under the same school-roofs; and a proof that they were not compelled to go there was found in the fact that in the schools the children belonging to the different denominations bore a just relation to the relative numbers of the different denominations out of the schools. With respect to the number of the children attending the schools, it should be borne in mind that the number on the rolls always far exceeded the average daily attendance; and in Ireland the proportion was about the same as in this country.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he would not oppose the grant as he agreed that the money given to Ireland, although it had not been laid out in the way he could wish, had done a certain degree of good. When the number of children in daily attend-
1348
ance was considered, he certainly thought the number on the rolls was very deceptive. He was not prepared to dispute that instruction might have diminished crime; but the statement in which the right hon. Baronet appeared to exult, that the Protestant children at the schools in one part of Ireland were exceedingly numerous, while the number of the Roman Catholic children at the schools in another part of Ireland was very great, only proved that the system was becoming an entirely denominational system, for which the circumstances of Ireland were never calculated. The increase of the grant in Ireland to a decreasing population had been adverted to, and the Presbyterians had presented a petition to that House expressing their opinion that this circumstance was likely to lead to an increase of the convent schools, which increase would in turn lead to a withdrawal of the pupil-teachers from the other training schools, and be utterly subversive of the principle of united education. The hon. Members for Cork, Roscommon, and King's County, and, likewise, the Bishop of Kerry, amongst others, had borne testimony to the failure of the National system. The grant was increasing and the money was devoted to denominational purposes from which the Established Church was excluded. It was a matter of astonishment to him, that whilst large and increasing giants were given to gratify all other classes of religions—while it was attempted to please the Roman Catholics—the feelings, and desires, and sentiments of the Protestant Church of Ireland were never for one moment taken into account. It was asked, "Why do not the ministers of the Established Church avail themselves of the grants?" The answer was, that their ordination vows bound them to teach religion on the basis of the Bible, and that the rules of the National system of education did not secure such teaching; but, on the contrary, rather tended to prevent it.
MR. MONSELLsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to have entirely ignored the existence in Ireland of the non-vested schools. One-third of the schools in that country were non-vested schools, in which the patron had the right of giving what religious instruction he pleased, but where he was also compelled to give secular education to denominations differing from his own. Convent schools were conducted on the

1349
same principle as other schools, and he knew a convent school which was attended by Protestant children, and where there was a private room provided where these children could receive instruction from their own religious teachers, and he did not believe that any case of proselytism had been established. Notwithstanding the objections that had been raised respecting the enormous increase of the grant to convent schools, it only amounted to £500 for the present year. The Presbyterians had made a great outcry, but, in the case of the Queen's College, Belfast, they had displayed very little regard for the principles of religious liberty, with respect to one of the professorships there. As to the teaching in these schools, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) had said quite enough. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had said that the children in the convent schools were only half educated, and that the ladies who taught them were not properly trained; but according to two of the Inspectors (Mr. Robinson and Mr. Shee) they underwent a thorough training, were carefully examined in their noviciate, and were set apart according to their ability and knowledge. There were many points with regard to the non-vested and model schools upon which he entertained objections, but he thought it was not desirable to raise a controversial discussion upon the subject.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, that he had declared his sentiments on the subject at much length last year, and he would not go over the ground that he had then traversed. He would remark, however, that the charge that, in attacking the model schools last year, he had aimed at the destruction of the whole system of education in Ireland was unfair and unfounded. A decisive check, however, had been given to the encroachments of the universal system of State education, and to that extent the discussion of last year had been productive of advantage. He had moved for a Return on the subject, which he was perfectly aware would be of a comprehensive character. Soon after he moved for it he received a letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to ask whether it could not be curtailed, as the labour and expense would be considerable; but he (Mr. O'Reilly) thought that, considering the interest and importance, he was warranted in requesting that it might be furnished notwithstanding the expense.
1350
Many might think the first-class agricultural schools did not yield a satisfactory Return, but nothing could be more useful than these schools were.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that as the Committee were asked to vote a sum of £315,000 for education in Ireland, and as a portion of that amount was diverted from the system of united education and applied to the convent schools, the nature of the teaching in those establishments, moral and political, should be laid before them. If it were not he would take an early opportunity next Session of bringing the whole subject before the House.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that if the hon. Member would come to Cork he would be happy to show him the system of education adopted by the convent schools. The hon. Member would then, he was sure, demand next year an extension of the grant. He held that in an agricultural country it was the duty of the National Board to disseminate agricultural information in the most simple and popular way among the children in the schools.
MR. BRADYsaid, he was also in favour of diffusing as widely as possible in Ireland, through the medium of the schools, a knowledge of the most improved methods of agriculture. He considered, however, that the expenses attending the Glasnevin Agricultural College were unnecessarily high. If the hon. Member for Peterborough was aware of the manner in which the convent schools were conducted, he certainly would hesitate before he found fault with them. The only complaint which he (Mr. Brady) had to make was of the restrictions imposed with respect to those schools by the Government under which the children were not permitted to make the sign of the cross, though the cross appeared over religious edifices in this country.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Limerick would specify the regulations with respect to convent schools. There were 186,000 Protestants in attendance at the National schools in Ireland. In addition to the Glasnevin establishment there were in every county in Ireland school farms, but he admitted the force of what was said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and would endeavour to introduce in rural schools an educational primer.
COLONEL SYKESremarked on the enormous increase in the Educational Estimates since the year 1835, and urged

1351
that the whole of that expenditure ought to undergo a minute and thorough investigation. He did not object to any amount of money being usefully applied to the purposes of education, but they ought to insist on having stricter proofs than any which they now possessed, that so vast an outlay yielded beneficial and practical results.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that if all the other agricultural schools of Ireland were conducted like the one in his own county there could not be a greater waste of public money than was involved in this expenditure. He never saw a worse farm than the one belonging to the school to which he referred, and certainly if his own steward were to manage any of his property in the same fashion he should dismiss hi in the next morning. The reason why it was in such a state was because it was conducted from Dublin, without the advice of people on the spot being taken. With regard to the sum of £2,000 paid in salaries to flax instructors, the whole of it was thrown away. The cultivation of flax was a new movement, and instead of spending the money upon a parcel of officials from Dublin it would be far better to let each district have its own share of the fund, and to employ its own people.
MR. HASSARDasked for explanations with regard to the duties of the classical master in the normal establishment for special class teachers, pupil-teachers, and others. He wanted to know, whether the duty was confined to instruction in the dead languages, or whether modern languages were included?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he presumed that the object was to provide a superior class of teachers, and that the duty embraced classical instruction generally.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he was only anxious that the country should get full value for the money. What he complained of was, that when farming was carried on in Ireland at the public expense the same care and watchfulness were not exercised as were generally applied to farming for the interest of a particular individual. He did not consider the agricultural schools in Ireland were attended with any useful practical results, and that the farmers in the neighbourhood showed no desire to obtain the services of the pupils who had been trained in them. He doubted very much the propriety of the manner in which the cultivation of flax was encouraged.
SIR ROBERT PEELexplained, that the grant for instruction in the cultivation of flax was distributed by a joint committee of the Royal Dublin and Royal Irish Agricultural Societies, and the persons who were being sent into the districts where it was desired that the cultivation of flax should be introduced were not. Inspectors, but instructors, at £90 or £100 a year.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that it would be better to allow the grant to be distributed by the local agricultural societies, and urged that what were required were not instructors all the year round at salaries of £100 a year, but men at 25s. a week for a few weeks in the year.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £805, Commissioners of Education, Ireland (Office Expenses).
(3.) £3,206, to complete the sum for the University of London.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, why the salary of the Registrar had been increased?
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the University was treated by the Government. The University had no fitting "local habitation" for the discharge of its duties—a name it had provided for itself. At present it was located in Burlington House, and he wished to ask the noble Lord to state what the intention of the Government was with reference to providing the University of London with a fitting building?
MR. AYRTONsaid, the London University had none of the usual incidents of a university, with the exception of that of granting degrees. It had been based upon a limited and narrow basis, and he hoped the Government would place it on a broader basis for the future. If the University was to be worthy of its name, it ought to be associated with the other scientific associations in the metropolis, and within a building that might bring them into connection with the University. An attempt was made to do so some years ago at South Kensington, but that was protested against as likely to impair their utility, and it had been abandoned, but he hoped the Government would turn their attention to a central building for them. No doubt Burlington House could be made available for the requirements of the University and the scientific institutions, so as to make them more useful than at present.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, the Society was

1353
not based upon such narrow principles as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suppose.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he also wished to ask for an explanation of the increase of £200 to the Registrar's salary?
MR. PEELsaid, that when the University was first founded it was proposed that the salary of the Registrar should be £1,000 a year; but it was thought better in the first instance that a smaller salary should be given. The salary was accordingly fixed at £500, and was raised from time to time till it reached £800 last year. It had now been raised to the maximum, £1,000. Dr. Carpenter had held the office for a considerable time, and its duties having very greatly increased, it was thought he had a fair claim to the full salary originally intended to be given.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £13,704, to complete the sum for Universities, &c., in Scotland, and
(5.) £2,462, for Queen's University in Ireland.
(6.) £3,400, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland could throw any light on the fire at Queen's College, Cork?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could throw no light upon it, but he was happy to state that the accusation and counter statement which had been made on the subject had been entirely cleared up. Dr. Bullen had written a most handsome apology. It was not necessary to go again into the matter, and he trusted it might be allowed to rest.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, it was no doubt a painful subject for the Government, but the facts were too remarkable to be altogether passed by. The fire occurred on the 13th of May, 1862, and the depositions before the House fully bore out Dr. Bullen's statement, that the College was set fire to by some one within its walls. He did not understand that Dr. Bullen had withdrawn that statement, though he had others with reference to the College. After the fire took place it was stated in the Government organs that the authors of it were that mysterious body, the Ultramontane party. But there did not appear to be the shadow of a foundation for such a statement. In all probability the College was
1354
set on fire by some one within the walls. On the 12th of May, two porters had been heard to remark on the possibility of a fire occurring in the College, and a third porter had said that a fire would occur. It was a remarkable fact that all the investigations into the matter had been conducted with closed doors. He had heard a rumour which might account for the whole occurrence. A man of the name of Burke was at that time in Clonmel Gaol, awaiting his trial on a charge of having poisoned his wife, A portion of the viscera of the wife had been sent to the College for analysis by the Professor of Chemistry; and it was supposed that the friends of Burke were under the impression that those remains were lying in that part of the building which had been burnt down. It was further stated that a young woman who was attached to Burke, and to whom he was to have been married after the death of his wife, had arrived in Cork shortly before the day when the fire broke out; and the conclusion drawn from all these facts was, that she or some other friend of Burke had probably bribed one of the officers of the College to destroy the building, and with it one of the evidences of his crime. In connection with that theory, he understood the Government had in their possession some papers, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would unbosom himself, and tell the House whether it was not to the story which he mentioned that the burning of the College was to be traced?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that when he spoke of the subject as a painful one, he simply referred to certain charges which had been made and withdrawn, and which he did not think it was desirable to revive. A great number of rumours, he might add, were afloat with regard to the burning, and it was, he believed, true that the viscera of Mrs. Burke were in the laboratory of the College at the time the fire took place, but he did not know whether the burning was connected with her murder or not. That, he hoped, would be a sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman.
LORD NAASobserved, that the mystery involved in the matter had not been made clearer by the papers relating to it for which he had moved, and which had been laid on the table. Having read the depositions taken in the case, he must confess that it did not appear to him that the Government had any ground for the course

1355
which they took in attempting to prove that the burning was malicious, and thus seeking to throw the loss upon the ratepayers of the city of Cork. When the presumption was so strong that the fire was the work of somebody connected with the establishment, that was, to say the least of it, an extraordinary mode of proceeding. Such premises ought to be insured to their full value in case a similar fire should occur.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he protested against the secresy with which the investigation of the charge was conducted. A grand jury could not make a presentment in case of a fire if there was no malice, and as the Government asked a grand jury to make a presentment, it was obvious that they thought it was a case of malicious burning. But they had failed in every quarter to prove a case of malice. Therefore their conduct was very culpable.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there was no doubt the building was maliciously burnt, and that being so the Government thought it right to make a presentment. But it did not go before any grand jury, but before the town council of Cork, who, upon the advice of the Recorder, rejected it, and their decision was supported by the Court of Queen's Bench, and consequently the inquiry could not be gone into. The Irish law officers of the Crown were asked for their opinion, and they said that there was no case made out for going against any person, and consequently the matter fell to the ground. The Government were in no way to blame for the proceedings which they adopted.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that if it was a malicious burning the Government ought to prosecute the supposed authors of the crime.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that no evidence could be obtained in the case to sustain a criminal prosecution.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to insure the building?
MR. PEELsaid, he could perceive no ground for insuring that college more than any other public edifice. The Government, as was well known, were their own insurers.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £500, Royal Irish Academy.
(8.) £600, National Gallery of Ireland.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked whether the Government meant to grant
1356
any money for the purchase of pictures for that gallery?
MR. PEELsaid, when the original design of the National Gallery in Dublin was determined upon it was to be maintained out of private funds. The plans were altered, and the building cost £28,000, and applications were made to Parliament for grants to purchase pictures. An Act of Parliament was passed, vesting the gallery in trustees, and if it was to be maintained out of grants of public money steps must be taken to declare that it was public property.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the Belfast Theological Professors, &c.
(10.) £69,127, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
MR. WALPOLE: The Vote which I have to propose this year amounts to £92,127, against a Vote for last year of £90,641. This shows an increase of £1,486. At first sight a false conclusion I may be drawn from this increase, but if you go over the Vote you will find there is an increase on the whole for salaries, expenses of bookbinding, catalogues, &c. of £4,724, but at the same time there has been a reduction amounting to £2,328 on building expenses, furniture, and so on, such items leaving a net increase of £1,486. This increase may be accounted for chiefly by two special purchases which have been made—both of them great acquisitions to the Museum and, as I hope, the community at large. The first of these is the purchase of the collection recently found in a cave in the south of France, and brought here under the superintendence of Professor Owen. I look upon that as one of the most valuable acquisitions we could have gained for the benefit of the country at large. There is no question which excites greater interest in a scientific, archœological, and I may say, antiquarian point of view, than that raised by Professor Lyell in his book on the antiquity of man; and this collection, I am sure, will amply repay an inspection from any hon. Member who takes an interest in this subject. For that collection we have given the large sum of £1,000, and I am sure the money could not have been better spent. The other purchase is a bronze lamp, found on the site of the Sulian Palace. It is supposed, by those who are versed in such matters, to be of Greek workmanship, of a date prior to the

1357
Christian era. It is of most beautiful workmanship, and in perfect condition. A description of it will be found in the last number of the Journal of Science and Art. Another purchase we have made, with the sanction of the Treasury, but since the date of this Vote, and therefore not included in it—the contents of the Farnese Palace, sold by the King of Naples. In that collection is a beautiful equestrian statue of Mars—one of the three ancient equestrian statues which alone are known I to be in existence—and the only one brought to this country. That brings me to an important question, which has been often debated in this House; while you are purchasing these collections where are you to put them—because the collections we have in the Museum now are so great that we cannot possibly exhibit them all to the public, and for a long time the new purchases must be practically lost to the public. The Government have recently intimated to us that they have a plan for the accommodation of the natural history collections upon the site purchased at South Kensington. Whether you transfer your, natural history collections to another place, or whether you keep them altogether, I should wish to press on the Government the necessity of coming to a decision during this autumn. If you determine to remove your natural history collections to South Kensington you undoubtedly have a site there capable of accommodating your collection; but if you determine to keep them altogether, the only way will be to purchase from the ground landlord the houses round the Museum. The charge you will thus put on the public will be comparatively small, or at any rate not so startling as may appear at first sight, because it will only be a charge for so many of the houses as from time to time you are called on to add to; the Museum. With regard to the objection of competition between the two great establishments he must say one word. Credit was due to the President of the Council for the rules which he had drawn up and which prevent the possibility of competition. In the case of any classical works of antiquity which relate to or are connected with manufacturing subjects, if the British Museum should not want them, then, with the consent of the trustees, the South Kensington Museum could purchase them. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. H. Lewis) asked me the Other night about the change in hours of recreation or
1358
refreshment for the attendants. Since the question was put to me I have made it my business to ascertain how the change has worked. All the assistants have spoken in the highest terms of the new regulation. The only other subject to which I need refer is the appointment of new trustees since I last had the honour of moving these Estimates. In place of that most valuable public servant in every department—the late Sir George Lewis—the official and family trustees have made a selection which I think will be admitted to be the very best they could make in the election of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). In point of literary attainments or of administrative powers I do not think a better selection could be made. Another vacancy was caused by the death of that great Oriental scholar Dr. Cureton. In his place the Crown have nominated the Dean of Windsor, an eminent scholar and an excellent man in every way. I have now only to move that the sum of £69,127 be granted to defray the expenses of the British Museum.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that if anything could reconcile the Committee to the anomalous practice of moving these Estimates by an hon. Member unconnected with the Government, it would be the extremely courteous and agreeable manner in which that task was performed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he must again protest against the sum of £90,000 being submitted to the House under circumstances entirely different to those under which other Votes are proposed. In that as in other cases the Vote should be proposed by a responsible Minister. With respect to the institution itself, he thought that the more interesting the collection became the greater reason there was that the fullest opportunity should be granted to the public to visit it, and, therefore, he regretted that the trustees had not been able to provide for opening the Museum in I the evenings. Experience at South Kensington had shown that evening exhibitions were practicable, and if the British Museum were open from seven to ten at night, it would attract fully double the number of visitors. Having been a Member of the Committee on the British Museum which sat last year, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that steps should be taken to provide for the enlargement of that institution. The investigation into the property at South Kensington had

1359
shown that no obligation fell upon the Government to erect buildings upon that site. Every obligation connected with that property could be fulfilled by selling the land and applying the proceeds to the enlargement of the British Museum. The property was acquired under a trust to buy or sell property for the purposes of science and art. If it was lawful to place the British Museum at South Kensington, it was equally proper to sell property at South Kensington and to enlarge the British Museum. He hoped the Government would bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and take proper stops to keep the British Museum where it was now placed. There was no place about the metropolis so much cut off from the bulk of the inhabitants as South Kensington, which was separated from the densely-inhabited parts of London by St. James's, the Green and Hyde Parks, and by Kensington Gardens. The place had been offered to nearly all the scientific societies of the metropolis, but they had one and all refused to go there, because they knew it would be their ruin. If it was a convenient site for public buildings, why were not theatres and other exhibitions for profit brought there? The managers knew better. As Parliament had spent millions on the British Museum, and voted about £90,000 a year to maintain it, it was their duty to have it in a place where it was accessible to the general public. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give up the idea of removing any portion to South Kensington.
MR. LOCKEsaid, it was extraordinary that his hon. Friend should have made the very same speech as he made last year. One would have supposed that his hon. Friend was always in the Tower Hamlets, and never rode in Hyde Park or walked in Kensington Gardens. The fact was that there was no place in London which was more frequented, especially on Sundays, than Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, and that by all conditions of people; and if both the Kensington Museum and the British Museum were opened on Sundays they also would be filled. His hon. Friend said there was no reason why they should be compelled to keep an exhibition at Kensington; but he forgot that by the contract between the Commissioners of the Exhibition and the Government it was stipulated that the Government was to give a certain sum of money for the site, and that it should be appropriated to the purposes
1360
of science and art. That site was large enough for as many museums as they wished to have. He could not account for the prejudice which existed against having the collection there.
MR. WHITEsaid, he agreed in the expediency of opening the British Museum in the evening, if it were practicable with, due regard to the safety of the collections, and he would entreat the Government to take some steps to utilize the valuable works which they had acquired. He believed that the gentlemen who presided over the different departments at the British Museum were in favour of popular lectures being given, illustrative of the treasures under their charge; and such a practice would certainly tend to stimulate popular education. He should like to know whether the whole collection of the Farnese Palace had been purchased from the ex-King of Naples, and, if so, what was the amount to be paid for it?
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he had received several communications with regard to the assistants at the Museum, as to which the right hon. Gentleman had given him an answer on a former occasion. The complaint came from the attendants, who were the lowest grade of persons employed at the Museum. They came at nine in the morning, and remained till six or a quarter past six in the evening. Now these persons were not allowed to leave the museum in the day on any pretence whatever and they thought it very hard that they were compelled to take every particle of refreshment they required in the day in the new refreshment room. He had a letter in his hand from a person whom he obviously could not name, for the truth of which he could not vouch, but which stated that an address of thanks to the trustees had been recently drawn up in the printed books department, which had been signed by the assistants in many instances very reluctantly. The attendants, however, refused to sign it altogether, which caused great anger in a certain quarter, and an apology had been demanded to be signed. He thought it would be very easy to inquire whether the refreshment room was or was not fully attended, and whether or not a document requiring an apology had been tendered to the various employés. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would find an opportunity of making these inquiries.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was doubtful whether the

1361
rule adopted at the British Museum was at variance with the rule adopted at other public establishments. He thought it was not. But he rose to protest against the practice of reading grievances from anonymous correspondents to the House before the proper intermediate step had been taken. The House of Commons were not the managers of the Museum; and whilst he agreed that the House had authority by way of appeal, yet he thought they ought not to listen to complaints of the kind before they had been laid before the trustees of the Museum, who were the proper persons to judge of them in the first instance.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the regulations introduced at the British Museum were the same as those in other public offices, and the inconvenience which the public sustained in consequence of the absence of the officials furnished the reason for resorting to them. He had already stated that he should support the determination of the trustees, to whose decision he thought all questions should be submitted. The price of the Farnesian Collection, £4,000, was certainly large, but he did not regard it as unreasonable. The only question was as to how that sum was to be provided, and he might state that the money would not be included in the Estimates, as it was intended, with the sanction of the Government, to defray the charge from the surplus remaining from the grants of former years. He did not believe that the proposal for keeping the Museum open from six to eight, or until ten, would be found to answer. The danger did not simply arise from fire, though that was an important consideration; but if the Museum were kept open it would have to be lighted by gas, and such a course would inevitably entail great damage upon the sculpture, books, and other things contained in the Museum?
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know if it was the intention of the Government to propose at some future period the separation of the collections at the British Museum?
MR. AYRTONprotested against the doctrine which had been enunciated, that there was anything in the terms upon which the land at South Kensington had been purchased which should preclude the Government from disposing of it. Such a doctrine was illusory, because it was perfectly competent for the House to put an end to the supposed trust at any moment it pleased.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that due notice would be given to the House of any proposal that it might be thought desirable to make.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he understood that some proposal had already been made to the trustees by the Government, and he thought the House was entitled to know what it was.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Government had been considering what they should do with the site at South Kensington, and they had communicated with the trustees to know what quantity of land they would require, and what extent of building would be sufficient to accommodate the natural history collection.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS ACTS EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 181.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Mr. E. A. Bruce).
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that having been from the first a supporter of the Ten Hours Act, even at a time when it was very unpopular to advocate it, and having seen the good effects of that measure, his first impression was in favour of the present Bill. On a careful examination, however, he found that there was no ground for interference in this case, and that they were about to legislate in the dark. In the town he represented (Bradford), for instance, there were 1,500 men and boys employed in preparing and packing goods, who would be brought under the Bill. Of that number 400 were boys, and there were scarcely any women or children thus engaged—certainly not more than half-a-dozen. The hours of labour, taking the average of the year, were much shorter than those in the mills, being only about fifty-three or fifty-four hours a week in the former, and sixty hours in the latter case. Occasionally, for perhaps a week in the course of the year, under the pressure of business, the men and boys were kept longer at work, but on the whole their work was comparatively light. They stopped work at twelve or one p.m. on Saturday almost universally, and

  1363
  it was the custom to give them a week's holiday once a year. A much larger proportion of the boys engaged in packing, &c., attended the night schools than of the boys in the mills. The opposition to the Bill came not so much from the masters as from the men, 1,200 of the 1,500 persons employed in the business having petitioned against it. Their ground of objection was, that if the Bill became law, the masters, rather than submit to inspection, would dismiss the boys, and take men in their places. The fact was, that the Bill had been brought forward solely on an inquiry in one town; but even in Manchester there was not much cause for interference, although many children were employed in packing there, and only a very few at Bradford. He thought the Government ought to postpone the Bill for a year, in order to institute further inquiries. If they would not agree to that, they ought, at least, to limit the operation of the measure to warehouses in which there were women and children. In any case, however, they were legislating in the matter very much in the dark, and they must take care not to press the principle of the Factory Acts too far, lest it excited a prejudice against all such interference, whether necessary and moderate or otherwise. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  MR. BAINES,in seconding the Amendment, said, he could confirm the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford from his own knowledge of what was done in the woollen district of Leeds. The Bill was of a very unprecedented character. There had been no inquiry, no grievance had been alleged, and the measure was opposed by those whom it was intended to protect. He would not, however, oppose the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of it would exclude from the operation of the measure all large warehouses where women and children were not employed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COLLINSexpressed a hope that the Government would not withdraw the Bill on the second reading, but that they would be prepared to consider any Amend-
  1364
  ments that might be proposed by the hon. Member for Bradford in Committee.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would promise to deal with the objections to the Bill in Committee, the House would probably agree to the second reading. He might add that he did not see why places of business where children or women were not employed should be subjected to any kind of inspection.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he must decline to withdraw the Bill, as he considered himself under an honourable engagement to the House to proceed with it. In Committee he should be happy to consider any Amendments, but he could not pledge himself to adopt the change sketched by the hon. Member for Bradford. He thought it was unadvisable to make any difference between one class of workmen and another.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped the House would wait for a little more evidence before they proceeded further with this measure.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, he should support the Amendment, as great objections were entertained against the Bill in the borough which he had the honour to represent.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENurged the postponement of the Bill to give time for inquiry. The reason given by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) for supporting the Bill appeared to him the strongest argument for its postponement. For what said the hon. Gentleman? That the Bill was opposed on the same grounds as those on which the Factory Acts had been opposed, and that the same evils existed in this case and required the same remedy. But that was assuming the very point at issue. The persons most deeply affected by the Bill denied the existence of any such evils. But they did not ask Parliament to believe this merely on their statement. They complained that no investigation had been made—they challenge inquiry. Their language was—inquire into the facts, and then, when the materials for forming a correct judgment are fairly before you, then if a case for legislative interference is made out, legislate if you will. The request was so reasonable, and dictated by a spirit of such manifest justice, that he hoped the House would not refuse it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, when in Committee the Government would fairly

  1365
  consider every Amendment which might be proposed.
  LORD NAASsuggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 22: Majority 43.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (VOTING PAPERS) BILL— [BILL 198.]

  THIRD READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Thompson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Library of the House (List of the Committee.)
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— India Office* (No. 191); Thames Conservancy* (No. 173).
Committee—Life Annuities and Life Assurances* (No. 116); Lunacy (Scotland)* (No. 172).
Report—Public and Refreshment Houses (No. 184); Life Annuities and Life Assurances* (No. 110); Lunacy (Scotland)* (No. 172).
Third Reading—Summary Procedure (Scotland)* (No. 165), and passed.

LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE.
Select Committee to consider of certain Matters relative to the Library of this House and to the Papers and Documents delivered for their Lordships House, appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Friday next, at Three o'clock:—
L. Abp. Canterbury, Ld. Chancellor, Ld. President, Ld. Privy Seal, D. Richmond, M. Lansdowne, M. Bath, E. Stanhope, E. Malmesbury, E. Russell, V. Eversley, L.Willoughby de Eresby, L. Colville of Culross, L. Ponsonby, L. Redesdale, L. Colchester, L. Somerhill, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L. Cranworth, L. St. Leonards, L. Wensleydale, L. Chelmsford, L. Kingsdown.

BURIAL SERVICE.—ADDRESS MOVED.
LORD EBURYrose to move an Address for the appointment of a Commission to consider what steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of as arising from the present compulsory and indiscriminate use of the Burial Service of the Church of England. The noble Lord said, that before proceeding to submit the Motion, he desired to call their Lordships' notice to the position in which this question now presented itself. Last year, somewhat earlier in the Session, he proposed a similar Motion. On that occasion he could have very easily proved the extent to which those evils were felt from various sources; and he had preferred at once to point their Lordships' attention to a remarkable document which placed the question beyond all doubt, and he should do no more than refer to it now. It was a petition addressed to the right rev. Prelates by 4000 of the clergy of the Church of England (some of whom were now on the Bench, and others holding very distinguished offices in the Church), in which they used these terms—
"We beg to express our conviction that the almost indiscriminate use of the Order for the Burial of the Dead as practically enforced by the existing state of the law imposes a heavy burden upon the consciences of clergymen, and is the occasion of a grievous scandal to many Christian people. We therefore most humbly pray that your Lordships will be pleased to give the subject now brought under your consideration such attention as the magnitude of these evils appears to require, with a view to the devising some effectual remedy,"
That petition, which was not addressed to Parliament but to the right rev. Prelates, was presented thirteen years ago, and up to this time nothing has been done to relieve those parties from the grievance and scandal of which they complained. It was signed by those who felt the grievance and witnessed the scandal, and yet nothing had been done in the direction of the prayer. In the debate which arose when he made his Motion last year, very strong opinions were expressed by almost every noble Lord who took part in the discussion, that this state of things should not be allowed to continue; and the Primate of All England on that occasion undertook to see what he could do in order to produce some kind of legislation which might mitigate the evils complained of. The most rev. Prelate did not absolutely pro-

1307
mise to provide a remedy, but he stated that he would consult his right rev. Brethren and the clergy, with a view of ascertaining whether some satisfactory arrangement might not be arrived at. A year had passed away, and about a fortnight ago he took the liberty of asking his most rev. Friend, whether in the interval that had elapsed he had been able to do anything, and whether he was able to say if any legislation was likely to take place upon the subject during the present Session. The most rev. Prelate in answer said that he had discussed the matter with his right rev. Brethren, and had endeavoured to obtain the opinions of the clergy, and the result was his belief that the great majority were averse to any change, and, under these circumstances, he was not prepared to make any proposal. Upon that occasion he (Lord Ebury) deprecated any further discussion upon the subject, as it was his intention to bring it in a more formal manner before their Lordships; but he inferred, as he thought their Lordships must have inferred, that the most rev. Prelate was not at all satisfied with the position in which the question stood. He was glad to find from what had since taken place, that he was not mistaken, and that it would not be necessary for him to urge any further arguments in support of his Motion, because the most rev. Prelate had given him to understand that though he did not take the same view as he (Lord Ebury) did, respecting the means of providing a remedy, he was not unwilling to assent to the Motion with some restrictions. His earnest desire had always been, in the conduct of this question, that the remedy should come, not from himself, but from the reverend bench; and as they were willing to take up this question, it only remained for him to make the Motion of which he had given notice.
Moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying for the Appointment of a Commission to consider what steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of as arising from the present compulsory and indiscriminate Use of the Burial Service of the Church of England."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,said, the noble Lord who had moved the Address had rightly interpreted his view with regard to the grievance which still existed in reference to the Burial Service. At the same time he had given the noble Lord to understand that he could not con-
1308
sent to any Royal Commission which should have in view that mode of remedying the grievance which contemplated an alteration of the service. Short of that, he was willing that a Royal Commission should be issued, and he would go further and say that he was ready to agree that the Royal Commission should take into consideration the question of the re-arrangement of the Table of Lessons. The noble Lord (Viscount Gage) on the opposite side of the House proposed a very small measure which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) felt disinclined to assent to. He had no objection to the rearrangement of the Table of Lessons, and with regard to these two points he was ready to assent to a motion for a Commission. He was not averse to change, provided it could be shown that it was reasonable, and one that could be effected without injury to the doctrines and practices of the Church.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he desired to call the attention of the noble Lord to the form of the Motion. It was to move an humble Address to Her Majesty praying for the appointment of a Commission. Now, especially after what had been said by the Primate of All England, it might fairly be doubted whether it was desirable there should be an Address to Her Majesty asking for a Royal Commission, or whether it would not be better to leave it in the hands of Her Majesty's responsible advisers, as had been the case during the past year with regard to the important question of Clerical Subscription, to take such steps as they thought right in reference to this important matter. He agreed most fully with the most rev. Prelate that the time had come when some change in this matter was required. The very discussion which took place last year, leaving the question somewhat in an unsatisfactory state, showed that the matter required to be dealt with. The very fact of the uncertainty of the law, under which there was a doubt whether the Bishop was or was not compellable to proceed against any clergyman who refused to read the Burial Service under the painful circumstances to which allusion had been made, showed that something must be done to set the matter at rest. There remained also the further question, whether or not the mode of dealing with the difficulty as was suggested by his right rev. Brother the Bishop of Exeter was the right one. The legal questions involved were in fact

1309
extremely complicated. The 68th Canon would certainly require revision, and it could not be altered with propriety without an appeal to the Houses of Convocation as well as the decision of the Legislature and the Sovereign. Then, again, the Rubric preceding the Burial Service was, of course, embodied in an Act of Parliament—the Act of Uniformity—and therefore its alteration would require, according to constitutional usage, the consent both of Parliament and Convocation. The questions presented to them were therefore complicated, and he did not know whether the consideration which had been given to the subject during the past year had at all cleared the way of difficulties. For his own part he was impressed with the conviction, that the time was come when something ought to be done by authority in the matter. No doubt if things were left as they were, difficulties would continue to present themselves even in a more aggravated form. There was the difficulty that in one diocese the clergyman was subjected to one rule and in another to another; and there was, he understood, even a different rule in the two provinces. Now, that was obviously a state of things which ought not to be allowed to continue; and, judging by the mode in which the other intricate question of Subscription by the Clergy had been dealt with, and the way in which, when a Commission was actually appointed, one difficulty after another had in that case disappeared, there was good reason to hope that if this question was dealt with in a similar mode, the difficulties which now be set it would disappear likewise. With regard to an alteration in the service, there was, no doubt, a strong opinion among a large proportion of the clergy adverse to it. And there remained the possibility of dealing with the law which prescribed its use. In France these difficulties had been removed, not by an interference with religious services, but by the provisions of the law according to which the clergy were bound to use those services. By the French law there were certain reasons which justified the priest in refusing to perform religious services at the burial. The French law adopted three reasons specified in our Rubric and the 68th Canon, but also added to these open and notorious profanity on the part of the deceased. To settle how a similar course was to be followed in England might be difficult,
1310
but this arrangement was successful in France where the State was entitled to see that no injustice was done by the clergy, and the discretion was left in the hands of the Bishop. If such difficulties could be got over in France, he did not see why they should not be also got over in this country. There remained the consideration that, as far as they could judge, the feeling of the clergy in this country was in favour not only of not altering the service, but of leaving matters alone. Of the 4,000 who had signed the memorial alluded to by the noble Lord, some had, if he had not been misinformed, since changed their minds; some of them were now in that House; but whether the Memorialists adhered to their opinions or not, there was a large body of the clergy who were strongly of opinion that things should remain as they were. It was important that they should not disregard the feeling of the clergy, but at the same time they should not attach to their opinions too much importance. The clergy, necessarily from their profession, were—and he was very thankful for it—averse to change, and those changes that were good might not receive from them that amount of favour at the time of their first proposal, which, after the alterations had been made by their superiors, they were willing to accord to them. It was doubtful whether, with regard to the abolition of non-residence and other very salutary reforms which had taken place in the Church, if the decision had rested with the whole body of the clergy, that properly Conservative spirit which animated them would not have led them to say that the safer course was to leave things as they were. He thought it would be wise on the part of the Government to take the question into their own hands, giving due weight, and not too much weight, to the opinions of the clergy.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was not prepared to pledge the Government to the course suggested, but he assured their Lordships that it should have the immediate attention of the Government. He would put himself into communication with the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and the most rev. Prelate, with a view of adopting a course satisfactory to all parties.
LORD REDESDALEasked whether the most rev. Prelate had consulted all his right rev. Brethren on the subject of a change in the Table of Lessons?
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had not brought the question before the whole body of Bishops, but he had consulted several of them individually; and from what took place at the meeting in February he certainly gathered that a Commission such as he had described would be acceptable to the clergy generally.
LORD EBURYwas quite willing to withdraw the Motion, and leave it in the hands of the most rev. Prelate and of the Government, but he had understood their Lordships on a previous occasion to be of opinion that the question ought not to be left to the clergy to decide, whether they would or would not agree to a change.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHdesired to call attention to the division of the services of the Liturgy at the chapels royal, and inquired of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) whether he did not think it would be better that the practice should be general, so that persons in different degrees of health might attend in different parts of the day without injury to their constitutions. When he had asked a clergyman to set the example of changing the service, the reply was that he did not think himself of sufficient weight to take so important a step, but he would gladly follow it if any one else would do so. The fact was, that the clergy were always afraid of raising a No Popery cry by changing the services 61 shortening them. He was as much averse to Popery as any one, but he still though! a short manual of service of the Church might be adopted with advantage, and that if it were begun in London it would soon be followed throughout the whole of the country. The question he had to put to the right rev. Prelate was, Whether he would take into consideration the expediency of putting a reasonable degree of pressure on the ministers in the different parishes in London, in, order that they might put the rule in practice for the benefit of a congregation who might wish to provide for the legislation that would necessarily follow?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought that distinct notice ought to have been given of such a question. He believed, as; matter of fact, that the clergy were a liberty to change the service; but it would be very unwise to act upon it without was in accordance with the expressed wish of the congregation, and still more unwise for him to attempt to put any
1312
pressure on the clergy in reference to such a subject.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, he considered it highly inexpedient to put questions on an important subject like this without notice.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PUBLIC AND REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL (No. 184),
FORMERLY ENTITLED

PUBLIC AND REFRESHMENT HOUSES (METROPOLIS, &c.) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to omit from Clause 2 an Amendment having the effect of extending the operation of the Act to the districts of Improvement Commissioners. He objected to the application of the Act to small villages and towns which might be within the boundaries of corporate districts, governed by local boards or commissioners. In his view such towns ought to be omitted, and the provisions of the Bill should be confined to the corporate town itself, leaving the county magistracy the power of applying the measure to the rural villages, though they might happen to lie within the municipal boundaries.
Moved to omit the words ("and Districts of Improvement Commissioners").
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that several large towns such as Huddersfield and Birkenhead, were precedents for the Amendment, for there these powers were entrusted to the governing body and not to the magistrates.
LORD REDISDALEalso thought that some limit to the jurisdiction of the town councils should be put, and he complained that the Amendments of the Commons had altered the whole character of the Bill.
LORD EBURYsaid, they were charged with legislating for the Metropolis only, and not for the rest of England. It was to remove these objections that the Bill had been extended.
On Question: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 34, Not-Contents 26: Majority 8.

CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).

Aveland, L.

Camoys, L.

Ebury, L

Devonshire, D.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Somerset, D.

Hunsdon, L(V. Falkland),

Camden, M.

Methuen, L,

Monson, L.

Chichester, E.

Mostyn, L.

De Grey, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

Granville, E.

Harrowby, E.

Portman, L.

Russell, E,

Saye and Sele, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Seaton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Zetland, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Eversley, V.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll).

Sydney, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Down, &c, Bp,

Wodehouse, L.

Wrottesley, L,

Annaly, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Hawarden, V.

Salisbury, M.

Hutchinson, V, (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller.]

Airlie, E.

Amherst, E.

Calthorpe, L,

Belmore, E.

Chelmsford, L.

De La Warr, E.

Churston, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dunsany, L.

Mayo, E.

Egerton, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen).

Powis, E.

Romney, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Selkirk, E.

Redesdale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford).

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

Clause 9 (Adoption of Act by Corporate Boroughs).
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to omit the clause in order to substitute another, giving the power of adopting the Act to the magistrates of corporate boroughs instead of to the town councils.
EARL GRANVILLEpointed out that the control of issuing licences was still loft with the magistrates; but as it was desirable that the inhabitants of a town should have the power of deciding within what hours refreshment houses must be closed, it was better to entrust this power to town councils.
LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, that this was the first time that the power of choosing, whether the provisions of a Bill affecting the regulations of public houses was to be taken out of the hands of the magistracy and vested in town councils and local commissioners. He reminded
1314
the House that the election of town councillors was very much influenced by publicans and the proceedings that took place at public-houses; therefore he hoped that clause would be rejected.
THE EARL OF ROMNEYthought that it would very much tend to degrade and lower town councils if this clause were affirmed, because nobody could doubt that in an election the leading question which would be put would be whether the candidate would support the introduction of this measure; and he believed that that would lead to the election of a less influential body of townsmen as councillors.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the reason of introducing the clause was to ascertain the opinion of the town itself, and not of the magistrates of the town; be sides which, if it were not introduced, the whole onus of deciding whether the provisions of the measure should be introduced into certain large towns would be on the stipendiary magistracy, which would be objectionable.
LORD BROUGHAMapproved in general of magistrates, and not elected bodies, exercising the powers of the Bill; but he was aware that in this he might give umbrage to his excellent friends of the Temperance League, whose Permissive Bill vested a certain authority in the majority of ratepayers. He would make compensation to the League by stating to their Lordships what he knew had a direct tendency in favour of temperance us well to improve the condition of the working classes and insure their comforts. He meant the great cooking depôts, of which he and a noble Friend (the Earl of Shrewsbury) had last week carefully examined the one established in this neighbourhood, in the New Cut, Lambeth—which he strongly recommended their Lordships to visit, and they would receive from it the same gratification which he and his noble friend (the noble Earl) had received. Never was there a more useful establishment, or one better conducted; 1,500, working men a day had their dinner, sometimes alone, sometimes with their wives and daughters. The dinner was excellent. He saw plates of good roast beef, potatoes, and peas, at 5d. per plate, and the soup which he tasted was equal to any he had ate in his life. There were three kinds, and the pea soup was as good as any served on the tables of their Lordships—the price a penny for a good bowl; so that for sixpence, the working man

1315
dined as well as any one could desire. There was perfect cleanliness and order in the kitchen and all parts of the house; and as these establishments, to be useful, must be self-supporting, he had examined their accounts, which were kept with the greatest regularity and precision; and then he called for the accountant's report on the balance; when he found that, after paying every expense, even to the interest of a small sum borrowed, the not profit was 20 per cent on its capital. He earnestly hoped that eighteen or twenty more of such admirable helps to the working classes would be shortly established in this city; and he tendered this statement to his good friends of the League, as a compensation for opposing the extending the power of the Bill to elected bodies, instead of the magistrates. Temperance, as well as comfort, to the working class, was the result of this institution, for generally the workmen attending it were sober men.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, as he understood, the simple provision was that these houses should be closed between one and four; and if it were a good provision, he could not understand why it should not be general in its application.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the whole principle of the Bill was permissive; and the only question in dispute seemed to be, whether this permissive power should be exercised by the town council or by the justices.
On Question, That Clause 9 be omitted?—their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not-Contents 31.
The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule) Resolved, in the Negative.

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller].

Salisbury, M.

Airlie, E.

Bateman, L.

Amherst, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belmore, E.

Calthorpe, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry).

Churston, L.

Dunsany, L.

Egerton, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen).

Mayo, E.

Nelson, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Romney, E.

Polwarth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Redesdale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Sherborne, L.

Silchestor, L. (E. Longford).

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty).

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway).

De Vosci, V.

Hawarden, V.

1316

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L.(L. Chancellor).

Ebury, L.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland).

Devonshire, D.

Somerset, D.

Methuen, L.

Monson, L.

Camden, M.

Mostyn, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller].

Chichester, E.

De Grey, E.

Portman, L.

Granville, E.

Saye and Sele, L.

Harrowby, E.

Seaton, L.

Russell, E.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde).

Saint Germans, E.

Eversley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Sydney, V.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)

Down, &c., Bp.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wodehouse, L.

Annaly, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Camoys, L.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthought it was important, in reference to their future proceedings, that they should know whether the Question upon which they had divided had been put in the correct form; in his opinion, it had not been correctly put.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if any impropriety had taken place in putting the Question, it ought to have been mentioned before the division. But if the Question had been put in the way desired, and the numbers had been equal, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could have given a casting vote.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that any objection to the form of a Question must be raised before the division.
LORD CHELMSFORDadmitted that it was now too late to object to the form of the Question; but, having regard to their proceedings in future, it was desirable that the irregularity should be noticed. If the Question had been put in the usual form, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," the result would have been just the reverse of what it was.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in Committee the proper form of Question was, "That the clause stand part of the Bill;" but upon the be port of the Amendments, the course which he had always followed had been to frame the Question as nearly as possible in the terms of the Motion. In this instance the Motion was "for Clause 9 substitute the following clause," and therefore he had put the Question, "That Clause 9 be struck out."
LORD REDESDALEdiffered from the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, and believed that the Question ought always

1317
to be, that the clause stand part of the Bill, or that the words stand part of the clause.
VISCOUNT EYERSLEYsaid, that he could only state what was the practice in the other House. There the Question would not have been put with reference to a clause at all. The Motion would have been, "that all the words after the word 'that' in Clause 9 to the commencement of Clause 10 be omitted;" and the Question would have been, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." In Committee the Question was put as to clauses; but after the Bill had left the Committee all Motions had reference1 to certain words, and the Question always was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.