Sitting of 6 June 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —CIVIL SBBVIOB ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Weighing of Grain (Port of London) [Bill 119] (count out).
Committee — Government Annuities (re-committed)* [Bill 114]; Public and Refreshment Houses (Metropolis)* [Bill 92]; Railway Companies Powers (re-committed)* [Bill 110]; Railways Construction Facilities [Bill 111], R. P.; Railways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [Bill 99], R.P.
Report—Government Annuities (re-Committed)* [Bill 114]; Public and Refreshment Houses (Metropolis)* [Bill 132]; Railway Companies' Powers (re-committed)* [Bill 110].
Third Reading — Life Annuities and Life Assurances* [Bill 56], and passed.

NEW ZEALAND LOAN.—QUESTION.
MR. AYTOUNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament for its sanction of a guarantee of interest for a Loan for New Zealand; and, if so, what is the amount of the Loan for which a guarantee is to be asked, and whether the guarantee will be applied for during the present Session; and, if so, at what period of the Session?
MR. CARD WELL: It appears, Sir, from the papers which have already been laid upon the table with reference to New Zealand, that the Imperial Government is engaged to the Colonial Government to submit to Parliament a proposal for a Loan for the various expenses connected with the war in New Zealand; and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a proposal on the subject during the present Session. The papers are now being printed, and will, I believe, be in the hands of Members in a few days. I shall then take the earliest opportunity of making a statement on the subject.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE OF CEYLON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangement has been made between the Ceylon and the English Government for reducing the charge on the Imperial Exchequer for the Military Expenditure in that Colony; and whether, in consequence of the great prosperity of the Island, there is an early prospect of releasing this Country altogether from that charge, and placing Ceylon, in that respect, on the same footing as India?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the military expenditure of Ceylon is £200,000. It is paid in equal proportions by the Imperia and the Colonial Governments. In the
  1262
  present year, 1864, an additional sum of 230,000 has been set apart out of the colonial resources to be applied to this purpose. An inquiry is about to take place n the Island with a view to reduce the amount of expenditure, and I hope and believe that in a short time the hon. Gentleman will be gratified by the whole expenditure being defrayed out of the sources of the colony in the way he wishes.

GERMANY AND DENMARK—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Conference has arrived at any decision respecting the maintenance of the Treaty of London, and whether the noble Lord is in a situation to communicate it to the House; and whether the suspension of arms between Denmark and the conflicting Powers has been prolonged?
VISCOUNT PALMEESTON: With regard, Sir, to the first part of the Question, I trust that neither the hon. Member nor the House will think that I am wanting in respect if I am unable, with propriety, to state what have been the proceedings of the Conference with regard to the general matters which they have in hand. In the first place, an agreement was come to by the Plenipotentiaries, that the proceedings should be known only to themselves until some final arrangement was arrived at, and I am sure that the House will see that communications from time to time of what may have passed at particular meetings of the Conference, so far from rendering more easy a satisfactory arrangement, would probably interpose difficulties which it would not be easy to overcome. With respect to the latter part of the Question, I am at liberty to say that no arrangement has yet been made for the continuation of the suspension of arms, which will last till the 12th of this month, but there is good reason to hope that at the next meeting of the Conference some arrangement for that purpose may be made.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to know whether the armistice would not expire on Sunday next?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: As Sunday-is the day fixed, the armistice will, if it is not renewed, expire on that day.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord whether he can state on what day the next sitting of the Conference will be held?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No day has yet been fixed, for this reason; that the Plenipotentiaries are waiting for answers to Despatches which have been sent to their respective Courts. Some few days must elapse before those replies are received, and then the members of the Conference will be summoned to re-assemble.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know whether any arrangement has been made to prevent the war being renewed between the expiration of the armistice and the next meeting of the Conference, if that meeting should not take place until the existing suspension of hostilities is at an end.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No such arrangement could be made. There is no reason to doubt that the Conference will meet again before the expiration of the armistice.

THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any official confirmation of the recent news from New Zealand has been received by the Government?
  MR. CARD WELL: Sir. we have not received so much news as has appeared in the newspapers. Through our Consul at Alexandria we received the earlier information contained in the newspapers, which was favourable to the success of our arms. The second part, which is of a mixed character, and apparently involving the discomfiture of our arms more or less, has not been received through any official source.

SIR ROWLAND HILL.
Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
VICTORIA R
Her Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent Services of Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., late Secretary to the General Post Office, in devising and carrying out important improvements in postal administration, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, to confer some signal mark of Her favour upon him, recommends to Her faithful Commons that She should be enabled to grant Sir Rowland Sill the sum of Twenty Thousand Pounds.
Referred to the Committee of Supply.

COUNTESS OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE.
Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
VICTORIA R.
Her Majesty, taking into consideration the distinguished Services performed throughout a long series of years by the late James, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India, and being desirous, in recognition of such Services, to confer some signal mark of Her favour upon his widow, Mary Louisa, Countess of Elgin and Kincardine, recommends to Her faithful Commons that She should be enabled to make provision for securing to the Countess of Elgin a pension of One Thousand Pounds per annum for the term, of her natural life.
Committee thereupon on Thursday.

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

OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN ARMIES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to call attention to the grievances of the Officers of the local Armies of India. Since the Royal Commission reported upon this subject six grievances had been added to those of which the Officers previously had to complain, and the dissatisfaction was now extending to the Native portion of what was formerly the Regular Native Army of India. According to the accounts which he received, what was called "the re-organization" of the Native Army of India had occasioned very considerable disquiet, mistrust, and suspicion. Some explanation of this phrase "re-organization of the Army of India" was necessary to a right understanding of his Question. In early days — about 1757 — the East India Company raised men to defend their factories, and these gradually increased in number till companies grew into battalions, battalions in to brigades, and brigades into armies; but during the whole of that time the officering of those regiments by European gentlemen or adventurers was dependent upon accident, and in the history of the Bengal army they rarely heard of more than ten or twelve officers to each. The

  1265
  experience of fifty years showed that such a proportion was inadequate to give full efficiency to Native troops, and in 1796 a re-organization took place, by order of the home authorities, under which twenty-four officers were assigned to each regiment. From 1796 to 1856, however, our dominions in India extended so rapidly that officers were withdrawn from the regiments in large numbers to perform what were called staff duties, political, civil, army, staff, &c., and it constantly happened that not more than from ten to fifteen remained to do duty with their regiments. Such a state of things did not escape the attention of the Indian Government, and a letter from the Governor General to the Court of Directors, dated the 5th April, 1856, stated that urgent representations had been made to him of the paucity of European officers, and he recommended the appointment of supernumerary cadets to the Indian Service. That letter was answered by the Court of Directors on the 10th of September, 1856. In their reply they said they need hardly state that the mere appointment of one or more officers to the rank of ensign in addition to those on the establishment of the Native infantry, was not the proper remedy required to meet effectually the exigencies of the Indian Army. From their youth and inexperience, and want of rank, such additional officers would form no adequate substitute for the older and experienced officers withdrawn from regimental duty, and they distinctly stated that the withdrawal of officers to the extent that reduced the numbers to ten or twelve could not be done except with great risk to the discipline of the regiments. They admitted that the want was pressing, and they went on to say that they took that opportunity of expressing their opinion that Native regiments should always have present with them for regimental duty in time of peace thirteen officers—one for command, ten eligible for the command of companies, two eligible for the regimental staff, besides a few young men. The mutiny of the Bengal Army broke out; and then a feeling unhappily sprang up— chiefly amongst those who were ignorant of the character of the Native troops and did not look to their past devotion—for it was by their aid our Indian Empire was chiefly obtained—that the army should be immediately reduced and ultimately put down. That had been done. The reason for that proceeding was stated to be economy; 230,000 Native troops being con-
  1266
  sidered an overwhelming number. The Bengal army, with the exception of fourteen Regiments, which had remained faithful, disappeared; the Bombay and Madras armies remained faithful with the exception of two regiments, and there was a reduction of between 110,000 and 115,000 men out of the 280,000, at a saving of a million of money. But what had been the result? Why, that the European troops had been doubled. From 40,000 men when the mutiny broke out in Bengal, they increased at one time to 112,000, and there were now seventy-two thousand European troops in India with a reserve force of 9,000 in England, at a cost of £2,000,000 to India. And the practical result of the saving of £1,000,000 by the reduction of the native troops was to increase the cost of the Indian Army £2,000,000 by the additional 40,000 European troops. The Staff Corps also was established, which had ever since been a source of the greatest difficulty and injustice. It was stated that the selection for the Staff took a way the élite of regiments. But it did nothing of the kind; it took away all the officers who had interest, and in nine cases out of ten the élite remained behind because they had no interest. Personal illustrations were always unsatisfactory; but he knew in his own case that he passed as interpreter in two languages before he was twenty, and yet might have remained all his life with his regiment, but that he was fortunate enough twelve years after he had passed as interpreter in two native languages to obtain private interest that withdrew him from it. Nothing was more deceptive than this phrase "reorganization"; but which the armies at large called "annihilation." At one stroke of the pen Native soldiers who had become veterans in the British service, and whose ancestors had fought gallantly for the Crown, were without reference to their self-respect and soldierly pride converted into Irregulars by an Order dated December 28, 1863, and the number of officers doing duty with those regiments was reduced at one blow from twenty-four to six. The Act of Parliament guaranteed to all officers that their usages and privileges should be maintained, and one of those privileges was that no officer belonging to another regiment should come into their ranks and supersede their regimental rights; but the Act of Parliament had been violated. The General Order of December which recognized the Indian army, affected the position of every officer of every regiment in the local armies.

  1267
  Three regiments of cavalry in the Bombay army, which carried on their standards the names of the battles in which they had been engaged in Affghanistan, Persia, and elsewhere, were converted into Irregulars; and they now found among them officers who had never before belonged to them, nor had ever served with them. It rested with the Commander-in-Chief to take away the old officers of the regiments, and put them aside entirely in favour of perfect strangers. In the Bombay army there was only one regiment out of three regiments of cavalry and thirty of infantry, in which there had not been an intrusion of that kind into the regiment. There were fifty-six cases of officers posted to regiments who had never served in those regiments before. This was contrary to the usages of the service, contrary to policy, prejudicial to discipline, and how such a course could have been pursued was to him, an officer of half a century's standing, perfectly unintelligible. All these fifty-six officers were occupying the places of the old regimental officers, who had been divorced from their regiments, and who existed only upon paper in what was called the cadre of the regiment, and were strangers to the old Native officers and men. The effect of the working of the Staff Corps had been that the officers, by their promotion in that corps, after fixed periods of service without reference to their regimental standing, when they returned to their regiments superseded officers of older standing in the regiment, and who had been longer in the army. The House would understand the feeling created by these measures among the old Native officers, some of whom had served for fifty years uninterruptedly in their regiments, and also among the Sepoys, many of whom had served for twenty years, and who looked upon their regiments as their homes, and the officers of their regiments as their friends and fathers. The course pursued was undoubtedly dangerous, because it was exciting a feeling of dissatisfaction, distrust, and suspicion that might inflict upon this country injury of a very serious character by loosening the loyal ties, which had formerly existed between the Sepoys and the Government. He would give the House two or three illustrations of the effect of the posting of officers to regiments to which they did not belong. A communication dated January 24, and which he supposed was addressed to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood), complained
  1268
  of a measure which deprived half-a-dozen officers of their rank in their regiments, hindered their prospective advancement, and cancelled or annulled the agreement made by the East India Company, and which had been transferred to and undertaken by the Crown; and the right hon. Baronet was asked whether he would persist in approving a measure which, by sending strangers to regiments to fill the places of old regimental officers, injuriously affected the efficiency of the army. Another communication from India of the same date spoke of a General Order as a most shameful piece of jobbery, and gave an instance of a lieutenant on the General List who had never been posted to a regiment, being made adjutant of a Native regiment, and responsible for the discipline of 800 men, after a residence in India of only three years. The writer stated that Sir Hugh Rose had been warned of the danger of placing boys in command of the Natives, and in posts which men of ten years' standing before the mutiny could hardly hope to attain. The case of Captain Richardson, of the Bombay army, eighteen years in India with his regiment, but now only attached to his own regiment, was another instance in point. It was very hard for such an officer to find an officer of the Staff placed over him. Only on Saturday last he had received by the mail a letter, dated May 11, 1864, reciting the case of Captain Farquharson, of the 2nd Light Cavalry, who was senior squadron officer of the 3rd Cavalry, although he belonged to the 2nd Light Cavalry, and who had been recently appointed to an acting paymastership, which would take him from the 33rd regiment for eighteen months. Captain and Brevet-Major W. A. Dick, who belonged to the 3rd Cavalry, but now second in command of the Scinde Horse, who had been twenty-one years in the service, and who had been with the regiment in Affghanistan, where it had gained so many laurels, applied for permission to rejoin his old regiment. He was refused, and, to everybody's astonishment, an infantry officer and a captain of eight months' standing only, who had never served in the cavalry, was appointed by Sir William Mansfield to fill the vacancy. And another officer of the 3rd Bombay Light Cavalry was equally refused permission to rejoin his regiment, that the stranger infantry officer might be provided for. All the cavalry officers were calling out, and many of them were furious; and well they might be. He had been in the service half a

  1269
  century, and never in all his experience did he know of an instance such as that. There might he reasons of urgency or expediency of which the public was not aware to justify that extraordinary departure from usage, and that outrage upon the feelings of the officers. He hoped and trusted there were, for Sir William Mansfield's sake; but, in the absence of such reasons, he had no hesitation in saying that that appointment was a scandalous abuse of power, and as such he would leave Sir William Mansfield to justify it. But there was another power given to the Commander-in-Chief with regard to the re-organization of those regiments. They were considered Irregulars, and as not having the rights of regulars at all which involved regimental seniority. The Commander-in-Chief had a right to appoint any one at his pleasure or caprice. In the case of the former Irregular regiments, few in number, it was an act of prudence and policy to select the most active officers and put them into those regiments. But here were the old regular veteran regiments, of the armies of Madras and Bombay, and with regard to them it was a different thing. There was an Order by Sir William Mansfield, contained in the Overland Times, dated from the 28th of February to the 14th of March last, in which the Commander-in-Chief was pleased to intimate that it had been ruled by the Government of India that in all cases the officers appointed to command a regiment under the new system in virtue of his appointment should command a regiment, the second in command should rank next in the corps, and the other officers according to army standing. Well, suppose Sir William Mansfield selected a junior officer and made him commandant, and another second in command, all the senior officers would be compelled to obey their juniors. Was there ever such a subversion of discipline, or of the ordinary rules and usages of an army? He knew his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) was anxious to promote the welfare of the army, but most unhappily he had been subjected to influences which had subverted his judgment and warped his better feelings, and he had done that which most probably would result in disaster. He had no hesitation in saying that such things never would have taken place under the East India Company, who would not have disgraced themselves by such injustice. He begged to ask, Whether the recent appointment or employment (except in emergent
  1270
  cases) of Officers of the Indian Armies with regiments to which they do not belong, in supersession of the regimental rights of the officers or usages of those regiments, is not contrary to the spirit of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, which guaranteed
  "That the Military and Naval Forces of the East India Company should be deemed to be the Military and Naval Forces of Her Majesty, and should be under the same obligations to serve Her Majesty as they would have been under to serve the said Company, and should be liable to serve under the same territorial limits only, for the same terms only, and be entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said Company;"
  And whether such appointments have been approved by the Secretary of State?
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that there was no doubt, as mentioned by his hon. and gallant Friend, that the Officers of the Indian Army generally had great grounds for complaint. In referring to the Report of the Commissioners and the appendix which had been placed upon the table a few days ago, it could not fail to strike any candid mind that those officers had been superseded in the most grievous manner. The Commissioners in the 42nd paragraph of their Report were constrained to acknowledge it, inasmuch as they said that the Parliamentary assurances had not been adhered it. The injustice complained of might be ascribed entirely to the creation of that new-fangled corps, called the Staff Corps; for by the rules of that body all promotion went to advance officers who had been so fortunate as to be attached to it, to the prejudice of officers who were serving in their own regiments. In fact, persons had been appointed to the command of regiments they had never heard of. Instances had been brought to his notice of officers belonging to the Madras Presidency having been sent over to the Bengal Presidency to supersede officers who had never left their regiments. But this injustice was not entirely confined to the Military Service—it extended even to the Civil Service of India, because civilians serving in the Punjab and out-provinces having obtained furloughs to return to Europe in order to recruit their shattered health found upon coming back that their appointments had been conferred upon striplings who commanded sufficient interest, and had been fortunate enough to be attached to the Staff. They were thus thrown for promotion upon the

  1271
  North West Provinces. He had received a letter from an eminent authority, who was thoroughly conversant with all the circumstances of the case, who stated that promotion in the North West Provinces had been most materially retarded by all the civilians who had taken furloughs in the Punjab and North "West Provinces having been superseded by military men. Under these circumstances it appeared to him a matter of no surprise that a feeling of great dissatisfaction and indignation prevailed in India, and it was high time that it should be remedied. The remedy was a simple one; he would at once abolish this highly favoured Staff Corps, which had been so hastily established by the Secretary of State for India, and which had been the means of crushing many a noble spirit, and creating such unspeakable woe and misery.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India introduced his Bill for the amalgamation of the Royal and Indian armies, he did not seem to have sufficiently considered the difficulties attending that step, and the detailed provisions which were required, and that circumstance was a sufficient justification for the opposition offered by some hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in consequence took steps to secure for the Indian army all the privileges which they had previously enjoyed; and those who opposed the Bill were only induced to withdraw their opposition on the distinct pledge of that House and the Government, that the rights and privileges of the officers of the Indian army should be respected. It is now three years since that pledge was given, and how had that pledge been kept? He was sorry to say for the sake of the honour of the House that it had been broken; and he entreated the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of the honour of the House and for his own, to redeem the pledge that was given, and in reliance on which opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN JERVIStrusted that there would be no delay in placing before Parliament the warrant on which Sir "William Mansfield had acted; but before that warrant was before the House, he would carefully avoid any allusion to cases to which the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject had alluded. He would wish to point out, however, that it was four, not three, years since the pledge referred to was given. It was given on the 3rd of
  1272
  July, 1860; and although he had consented to postpone his Motion for a Committee pending the Report of the Commission—and it reported in October last—yet nothing had since been done in the matter, except the issue of an Order in the Bengal Presidency, which had made matters ten times worse.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that he did not think it desirable at present to go into all the questions referred to by the hon. and gallant Member behind him (Colonel Sykes). He regretted much that the warrant to which allusion had just been made was not on the table of the House; but it was not his fault— he had done his best to get it completed. The preparation of it had received from the noble Lord the Secretary for War, and from the Commander-in-Chief, as well as from himself, considerable attention and pains, and they had endeavoured by every means to reconcile the claims and wishes of both classes of officers, and he hoped the result would be satisfactory to the House. The principle had been agreed upon some time ago, but a variety of modifications had been proposed; but it took more trouble and pains to come to a fair conclusion than could be supposed. The warrant had now been completed, and he hoped that in two or three days it would have received the sign manual. Before it was signed he could not, of course, in accordance with the ordinary practice, lay it upon the table. He did not quite understand what had fallen from the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) relative to the Civil Service. Of course, when an officer came home on leave he ipso facto vacated his office, and it became necessary to appoint another to the vacancy; and when the former returned to India he must wait till some other appointment was open to him.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, what he wanted to convey, and what he believed he did convey, was, that all the civil appointments in Oude and the Punjab, when a civil officer returned to England to recruit his shattered health, were filched away from them and given to the officers of the Staff Corps.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwould say to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, as he would to the hon. and gallant Member who had introduced this subject, that it was exceedingly inconvenient that, on a question of this general kind, particular cases like those which had been referred to should be cited without notice. Had the

  1273
  hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) previously furnished him with names of the officers whose cases he intended to refer to, he might have been able to inquire into them, and offer some explanation to the House. From what he had seen of Indian affairs, he believed that the appointments were given, not by favour or interest, but to the best men; and seeing the way the service had been performed at all times in India, the hon. and gallant Member was not justified in saying that unfit men had been appointed to the different posts. He deprecated the sweeping assertion that Sir William Mansfield had been guilty of a scandalous perversion of authority, for had unfit persons been appointed, the duties of the offices could not have been performed in the satisfactory manner in which they had been. All that he could do on the present occasion was, to deal with the general question. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) said that it was not true that the best men were taken for Staff employments; that the best men were kept with the regiments, and that those taken for Staff employments were chosen by favour. But when complaints were formerly made of the want of discipline in the regiments, many persons attributed it to the practice of taking the best men from the regiments for the Staff employments, and stated that the practice was so dangerous that it was a wonder there was any discipline left at all. The universal testimony given of the inconveniences of that practice was one of the strongest motives why he (Sir Charles Wood) had taken part in the institution of a Staff Corps in order to provide a body of officers for the regiments organized on what was called the Irregular system, and for Staff employments of different kinds without having recourse to a practice, so universally condemned, of taking officers from their regiments. The hon. and gallant Member complained that the Native army was being considerably reduced; but if there was one point on which no difference of opinion, he thought, was entertained, it was this— namely, that to provide for the safety of the English rule and of English subjects in India, it was advisable to increase the English garrison there, and to reduce the Native army.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, his argument was based on the question of finance.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, no doubt the English troops were more expensive than the Native ones, but the difference of expense was by no means one that could
  1274
  be set against the safety of our Indian possessions. There had been a great reduction in the number of officers in the different regiments. There was not that feeling of confidence and attachment to their officers in these regiments which the hon. and gallant Officer said would be destroyed by the new system, for the mutiny had proved that in the old regiments the officers were not, as was supposed, acquainted with the feelings of their men. All the regiments which were raised during the mutiny were framed on the Irregular system, which not only required fewer officers, but gave opportunity of employing Native officers in higher grades. It secured an efficient body of troops, at a much less expense. The House should bear in mind that India was mainly saved to England by these Irregular Native troops, who formed a great part of the force which took Delhi; and therefore efficiency as well as economy had been furthered. What had been done had not been done on English or Imperial grounds, but on Indian grounds, and with the sanction and advice of the present Viceroy of India, Sir John Lawrence (the highest authority we could have on Indian matters), and of a majority of the Council of India. Then came the question, how were those Irregular regiments to be officered. That could only be done by the creation of a Staff Corps. That was the best, if not the only mode of providing the requisite number of officers. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had stated that officers had been superseded in their own regiments by officers of the Staff Corps; but he (Sir Charles Wood) was not aware of the existence of a single case of the kind. [Colonel SYKES: There are many cases.] If there were, they had occurred in direct opposition to the positive orders which had been issued by the Government. The hon. and gallant Member complained of officers being sent to command regiments in supersession of what he seemed to think were the regimental rights of the officers of that regiment. But suppose that in one regiment all the officers had elected to join the Staff Corps except the six senior captains, and in another all had gone except the six junior subalterns, would the hon and gallant Member say that the six captains ought to be left to do all the subaltern duties in one regiment, and the six subalterns to do all the captains' duties in the other; or would he not rather leave three captains and three subalterns in each regiment. Certainly he did not admit that

  1275
  such an arrangement would be at all derogatory to any regimental rights. In making these arrangements the Government had had no object in view but the good of the service generally, and he was sure that the Commander-in-Chief, in all he had done, had endeavoured to do that which was for the benefit of the general body of officers.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that when the subjects of the transfer to the Crown and the re-organization of the Indian army were before the House he was present and took a humble part in the debates. Throughout the speeches that were made on these occasions, those holding high positions in the Government said that it was but fair and right that full consideration should be given to the claims of the Indian army. The right hon. Baronet was then warned of the difficulties which must attend the amalgamation of the Indian with the Royal Army. Those difficulties had arisen; and the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his cleverness and his desire to do justice, had been unable to contend with them. Upon that occasion a full pledge was given to the officers of the Indian army, that all their rights and privileges should be. faithfully preserved to them. The right hon. Gentleman had been saying that he had to take care that no injustice was done to the officers of the Royal army. Now he (Sir Minto Farquhar) would be the last person to sanction the slightest injustice to the Royal army—indeed he had a son in that army—but why did the right hon. Gentleman mix up the two armies? He ought to have known that if no injustice was to be done to the Royal army, how difficult it would be to carry out his promises to the Indian army. The petitions sent to this country from officers in the Indian army were not a single petition, or half-a-dozen, or twenty, but absolutely hundreds—officers who felt that the pledge made to them had not been carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) and himself in 1862 asked for a Committee to investigate the subject-matter of these petitions. The right hon. Gentleman, after taking a month to consider the subject, said he did not think it would be advantageous to the service to have such a Committee. Thereupon his gallant Friend immediately placed a notice on the paper, that he would move the appointment of a Committee himself; and when, after having the circumstances put before them, the pressure of the House was about to be put on the right hon. Gentleman, he came forward and proposed
  1276
  to meet the case by a Royal Commission. He thanked the right hon. Baronet for that Commission—but what did that Commission prove? "Why, that in many cases the pledge of the House had not been fully and entirely carried out. When the right hon. Baronet was asked to lay the details of his amalgamation scheme, before he carried it out, on the table, his reply was, "You must leave the details to the discretion of the Executive." Again, there was the question of the warrant. That was sent out to India, and carried out without the House having any previous opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. The Royal Commission stated cases in which the promise had not been fulfilled. Then, who established the Staff Corps? Why, the right hon. Baronet. He was frequently told that if he did establish it, as proposed by him, he would to a certainty do an injustice to other officers. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) must remind the right hon. Baronet that it had always been argued that the amalgamation of the two armies was brought forward by Government as an Imperial measure for Imperial purposes; and that, having been admitted by Parliament, Parliament was in honour bound to insist that the promises made and guaranteed to the officers of the late Indian army should be completely fulfilled.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, before you leave the Chair, I am anxious to put a Question to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Os-borne) whether he is satisfied with the nature and the tenour of the reply he just now received from the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government? for, if he is satisfied, I feel no hesitation in saying that he is the only Member in the House who is so; and when to-morrow morning the newspapers carry the intelligence over the country, I venture to say that few of their readers will sympathize with the answer of the noble Viscount. The noble Lord and the Government have all along discouraged any attempt on the part of the House to inquire what was going on in the Conference; and if complete secresy had been observed throughout Europe with regard to what was going on in the Council Chamber in Downing Street I should be the very last to undertake the responsibility of pressing upon

1277
Her Majesty's Government or my hon. and gallant Friend a course which would jeopardize the satisfactory issue of the deliberations which are being held there. But such is not the case. Though Her Majesty's Government maintain silence on the subject, the journals of Paris, Vienna, and Berlin teem with news of what passes, or is supposed to pass, in the Council Chamber of Downing Street. It will be recollected that when the Session began, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and his noble Colleague in another place, came down night after night and declared that it was the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to abide by the Treaty of 1852. On a subsequent occasion the noble Viscount announced that the efforts of the Government had been successful in bringing about a Conference, which was immediately to meet to settle the most difficult and perplexing question to which I am now referring. The noble Lord added, amid the sympathizing cheers of his party, that the Conference was about to assemble on the basis of maintaining the integity of the dominions of King Christian IX. The noble Viscount and his noble Colleague having over and over again declared, that the Government was pledged to that policy, is, I think, a sufficient excuse to my gallant Friend to press his Question on the Government. I wish, therefore, before you, Sir, leave the Chair, to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he will give to the House an assurance that he will on an early day again call the attention of the House to this subject—I am sure that if he does he will receive the sympathy of a majority of the House and of the country—and endeavour to elicit from Her Majesty's Government whether the statements which are contained in the foreign journals be or be not true; and whether it be a fact that the Government, who early in the Session declared in favour of the Treaty of 1852 and the integrity of the Danish dominions, are now, by their representatives sitting in the Conference, which would not be sitting at all except on the basis of the effectual annihilation of the Treaty of 1852, by which alone King Christian sits on the throne of Denmark; and whether that basis is conducive to the dismemberment of Denmark?
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I do not know what assurance I can give the House on this subject. Before I give any I should wish hon. Gentlemen on the other side to give me some assurance that, in the event of my again resusci-
1278
tating the discussion on the Treaty of 1852 I shall not be met by the "Previous Question." The course which I have hitherto taken in this matter has not met with very great encouragement from hon. Gentlemen opposite. My noble Friend now asks me whether I feel satisfied with the answer which I to-night received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government? Well, Sir, I may say in reply, that so far as my own private feelings are concerned—though I am thankful for the smallest favour—I do not feel exactly satisfied with that answer. I may add that it struck me from the first that this Conference was instituted rather to preserve the integrity of the Treasury Bench and to prevent the dismemberment of Her Majesty's Ministers than to maintain the integrity of Denmark. I would remind the House, too, that we have been going on in this way from day to day, and from week to week, and that we seem likely to go on in the same manner until at last the month of July will have arrived, when hon. Gentlemen on both sides will be leaving town, and this question will die a natural death. For my own part, I am surprised at the reticence which the House has observed on the matter. Up to a certain point the Government were probably right in deprecating the discussion of the subject, and I, perhaps, was wrong in bringing on my Motion when I did. Now, however, that we have arrived at the 6th of June, and we see that the Question is allowed to drag its slow length along from day to day, I think the House of Commons ought to be put in possession of some definite information with respect to it. What, I would ask, is the present position of the House and of the country generally? Why, that while the lowest inhabitant of the most petty capital on the Continent learns from his paper what is taking place at the Conference, we get "the best information" from foreign newspapers. So that it comes to this—that we, the subjects of a constitutional Sovereign, are the worst informed persons in Europe on a subject which is transacted in our own capital under our very noses. How long, I should like to know, is this to continue? If I were to use the word "farce," Sir, in connection with these proceedings I should, I believe, be called to order by you; but this I may say, that the House of Commons is placed in regard to them in a most humiliating position, and is being tricked into silence by

1279
the Members of the Government, who1 appear to have taken the vows usually taken by the monks of La Trappe. Whether they are digging their own graves is a different question; but of this I am certain, that if we submit to be put off day after day with evasive answers, in which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton is so great a proficient, that he would be eminently qualified on that score alone for the degree which he took the other day at Cambridge, we shall be digging the grave, not only of the dignity of the House of Commons, but of the national honour.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I hardly know anything in our Parliamentary system which to my mind is more to be admired than the reserve which obtains in Parliament when it is known that Her Majesty's Government are engaged in important negotiations upon which the question of peace or war may turn. I think it a characteristic of our system which marks it out from all other attempts at Parliamentary government, and is one of the surest guarantees for the endurance of constitutional rule. But I must say that, after listening to the observations and accepting without annoyance the taunt of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us about moving the "Previous Question,"—I having moved the "Previous Question" on a former occasion, when I thought it was for the interest of the country and due to Her Majesty's Government—I must say that I was disappointed by the answer which the noble Lord gave to the Question which was put to him by the hon. Gentleman at the commencement of our proceedings this evening. Wishing for the sake of the highest considerations, for the advantage of the country, to acknowledge in the fullest spirit the sound privilege which attaches to a Government in the position of carrying on negotiations—and negotiations by a Conference — I think that, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, it would have been salutary, and it would have been wise and politic on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to have shown more candour and frankness than has been exhibited by the noble Lord to-night. Because you must remember that Parliamentary reserve under these circumstances depends upon one constitutional condition, and when that is observed the Parliamentary reserve is perfectly intelligible and constitutional. The condition of the reserve
1280
of Parliament when a Government is engaged in negotiations is that Parliament is acquainted with the principles upon which the negotiations are conducted, and approves the general policy of the Government. That is the condition which has always been acknowledged, and on which the salutary system of Parliamentary reserve under these circumstances is founded. But what the House of Commons is alarmed about—I am sure I do not misrepresent the general feelings of the House in this matter—what at this moment agitates the House is, that they are not convinced that the policy which was frankly announced by the Government before these communications commenced is the one which they are now pursuing; and the House and the country too are becoming anxious because they are not satisfied that the condition of Parliamentary reticence any longer exists and is observed. I do not want to penetrate the secrets of the Conference, but it has been well said by the Gentlemen who have addressed, us, that there is not that reserve in other countries which is observed in England. I myself read in a German paper the other day an absolute account of what took place on a most critical day in the Conference, and that not by way of rumour or on dit, but with all the forms of diplomatic accuracy, and I have reason to believe from subsequent inquiry that it was an authentic document. Now, Sir, although the House of Commons and those who sit on this side of the House are more than desirous, when these critical and important questions arise, not to interfere with the course of Her Majesty's Government or to embarrass negotiations, it is utterly impossible, it would be most pedantic for us to pretend that we are entirely ignorant, or believe that we are entirely ignorant, of what is taking place within a few yards of the House in which we are assembled; and there are rumours—rumours which appear to us of an authentic nature — which are enough to disquiet and disturb us all. No one could expect that while conducting negotiations of this kind the noble Lord would enter into any details; we should not expect minute communications from a Government who are conducting negotiations upon matters of detail which must change almost every day or even hour; still, it would have been satisfactory to the House if we had been informed by the noble Lord, that though the negotiations are not concluded —

1281
though the Conference was sitting and might sit for some time, still he could assure the House that the principles of policy which he had announced to the country were those upon which the Government entered into the Conference, were those which were guiding and animating their councils; that he believed that there was a fair prospect that they would succeed; and that if they did not succeed, Her Majesty's Government would have had the opportunity of vindicating, as far as their opinion was concerned, the policy which they recommended, and would appeal with confidence to the candid consideration of Parliament. But when we hear, as we do hear, that the course which the Government is pursuing is one exactly contrary to that which was announced in this House, it is impossible to expect from an assembly in which the popular element prevails to so large an extent as it does in the House of Commons, that we upon these Benches should hold ourselves in dignified reserve, and should not expect from the Ministers, whom under such circumstances we are inclined and prepared to trust, some communication to guide and enlighten public opinion. I therefore very much regret that the noble Lord has not said something which the House had a right to expect. I think that when we are informed that the question now in agitation is the continuation of the suspension of hostilities, the noble Lord ought to have given some general assurance to the House as to what had been the course of the negotiations. It would certainly have been satisfactory to the House to have heard something that would have persuaded us that what every man says in the city is not correct. I should have been glad to hear something from the noble Lord which would have assured us that Her Majesty's Ministers are not pursuing in the Conference a policy directly contrary to that which was announced in this House as the basis of their negotiations, and by the announcement of which, allow me to remind the House, they have obtained this Parliamentary reticence and reserve. It is because the noble Lord frankly declared what was the policy of the Government that he obtained that reserve. It was not because we are indifferent. It was because when such great interests were at stake the general policy of the Government was satisfactory to our convictions and to the conscience of the nation that we felt it was our duty to be
1282
silent; but I must say that the silence of the noble Lord and his answer to the Question that was asked at the commencement of the proceedings this evening fill me with great anxiety and apprehension. If the policy of the Government has been entirely changed—if at the moment when the renewal of the suspension of hostilities is in debate that policy has been entirely changed—I say that it is due to Parliament that some announcement should be made. We all know what was the general policy of Her Majesty's Government. In matters of this kind no one wishes to pin the Ministry to minute particulars. The noble Lord told us frequently, he told us continuously, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain the Treaty of 1852 — or, rather, I should say, describing as he did the scope and tendency of the policy of 1852, it was to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. That was what the noble Lord has constantly told us; and because he went into the Conference to maintain that policy, and to uphold the integrity and independence of Denmark, the House of Commons has been silent, and it has in my mind exercised a wise and salutary Parliamentary reticence; so that it should not be said that we interfered and threw obstacles in the way of a happy solution of these circumstances of great difficulty and peril. But if, as rumour tells us, it is now otherwise—which appears to me too incredible to accept—if it be true that the Government who but five months ago were making overtures to the Emperor of the French to stir up a European war in order to maintain the integrity of Denmark; if, incredible as the fact may be, the men who followed such a policy—I think, at that time, a most dangerous, but at least a candid policy—should be the men who, having at last succeeded in calling together a Conference, are themselves accomplishing the destruction of the integrity and independence of Denmark—then I say that some explanation is due to the House of Commons, and the noble Lord may rest assured that neither Parliament nor the country can long be silent under circumstances so extraordinary. No one wishes to interfere with the course of Her Majesty's Government, if that course is a frank one; but, I say, no Minister is entitled to ask for Parliamentary reticence and reserve during the progress of negotiations if he has not first fulfilled the great condition of such Parliamentary reserve — that his policy

1283
shall be known to the country and generally approved by Parliament. If he follows a policy totally contrary it may be right—it may be possible to justify it; but when that change takes place, especially at a moment like the present, when the continuation of an armistice is in question, he is bound to come forward and frankly tell us, "Our policy is changed. We are perfectly prepared to vindicate our course. All we ask is, that you should continue your confidence to us, or at least that you should call our conduct in question, and let it receive either the sanction or reprobation of the House of Commons." If the hypothesis—which I should call wild, were it not for the authentic rumours and, I fear, accurate information which have reached me—is correct, I must say that it is impossible that any body of men should have been more elaborately deceived and mistaken than the House of Commons has been. Is it that we have relied merely upon the assurance of the Government? Is it merely that the noble Lord has come forward and told us that the policy upon which he was conducting his negotiations —that the basis upon which subsequently he entered into the Conference—was to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark? Is that all? If that had been all we might have said that the noble Lord might be able to allege circumstances which might explain his conduct—that we might have misconceived him—that we might have placed too favourable a construction upon the declaration of the Minister. But that is not all. The noble Lord brought, as it were, Europe into witness and testimony of his policy. When we pressed the noble Lord for information he was always ready with assurances that "It is not merely the English Government that are prepared to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. Austria is equally anxious; Berlin is now desirous to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. So futile are your fears that I myself have this moment received a despatch." He told us one night, I remember, when I asked for some information— and the House was delighted to hear it from so high an authority and from so authentic a quarter— that Prussia was as desirous to maintain the integrity of Denmark as was the noble Lord himself. I should think the House of Commons and the country generally must have been surprised at the attitude
1284
maintained towards the Government. I do not regret it, for I would rather we should err on that side—nay, I think the noble Lord, with his long experience of difficult matters, must himself have been a little startled at the temper shown by the House of Commons. When on any evening he came into the House and found it anxious and agitated in consequence of news which had reached it, the noble Lord could hardly have speculated on the felicitous conclusion of his own management. Let the House remember what has occurred, and then let them contrast with that the silence and reserve which have been observed—silence and reserve not arising from indifference, from want of sympathy with others, from any want of feeling as to the magnitude of the conjuncture, or any want of perception as to the great interests at stake, but arising from a sentiment of patriotic prudence on both sides of the House, and a determination, under the circumstances, to assist the Government. Let me remind the House of some of the great incidents which it was the duty of the noble Lord to announce, and the replies which the noble Lord gave to appeals that were addressed to him. First of all, the House will remember the anxiety originally felt when the subject was first brought under our consideration. Parliament was about to be prorogued, when we had an assurance from the noble Lord that sent us all to our constituents without a care — I am sure it must have made every heart in Copenhagen happy and serene when the House of Commons was assured by the Premier that if difficulties ever arose, Denmark would not find herself alone. There are many like myself who — I will not say trembled, but hesitated, when they heard that war might be imminent, remembering, on the one hand, that grave national interests, and, on the other, that national honour, were concerned. But we were soon informed that we need not be nervous, for the noble Lord, whose prescience as a politician is celebrated, while he informed Denmark that she would not be alone if attacked, assured England that there was not the slightest probability of any such eventuality. When we met again, the Federal Execution, which before had been ridiculed, was impending. The House was prepared if Execution were carried out on constitutional principles that it could not interfere with the action of the Diet in Holstein; and I do not be-

1285
lieve that we should have done so. But then came the passage of the Eider. That was a great point on which the House and the country had fixed their attrition, and there was a general understanding that if the Eider were passed Her Majesty's Government must take such steps as would assert the spirit of their policy. But (he Eider was passed, other rivers were passed, and at last Jutland was invaded. The House cannot have forgotten the answer which the noble Lord gave to my question on that subject. He said the invasion of Jutland was an atrocity. That was the language used by the head of the Government—language which might rank with Borne of the great invectives that are recorded, and it shows what was the spirit of the Government at that time. After those various occurrences we found ourselves in the midst of Conferences and negotiations. And the House, notwithstanding the disappointments to which it had been exposed—notwithstanding matters affording ground for the belief that the conduct of the Government was very far from satisfactory—generously supported Her Majesty's Government the moment that a Conference was called. The House of Commons did so because the noble Lord told us frankly and candidly, and often repeated the statement, that the Government entered into that Conference for a definite object and with a definite view. We do not want to hold the noble Lord pedantically to the fulfilment of any particular detail which he may have announced at such a moment. All we want is that the spirit of his policy shall be observed and maintained. It was because we credited the noble Lord with this assurance that we were silent. A suspension of arms took place for a month; and that I held to be an incident of great importance, having ventured to remind the House that a Conference without an armistice or cessation of hostilities is generally fruitless and unsatisfactory. The mouth has now expired or is about to expire; and were there no rumours or suppositions, no causes to justify men in thinking that that is happening which is not for the honour or the interests of England—were there no causes existing to make the House suppose that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has in any way changed— were everything as smooth as a summer sea, and were there no grounds for anxiety and dark mistrust in the public mind—it would still, I maintain, have been the office and duty of the Minister on an occa-
1286
sion such as the expiration of an armistice to come forward and give some account to Parliament of the progress of these negotiations. He ought at least to have re-assured the public mind and given them some confidence in the conduct of these discussions, and have reiterated the spirit of that policy which Parliament had sanctioned, if not by a formal vote, at least by its silence. The House will see that the noble Lord ought to be called to account, even if there were no cause for anxiety. But if what I have ventured to call a wild hypothesis be true, if it be the fact that Her Majesty's Government in this interval have entirely changed their policy, if there themselves are participating in the partition of Denmark, which only five months ago they were stirring up an European war to prevent, then I say it is a mockery of the House of Commons if, under such circumstances, the noble Lord remains silent.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, We have just had a magnificent display of virtuous indignation from the right hon Gentleman, who knows that he is attacking me in a position in which I cannot go into the defence that he challenges. He is like a man that attacks another who has his arms tied behind him. He knows that, because he has been in office. He knows that I am tongue-tied at the present moment, and that I cannot enter into an ample reply to the attacks which he has showered upon me. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman declares that he has a policy; he always moots this policy, and reproaches us, who, he thinks, have not a policy. Well, I challenge him to say what his policy is. Let him tell us fairly what he wants the Government to do; and let him ask this House to give a vote in support of Her Majesty's Government if they will adopt the policy which he thinks they ought to carry out. Let him propose that this House will support the Crown by all the means that may be necessary to give effect to the policy he contemplates. When he does that I shall say he is sincere in the course that he adopts in this House. We know what a negotiation is, especially a negotiation carried on with a great variety of Powers, having different views and different interests at stake; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to feel that to state from day to day what have been the points of difference, what have been the results of this interview or that Conference, must endanger the result which everybody who is anxious for the peace of Europe must desire to see attained. And therefore, in

1287
spite of the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not be induced to violate what I consider my duty, and to throw impediments in the way of a successful result by telling the hon. Gentleman that which I dare say would be satisfactory to him, and which I can quite understand would be satisfactory to the House, from day to day, and from meeting to meeting, what each member of the Conference has proposed, and what each member of the Conference has objected to. ["Oh!"] Yes, that is what the right hon. Gentle-man, asks ["No, no!"]; that is exactly what he wants. ["No!"] The foreign papers tell him certain things, and he wants me here to go into those very details which he sees in the foreign papers. There is a great difference in statements made by a Minister of the Crown in this House and reports which are circulated through Europe and are told in the foreign newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman may take as much or as little as he pleases of those statements. But though I have the greatest desire to show every possible respect to this House, and though I am quite aware they ought to be informed of everything which can with propriety towards the public interest be communicated to them, I will not, even to gratify the desire of this House, depart from what I consider to be my duty. When Members calmly reflect on the motives which prevent Her Majesty's Government in the present state of affairs from going into details which they are anxious to hear, I am sure they will see that we are acting rightly. When the negotiations now going on have arrived at a stage at which, consistently with the national interests, the Government can make known what we have agreed to or proposed, I am quite satisfied we shall be able to convince the House that in this matter we have acted in accordance with our duty and with the soundest opinions that we have been enabled to form.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I think that those who have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend must feel satisfied that the noble Lord who has just sat down has entirely misrepresented him. There is a reticence and reserve based on the ground that premature disclosure would be injurious to the public service. There is also a reticence and reserve which it may be prudent for Ministers to observe when frankness may be injurious to the Government. It is not true that my right hon. Friend or the
1288
House wishes the noble Lord to give day by day details of all that has occurred in the Conference, or to state what has been said by this or that Plenipotentiary. That is not what my right hon. Friend wants. That is not what the House of Commons desires at the present moment. When this Conference was first proposed I put a question to the noble Lord and asked him on what basis he proposed to go to this Conference. The noble Lord replied that, in order to avoid hurting the susceptibilities of certain Foreign Powers, the noble Earl had assembled the Conference on the basis of maintaining the peace of Europe. ["Hear!"] Yes—but the noble Lord added (and I will thank the hon. Gentleman who cheered to cheer this also) that the only principle on which the Government could go into the Conference was that of maintaining the integrity of Denmark. But was that all? We all know that the noble Lord the Foreign Minister addressed a despatch to France and Russia in the winter for the purpose of inviting their concert and co-operation to settle the affairs of Denmark; and when the noble Lord was asked what he meant by "concert and co-operation," he distinctly said that he meant the lending of material assistance to Denmark by the three great Powers. The noble Lord upon being asked upon what event that material assistance was to be given to Denmark, said it was to be given if any proposition were made for the dismemberment of that monarchy. It is not from day to day that we want to know what is going on; but it is now stated in such form and on such authority that the House cannot discredit it, that not only has the Government taken the question into consideration, but that they have themselves been parties to propose that very dismemberment which they denounced only a few months ago, and which they said would be a just cause of war, and with respect to which they said they were prepared to join France and Russia in lending material assistance to prevent. We want to knew, has the Government done that? We want to know whether they are themselves parties to an expressly opposite policy from that which they announced to this House. We want to know whether the Government have taken up a course and position which, I undertake to say, five out of six in this House and out of it would consider a humiliation and a disgrace to the country. We wish to know from the noble Lord, before we agree to continue confidence in

1289
the Government, whether that rumour— that more than rumour — whether that statement, which is generally believed to be true, is true — that the Government have been parties to that course which, before the Conference, they were the first to denounce?
LORD ROBERT CECIL: Sir, I regret that no member of the Treasury Bench has thought fit to answer my hon. Friend, but that the Government seem determined to bring this debate to a conclusion without giving the House of Commons any of the information that it seeks. The noble Lord has told us calmly to reflect upon the motives of Her Majesty's Government. I have done my best calmly to reflect upon them, and I have come to the conclusion that the answer to that appeal is, that this is the 6th of June. The noble Lord knows that if by such answers he can veil himself behind his position of negotiator— if he can put off day by day the necessity of giving the House of Commons the account he is bound to render—if he can put off explanations until an advanced period of the summer, the Government is safe, at least for this year—and to the noble Lord and those who sit with him the welfare of Denmark, the maintenance of treaties, and the fulfilment of the pledged word of England, are trifles compared with that which is paramount in their minds, namely, the advanced stage of the Session, I think the noble Lord is making an experiment on the patience of the House and the country, which will not be answered by the results. It is idle to talk of details. We all know he has made a complete change of policy. We all know, from sources which we cannot doubt, although they are not officially confirmed, that the dismemberment of Denmark has been approved—nay, proposed—by Her Majesty's Government themselves. I say it is idle to attempt to withdraw their conduct from the judgment of the country and the House of Commons. The reason why the House of Commons and the country are becoming impatient of the length of time that the Conference has dragged on, and are beginning to intrude on that sacred reserve which the noble Lord claims for the position of negotiator, is that they are made to suspect that under the auspices of the noble Lord, England, under pretence of serving and defending Denmark, is in reality betraying her. She has pushed Denmark from concession to concession—she has first forced her
1290
to retire from Holstein, then to abandon Rendsburg, then to consent to an armistice, then to abandon Schleswig south of the Schlei, and now there are rumours that the noble Lord intends to yield to the extravagant and flagitious demand of the Germans, and hand over a Danish population to German rule. I venture to say that neither the House of Commons nor the country will long submit to the silence the noble Lord wishes to impose on them, but that they will require from him that account which he is constitutionally bound to render, and not permit him to stifle discussion, under pretence of friendship for Denmark, by asking the House not to interfere while negotiations are going on.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he thought it would be lamentable if the language used on this or the other side of the House should have the effect of extorting from Her Majesty's Government any disclosures perilous to the cause of peace. He frankly acknowledged that he appreciated to the full the argument addressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks to the Government, for he put it with great force, that the silence of the House during several weeks had been purchased by the declaration made by the Government of the views and principles with which they were going into the Conference. But he must call upon the House to remember, that during the discussions which took place at an earlier period, just before the Conference commenced, the Government, being asked repeatedly to state on what basis they proposed to go to the Conference, at length stated, though with the greatest reluctance, that the parties to the Conference were meeting without any other basis than a common desire of restoring peace to the North of Europe. Surely that statement was a retractation of that other and impossible principle which the Government propounded to the House at an earlier period of the Session; and he thought, therefore, that those who valued the peace of Europe should welcome the retirement of Her Majesty's Government from a position which was perceived, all over Europe, to be untenable, rather than taunt them with the words which they used earlier in the Session.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that there was a fear lest the delay would be injurious chiefly to one party, and that the weakest. The present period of the year was more favourable than any other to naval operations in the Baltic, and it

1291
might be said by the friends of Denmark that the Conference were tying the hands of the weaker party by further postponement. It was plain that the noble Lord's expectation was, that the weaker party would be brought to consent to a prolongation of the armistice. The noble Lord, however, in taking such a course was undertaking a great responsibility. The policy pursued by the noble Lord's Government exposed them to the imputation that the delays which were unfavourable to Denmark were favourable to Her Majesty's Government. If the armistice was prolonged so as to be carried into July, Her Majesty's Government might deal with the matter almost as they pleased. Being pretty familiar with the feelings of the Danes upon the subject, he (Mr. Darby Griffith) knew that what they wanted was some geographical boundary line, which would separate them permanently from a people so unfeeling and unscrupulous as the Germans had proved themselves to be; and if the Government, without extending the armistice too long, were able to discover such a line, he, for one, would not complain, but would rather rejoice at the separation of two nations who were now as hostile to one another as the Russians and the Poles.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking of the separation between the different portions of the disputed territory. Any union whatever of the German population of Schleswig and Holstein with the Crown of Denmark would not lead to permanent peace. Whatever was to be done should be done with the assent of the population, otherwise permanent peace would not be secured. It would not do for that House or any other authority, to deal with the people of the Duchies without ascertaining their wishes by means of a constitutional vote of the people, or of an assembly elected for the purpose. He hoped Holstpin would not receive any accession of Schleswig territory which might contain a hostile population; nor, on the other hand, would it add to the strength of Denmark if an unfriendly population were united to it.

ECCLESIASTICAL REGISTRY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the promised Ecclesiastical Registry Bill will be introduced by
  1292
  the Government, and if he will lay on the table of the House the Correspondence between the Government and the Bishops, that this House may know what are the objections of the Prelates which prevent Her Majesty's Government from introducing any measure for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts? He had on various occasions brought this subject before the House, but unfortunately without effect. From year to year Her Majesty's Government had promised that some Bill should be introduced for the reform of those courts. In 1856 they themselves introduced a Bill, drawn by the present Lord Chancellor when Attorney General, which dealt fully with the matter, and which received the general approbation of ecclesiastical reformers in both Houses of Parliament. That Bill was, however, unfortunately defeated in the other House by a small majority; but it drew from the Irish Prelates an unanimous declaration addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, thanking him for having introduced such a measure, and stating that no private emoluments for themselves or their families should induce them to stand in the way of the passing of a similar measure of reform. The Bill was thrown out by the efforts of certain English Prelates, who had misrepresented various portions of the Bill, as was afterwards proved when it was too late. Another Bill was introduced by certain Prelates who had opposed the former measure, but it then appeared that they would never consent to any Bill for the improvement of Church discipline which would not place the parochial clergy completely under their control. The head and front of the offending of the Bill of the noble Lord was that it did not do that, and that was the reason, which they dared not avow, why certain Prelates opposed it. When Lord Derby's Government came into office in a year or two afterwards another Bill was introduced to the same effect with regard to Ireland; it passed in another place, got two readings in that House, and was prevented from becoming law only by the dissolution of Parliament. That Bill provided an efficient remedy for those defects in the administration of Church discipline, and those abuses of patronage which to a very great extent he was sorry to say still disfigured ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Since that time various efforts had been made. Year after year he had himself introduced a Bill, and he had never received an an-

  1293
  swer to one single fact which he stated in that House, and which he brought forward upon the authority of Committees. Some fourteen years ago a Committee was presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie), in which the late Sir James Graham took a distinguished part, and which pointed out abuses which prevailed and large fees which were levied for the benefit of those upon whom the Prelates wished to shower their benefits. The Report stated that these abuses were equally against ecclesiastical law and the common weal of the Kingdom, and deserved the attention of Government. Since that period a Liberal Government had sat for the greater time on the Treasury Benches; but nothing seemed to induce the Liberal Government to introduce Liberal measures with spirit. There had been a political fallow for the last four years, during which period scarcely one measure a year of any importance to the Liberal party had been introduced. In the present year, as in the last, they dragged on a miserable and sickly existence, and in the end they would be driven from the Ministerial side of the House with ignominy by those who, without declaring any policy of their own, could yet obtain possession of the Treasury Benches, simply on account of the universal disgust pervading the whole country at the inactivity of the Government. Year after year the Home Secretary had promised that this Question should receive attention—still there were no signs of the promised ecclesiastical reform. But it appeared that even a portion of the Prelates outstripped the Government in liberality, the Irish Bishops being anxious to see defects in their Church remedied, while the chief obstacles to a reform in the Irish Church were Her Majesty's Liberal advisers. On Thursday last the Archbishop of Armagh introduced in the House of Lords a Bill, in the very sense of the one brought in by Lord Derby's Government, with every prospect of success. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, told him at the beginning of the Session, that a general measure of Church reform, comprehending a Church Discipline Bill, as well as a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries, was too large a measure for the Government to undertake; and all that the right hon. Gentleman could summon up courage to attempt was a very small portion of those reforms, and introduce during the present Session a Registry
  1294
  Bill. Still, such a measure as that might lead to a general reform, because one of the principal impediments to improvement had been the question of registries, upon which offices there had been—for the most—expended £50,000 or £60,000 a year, levied as a tax on the laity for marriage licences and other purposes. That sum went in every bishopric to support the registries, in the offices of which, according to the Committee of 1848–9, might be traced the families of all those who had discharged the episcopal function in the dioceses of England. Some of the offices had been held by ladies, and some by children of three or four years of age. A late police magistrate was put into one of the offices by his father, a bishop, and enjoyed to the day of his death a sinecure of £400 a year, paying another to perform the duty. Another registrarship was held by an. officer in the Artillery, who likewise paid a small sum—some £100 a year—for a person to do the work; and yet some of these registrarships were worth £1,000, £1,200, or £1,400 a year. The registries were in many instances very unfit for the preservation of documents. Very few were fire-proof, so that there was great risk to all documents deposited in them. The Prelates had rejected the proposal of the Government on the subject because they wished to keep their registries in their own hands. If they were to be kept up it ought not to be by a tax on the laity—if Bishops insisted on keeping up registries to provide for their families and dependents, they ought to find the funds themselves, and ought to limit the emoluments to the salaries considered sufficient by Act of Parliament. There had been want of firmness, energy, and tact on the part of the Government in the preparation and carrying of Bills in that House. A little of these qualities might be infused into the Government with great benefit to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were ready to bring in these Bills, but that the Prelates were not unanimous on the subject, and were averse to cutting off their old sources of profit. That was natural. No doubt they required a little gentle pressure from that House and the public, and especially from the Government, to induce them to consent to these necessary measures of reform. The Irish Prelates were unanimous in their desire for a measure on the

  1295
  subject, and he desired to know what were the objections of the English Prelates to such a measure, and what reasons they had urged which had been apparently so effective with the Government as to induce them to postpone this reform so long? Nothing was more detrimental to public policy and to the character of the House and the Government than to appoint Committees to inquire into abuses, and when the Committees reported that abuses existed to take no step to remedy them. There seemed to be a general reticence on the part of the Government in their home as well as foreign policy. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) to say, that though he had agreed to postpone a certain portion of the measure of ecclesiastical reform, yet that he was determined to introduce the question of a Registry Bill. When the House met he (Mr. H. Seymour) called attention to the question; and the right hon. Gentleman said it had received the careful attention of the Government, and that he thought he might promise a little bit of reform in the shape of a Registry Bill, and that he thought it would be introduced before Easter. After Easter the Bill was not ready, and as Whitsuntide was now passed it was doubtful whether, if the Bill was introduced, it would be carried this Session. He regretted that a liberal Government should have left a subject of such importance as this to the clergy to remain unsettled for four years. He would ask whether the difficulty said to exist in filling ministerial offices in the Church had not some connection with the anomalous position of the clergy in regard to their Ecclesiastical Courts? He wished to remove what many considered to be a stigma on the Prelates and the clergy. The clergy—a body of 25,000 men—were placed under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in certain cases. At present the difficulty of weeding offenders out of the Church was so great, that many were allowed to remain in it. In one case a clergyman could not be proceeded against till the late Archbishop of Canterbury received from certain persons an indemnity amounting to several thousand pounds. In another case a compromise was effected in consequence of the enormous cost of carrying it through the Ecclesiastical Court. The case of Mr. Bonwell cost the Bishop of London £1,500, and he knew of a parish in which, in order to get rid of
  1296
  a notorious offender, a compromise had been made by which he had been induced to retire in consideration of an annuity for life. Both the clergy and the parishioners suffered from such a state of things. In justice to the clergy, to the public, and to the House, they ought to be informed why these abuses had been left so long unremedied. He begged to ask when the Ecclesiastical Registry Bill would be introduced, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the table the Correspondence he had alluded to between the Government and the Bishops, that the House might know what were the objections of the Prelates which prevented Government from introducing any measure for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his hon. Friend had—unintentionally, no doubt— ascribed to him words which he had never used, and had not correctly represented what he had said in answer to the questions addressed to him on the subject. The hon. Gentleman seemed under the impression that he (Sir George Grey) had said that, having prepared a Bill for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts, he had had a correspondence with some of the Prelates; that they, front interested motives, desiring to retain in their own hands for the benefit of their families certain appointments, objected to the measure, and that the Government yielded to their objections. Nothing could be further from a correct statement of the facts. He had never said anything conveying such an imputation.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURhad only expressed a hope that there were other reasons for their opposition.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that any idea that there had been any correspondence with the Bishops on the subject, was wholly unfounded. What he stated had reference to a Bill prepared with great care by the Lord Chancellor for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the amendment of the law of clergy discipline, and it was to this effect — that the Bill having been prepared, the noble and learned Lord had had conferences with some of the Prelates, which satisfied him that if he proposed the measure it would not receive that amount of support which would secure its success. Apart from the question as to where the funds for the prosecutions were to come from, and upon which the only proposal

  1297
  had been that they should be provided from the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the main difficulty was the constitution of the ultimate court of appeal. Upon that question great difference of opinion existed, and the Lord Chancellor thought it better to endeavour if possible to devise some plan which was not open to the same objections, than to press his measure upon the House. He (Sir George Grey) stated, however, that with regard to the Ecclesiastical Registry Bill the objections that were entertained with reference to the other proposals did not exist, and that he was authorized by the Lord Chancellor to say that he hoped, in the course of the present Session, to introduce a Bill on the subject in the other House. He (Sir George Grey) never himself undertook to introduce such a measure. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not yet been able to give effect to his intention. There were causes which had delayed the preparation of the Bill, but he still hoped that it might be presented in the course of the present Session. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that it was the duty of the Government not to postpone what they considered a substantial measure of Church reform in consequence of any opposition by the Prelates; but at the same time it was desirable that any reform of this kind should be carried with as general an assent as it was possible to obtain, and he could not but think the noble and learned Lord had acted judiciously in endeavouring to meet the difficulties of the case by a conference with the Bishops. No correspondence had taken place between himself and the Bishops on the subject, and he believed the communications between the Bishops and the Lord Chancellor were entirely verbal.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
£10,000, New National Gallery at Burlington House.
MR. COWPERsaid, he desired to take that opportunity of making some explanation on the subject. The Vote had its origin in the conviction on the part of the Government that the time was come when an attempt should be made to solve the
1298
difficulties which for the last twenty years had impeded the settlement of a long vexed question, and had compelled the retention of the national pictures in a building which was unsuited for their proper exhibition. In 1840 apian had been prepared for making very extensive alterations in the existing National Gallery; a number of Committees and Commissions had inquired into the subject. The first Committee which made any definite Report on the subject was that which sat in 1848. They stated that they could not but regard the present building as deficient in space, and wanting in dignity and elevation, and they recommended that a large and improved building should be erected on the same site. In 1850 another Committee, consisting of almost the same Members, was appointed. Among their names were to be found those of Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Sir Benjamin Hall. They, however, thought better of the opinions which they had previously expressed, and stated that upon re-viewing the evidence they would not recommend that any expenditure should be incurred on the existing site. Then followed the Commission of 1851, on which sat Lord Seymour and other experienced persons, who, having fully considered the subject, decided against the site in Trafalgar Square, and recommended a site of fifteen or twenty acres fronting Hyde Park or else in Kensington Gardens; but they gave the preference to the latter. The next Committee was the one moved for by Colonel Mure, which followed the same course, and pronounced against Trafalgar Square, and recommending Kensington Gore. A Bill was brought into the House of Commons with the view of giving effect to that recommendation; but the House seemed unwilling, without further inquiry, to allow the National Gallery to be removed to so great a distance from the centre of London. The result of the debate and the division which took place on that occasion was that another Commission was appointed, at the head of which was Lord Broughton. That Commission reported that they found their choice practically limited to two sites, Trafalgar Square and Kensington Gore— but gave the preference to the former, stating that they did so in the expectation that the building which might be substituted for the present National Gallery should be one which would be worthy of the British people, which would command

1299
universal admiration, and do honour to the age. The cost of the building and site thus recommended was in the same year estimated in a paper which had been laid on the table of the House at £500,000. They proposed to take the barracks and workhouse, and also that portion of the west of St. Martin's Lane which lay between the workhouse and St. Martin's Church. The estimate framed was however, he believed, too low, and a building such as was described would be more likely to cost a million than only half a million of money. In 1861 there was a Committee of the House of Lords on the subject, which held out the prospect that a noble gallery might be erected on the present or any other site, but that, in the event of that prospect not being fulfilled, then, a limited addition to the present building might be made. He had quoted these recommendations of the Committees and Commissions in order to show how strong was the weight of authority in favour of looking elsewhere for a site for the new National Gallery than Trafalgar Square. He would now proceed to state what the views of the Government were with regard to the building for which the present Vote was asked. The desire of the Government was to have the very best building that could be erected. He proposed that it should be all on one floor; that it should be lighted from the top; that there should be three spacious galleries of 200 feet in length and 40 feet in width, running parallel to one another; that these should be crossed by three other galleries of the same dimensions, and that between the interstices there should be galleries of smaller size and height. The effect produced by that arrangement would, he thought, be very grand. There would be ample space for all the pictures that might be received during many years, assuming the pictures to increase in the same ratio as hitherto. But the time would come when even the space provided under this plan—36,000 square feet—would be insufficient. One half of the pictures in the National Gallery had been obtained by gift or bequest, and he believed that if ample space were provided bequests and gifts would largely increase in number. They knew that the gift of Sir Francis Bourgois was lost to the country because the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day was either unable or unwilling to build a gallery to receive the pictures; and the man-
1300
ner in which the pictures given by Mr. Vernon, Mr. Jacob Bell, and Mr. Turner had been exhibited had been no encouragement to donors. It would be the most miserable parsimony to grudge the expenditure necessary to provide galleries to receive the pictures which public spirited individuals might present to the nation. The space proposed to be given to the new gallery was calculated by the wants of the present gallery. The present gallery contained 470 pictures, which it was calculated would require to hang them properly about 2,250 feet lineal, exclusive of door and window spaces. The whole of the Burlington House site consisted of three acres and a half. About half of this was occupied by the gardens, upon which buildings might be placed which would give ample accommodation for the present needs and anticipated extensions of the gallery in future years. When those buildings became insufficient, an extension might be made over the part of the site now occupied by the buildings which surrounded the quadrangle, and a suitable architectural elevation might be substituted for the buildings of Burlington House. The upper gallery toplighted would run round either all or the greater portion of the quadrangle, and the ground floor might be devoted to the use of the- learned Societies and the University of London. If it was desired, that portion of the quadrangle next to Piccadilly might be treated like the front of Somerset House; the entrance might be through an archway in the centre of the building, and in that building might be placed the halls, theatres, and large rooms to be used by the learned Societies and the University in succession at different times. That was the way in which provision was made for future extension; but by building on the ground now vacant, leaving Burlington House untouched, all the present and proximate wants of the National Gallery would be provided for. The cartoons might, if it was thought fit, be brought up from Hampton Court; and, for his own part, he should desire that, as London already possessed the greatest works of sculpture— the Elgin Marbles—it should also have the greatest works in drawing—the Cartoons of Eaphael. The cost of the building now to be erected was estimated at £152,000, and there was, he believed, no reason to fear that that estimate would be exceeded. The building would be a cheap one for its size and situation. The sides

1301
being concealed by the Albany and the Burlington Arcade it would be impossible to have any architectural facades to the east or west; but to the north there would be an opportunity of having a two-story building of stone, with proper architectural embellishments, in which it was proposed to place the offices of the Trustees and the apartments of the resident officers of the National Gallery. Without minutely com paring this site with others, he might remind the Committee, that while it was in the immediate neighbourhood of the great thoroughfare Piccadilly, it would have the advantage of being separated from it by the short distance that would make it less of a resort for idlers who would come for other purposes than to look at pictures. It was the habit of persons who happened to be without an umbrella in a shower of rain to go into the National Gallery for shelter; it was also the habit of persons who walked about the streets with their luncheons in their pockets to go into the National Gallery to eat them; and any one who had been there much would have observed that, owing to its proximity to the barracks, the soldiers were in the habit of meeting their friends there. It thus became to such an extent a lounging place for conversation, that the study and enjoyment of persons who went to see the pictures were very much interfered with. Piccadilly was central and easy of access to poor and rich, but the gallery would be out of the noise and throng. The effect of placing the entrance to the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street instead of in Piccadilly, had been to keep it chiefly for those who desired to inspect the collections and were interested in the subjects which they illustrated. The court-yard of Burlington House would supply a dignified entrance, and a convenient place for carriages to wait for persons who were visiting the gallery. Among other advantages attending the design was one easily understood; this was, that the site was actually ready. There was no purchase of a site, no necessity for pulling down and rebuilding; the moment the Vote of the House passed steps might be taken for commencing the new buildings. After the numerous Committees and Commissions that had investigated the subject, he thought the Committee would feel that it would be a very great advantage if they could have some certainty that steps would be immediately taken to begin the necessary work. If,
1302
however, this proposal should not be adopted, and they were thrown back upon another long round of Committees and Commissions, and to inquire over and over again into the subject—looking to all the possible sites that might be suggested— and many there had been already suggested which were not, however, half so good as Burlington House—he thought it possible that another twenty years might elapse before they came to any formal and satisfactory conclusion upon it. He thought he could undertake to say that the present would be the cheapest proposal that could be made—["No, no!"]—the most convenient and altogether the best that could be found. ["No, no!"] He was sure it would enable them to get a better gallery than they could have anywhere else, and therefore, on that ground, as well as on the grounds both of economy and convenience, and in the hope of getting a perfect gallery in all its internal arrangements, he hoped the Committee would support the present proposal.
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in rising to move the rejection of the Supplementary Estimate for the new National Gallery, Burlington House, said he was disposed to concur in one observation which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
LORD ELCHO, who had risen at the same time, interposing, said, he thought it would greatly facilitate the discussion if the noble Lord would allow him to put the following Questions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, Whether he could state to the Committee the relative space contained in the Burlington House site compared with the present National Gallery buildings, the barracks, and the workhouse in the rear; and second, whether he could give them any information what accommodation space this portion of Burlington House would give, in comparison with the other large galleries of Europe?
MR. COWPERsaid, the military authorities had on many occasions strongly protested against their taking the barracks; but supposing they were to take in the barracks and the workhouse, it would give an area of three and a half acres, which was the size of the Burlington House site. The proposed Gallery at Burlington House would certainly be larger than the Galleries of Berlin or Munich, and more floor space than the Louvre, though not more wall space.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwas about to say, when he was interrupted by the noble

1303
Lord, that he quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very unsatisfactory to go the round of a fresh series of Committees and Commissions upon this subject, and that was one of the principal reasons which had induced him to put his Amendment on the paper, so that there might be no mistake in future with regard to the real intentions of Parliament upon this subject. He wished the House, by accepting the proposition, to place in the most unmistakable manner on record, the reiteration of their determination that the National Gallery should remain in Trafalgar Square. While, however, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to escape more Committees and Commissions, he could not agree with his short and not very accurate description of the labour of these Committees and Commissions during the last twenty years. The whole tendency and scope of the evidence taken before them and their decisions had been unfavourable to the removal of the National Gallery from what the late Sir Robert Peel called "the finest site in Europe." He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that the Committee of 1850 had recommended the removal of the national pictures from Trafalgar Square; but he did not tell them that the Committee recommended it under the apprehension that the pictures, if continued there, would be deteriorated by the smoke. That objection, however, had been entirely removed of late years, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was rather unkind towards his noble Friend at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston), in not complimenting him on the great success that had attended, he believed, almost the only effort of Parliamentary legislation which the noble Lord had been successful in passing—namely, the Smoke Prohibition Bill. The result of that measure, he had been assured by those who had charge of the pictures, was to banish all fear of deterioration from the smoke—the only possible damage likely to arise to the pictures now being from the dirt which arose from the vast multitudes of people who went to look at the pictures— the numbers being, it seemed to him, a very good reason why they should not change the site of the National Gallery. That the right hon. Gentleman might not say he was overstating that part of the case, he would read a few lines from the Report of the Committee of 1850. They said that the present gallery did not afford sufficient
1304
space for the due exhibition of the pictures, but that a considerable addition of space might be obtained by the removal of the Royal Academy from their portion of the gallery; and the Committee further said that if the present site was in all respects suitable for the accommodation of the national pictures, the Committee world at once recommend that the portion now occupied by the Royal Academy should be added to the National Gallery; it appeared, however, to the Committee that the present site, although well adapted for an edifice, was considered by most of the witnesses as unfavourable for the preservation of pictures. That was the only ground alleged by the Committee; but the objections to which they referred had now been entirely removed; and if the Committee were re-appointed to-morrow, there could be no doubt they would recommend the course he was calling upon this Committee to pursue. On going through his catalogue of the Commissions and Inquiries that had been held on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman omitted that which took place about four years ago, and which went to show, in addition, the settled wish of those who took an interest in the subject that the national pictures should remain in Trafalgar Square. It was well known that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) announced that the Derby Government did not only recommend that the whole of the site in Trafalgar Square should be taken up for the national pictures, but that they had entered into negotiations with the Royal Academy to consent to convert at their own charge a portion of the Burlington House site, which would give them the requisite accommodation. That announcement, he believed, met with the general concurrence of the Members of that House, and of those out of doors who were interested in the question; and the present Government, by the course they pursued twelve months after they came into office, showed that they adopted and sanctioned and adhered to the decision of their predecessors. But perhaps they would be told in regard to this, as they had been in other important matters, that though they had come to the wise resolution of treading in the footsteps of their predecessors, they had not the moral courage and good sense to act up to it, and they had relapsed into that artistic heresy of which he complained. "Well, he would show that, for at least a year after they came into office,

1305
the present adhered to the plan of the late Government. In 1860, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works asked the House of Commons first for £13,000, then for £15,000, and afterwards for £17,000, for the purpose of enlarging and improving the National Gallery, an hon. Member who suspected the intentions of Her Majesty's Government put question after question to the right hon. Gentleman, and a very awkward storm of disapprobation was raised at his proposal. It was then late in the Session, there were few independent Members present, and the Government were roasters of the position; but so critical had that position become, that before the Vote was taken the noble Lord, as was his wont, put the right hon. Gentleman and his explanation entirely on one side, took the matter into his own hands, and assured the suspicious independent Members that Her Majesty's Government were absolutely determined that the pictures should remain in Trafalgar Square. He would refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory with regard to what then took place. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said on that occasion—
"The Government assumed that the building in Trafalgar Square was to be given up to the National Gallery, and that that building, if so given up now, would suffice for some years for all the pictures belonging to the nation. … They proposed, therefore, to adopt the simplest possible course—to deck over the middle gulf and make an even floor upon the upper story, which for the present would afford sufficient space for the exhibition of the national pictures, and when the Royal Academy should otherwise be provided for would make the building more adapted for the purposes of a national collection, and for years to come would avoid the necessity for the large plan and great expenditure which had been suggested." —[3 Hansard, clx. 1541.]
He (Lord John Manners) should have thought that this was stringent enough, but the few Members who were in the House were still suspicious. More questions were put, and the noble Lord was obliged to speak a second time before the Vote was taken, and he said—
"The plan proposed was calculated to make the present building more suitable than at present for the permanent reception of the national collection." — [Itid. 1544.]
Could any words be stronger? The Committee divided, and in consequence of these assurances, by a majority of eight, the expenditure of £17,000 for the purpose of adapting the building in Trafalgar Square for the permanent reception
1306
of the national pictures was carried. He could not tell how it was, but so suspicious were certain hon. Members of the intention of the Government that, on the bringing up of the Report, the debate was renewed, and the noble Lord had again to come into the field, and he said—
"Now that the Royal Academy should go elsewhere was, he apprehended, a question already decided. The material point to be determined upon was where they were to go. The arrangement now making involved the intention of appropriating the whole of the building to the national pictures."—[Ibid. 1591.]
After that statement what could the House think of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in coming to that House, and without any fresh evidence to rely on, and he might say without any substantial reason, to ask the House to forget that they had spent £17,000 on the faith of those assurances, and embark on a further expenditure of £150,000 for ten years, and at the end of that time upon a further expenditure, which he would leave the Committee to estimate? The right hon. Gentleman was rather liberal in his additions to the plans of the architects. One Commission thought that a very handsome building, might be erected for £500,000, but the right hon. Gentleman said they had understated the amount, and that the building to be worthy of the dignity and reputation of the country, could not be erected for less than a million. The right hon. Gentleman gave them no figures on which he founded his estimate, and he gave them no idea of the size of the building which he thought suitable for the dignity and reputation of the country. If, therefore, they were to begin, on his recommendation of a modest building, at £150,000, and then, after destroying the whole of Burlington House, to remodel everything and build over the three acres and a half, he should be doing no injustice to the right hon. Gentleman were he to say that an architectural design of that kind might well cost the million which he proposed to the House as a proper figure to put to the recommendation of the Commissioners. He should be disposed to say, having reference to the very remarkable statements made by the noble Lord in 1860, that if the Government proposed a scheme for the removal of the National Gallery to Burlington House, it would be something very like obtaining money under false Parliamentary pretences. No language could be stronger than the noble Lord's, and in con-

1307
sequence of that the House voted the £17,000. He would not press that point further. Every hon. Gentleman would be able to estimate for himself the value of those strong and decided asseverations of the noble Lord; but he said if, after the expenditure of the £17,000, they were now to incur a further outlay of £150,000 at once (and no human being could tell how much at the end of ten years), and to which they must add that £17,000 to the expenditure asked for then, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to show he had entered into an arrangement with the Royal Academy, in virtue of which they would refund to the Government the £17,000 which, under these circumstances, would have been expended for their sole and exclusive benefit. The Committee would observe that throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech he had not uttered a single syllable what the future relations of the Government to the Royal Academy were to be. He had not told them under what form the arrangement with the Royal Academy was to be carried out—whether the £17,000 was to be refunded; whether the Royal Academy had entered into any arrangement as to rendering up the present building, which the noble Viscount stood alone in regarding as a creditable and handsome one, or for refronting that which the right hon. Gentleman had declared to be an ugly, poor, and miserable building. He had left the Committee entirely in the dark as to what was to be done with the building in Trafalgar Square when he had handed it over to the Royal Academy. All he had done was to assure the Committee that he did not intend at present to spend more than £150,000 in the rear of Burlington House, and at the end of ten years to come down and ask for more. The right hon. Gentleman went into the question of site, and not being successful in showing that the plan was a very economical one, he attempted to show that the Burlington House site was the best one for a national collection of pictures. He must say that he did not think that in that part of his argument the right hon. Gentleman had been more successful than in his appeal to the financial part of the question. It was admitted that the objection of smoke was got over, but he did not know whether the Committee required to be informed of the admirable nature of the Trafalgar Square site for a great national collection. The right hon. Gentleman, however, having
1308
pointed out a site which he had declared to be preferable, the Committee would not object to hear a few testimonials from men who were entitled to speak with authority upon this question. The late Sir Charles Barry, in 1848, expressed a decided opinion in his last examination in favour of the present site being retained, and he said he was more and more confirmed in opinion, that of all the sites in London it was the most desirable. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), in 1863, in his evidence before the last Commission, expressed himself favourable to the site, and said the general feeling in its favour had been well expressed by the late Mr. Alderman Cubitt, who said he was accustomed to go there easily—he knew his way there, and he thought it was a proper place for a national collection; and Mr. Tite added he thought it was a very common feeling, and he agreed in opinion with Sir Charles Barry. Mr. Hurlstone was of opinion that a central situation for a National Gallery was of vital importance, and that without that condition it did not fulfil the objects for which it was established. The present National Gallery was now occupying the finest site in Europe, and it possessed the advantage of an almost infinite capability of extension by a quadrangle in the rear, and of becoming inferior to none on the Continent for convenience and extent. Much of the evidence in favour of the Trafalgar Square site was given before certain great metropolitan improvements had been effected. If Trafalgar Square was the most accessible and most central situation ten or fifteen years ago, it was infinitely more so now. They had taken means for effecting the purification of the Thames, and for making an embankment along its shores; they had given facilities for railways to come into the heart of London, and at the present time they had a great railway station at Charing Cross, which would bring in thousands of the working classes to witness and admire the national pictures at Trafalgar Square. There were also a multitude of steamers plying on the Thames, which landed their passengers in close proximity to Trafalgar Square; and at no distant period the course of metropolitan improvements and new railways would tend to bring increased numbers from the northern districts. For the reasons he had stated, from the evidence before the Committee of 1861, and the Commission of 1863, and bearing in his recollection all the circumstances in con-

1309
nection with this subject, he saw no reason for the removal of the site in Trafalgar Square. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the inconvenience of the present site in Trafalgar Square, and told them that people took their umbrellas in. Was he serious in adducing this as an argument to the House of Commons for the removal of the National Gallery? And the right hon. Gentleman told them that the soldiers went in. Goodness gracious ! why should they not? You could do the people no greater kindness than by giving them access to anything that would educate their taste. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, attached as he was to a Government professing such a desire to elevate the lower classes, would not urge this as a reason for transferring the collection. Why did they not act on this principle on the present occasion? Why were they to remove the collection from the site that was fitted for and suitable to the great body of the people? Well, there is a reason, and the Committee will probably think it an extraordinary one. Before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1861, Lord Overstone stated his opinion that Burlington House would be the best site, and being asked his reasons for that opinion, said—
"In the first place, I think it is important, as regards a site for the National Gallery, that it should be in immediate connection with the great thoroughfares, at the same time, however, affording retirement and seclusion from them, and it seems to me that Burlington House presents, in that respect, peculiar facilities and advantages."
The right hon. Gentleman had enlarged on that, and pointed out what a benefit having a long passage to traverse would be to people who had to snatch half an hour or an hour from their daily labour to approach that passage. And then the noble Lord went on to say—
"I think, in the second place, the present elevation of Burlington House is peculiarly graceful and elegant"—
But at the end of ten years, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it was doomed—
"The equal of which, in the general opinion of the community, we should stand little chance in producing if we made the attempt… …In addition to that, such a removal of the National Gallery to Burlington House would enable the Royal Academy to remain in its present position, which, from its extreme publicity, is well suited for the purposes of the Royal Academy, while it is, on the same account, rather disadvantageous for the purposes of the National Gallery."
1310
He (Lord J. Manners) ventured to take a totally different view. In. his opinion, for the same reason, it was advantageous for the National Gallery. According to his view the National Gallery was something for the use of the nation, and not for any class. If it was on a site convenient for students that was a recommendation; if it was on a site convenient to the man of leisure, who could go at any time and often, all very well; but, above all other considerations, they should have a site that was convenient to the great masses of the people who had not leisure, and to whom every half hour was of importance. And so far from such a site not being a good one he thought it was the best, and differed entirely from those who thought a secluded site the best. Then, after Lord Overstone had given his evidence, Sir Charles Eastlake — Sir Charles Eastlake was not exactly, as Mrs. Malaprop said, three gentlemen at once, but he was undoubtedly two—the Director of the National Gallery and the President of the Royal Academy—and he (Lord John Manners) wished to take this opportunity of tendering his cordial tribute to his services in both capacities; but Sir Charles East-lake being asked to give his opinion on this question of site, naturally felt himself in a difficulty, and the Committee would, no doubt, be amused by a reference to two parts of that gentleman's evidence. Sir Charles Eastlake, being asked by Lord Colchester why it was considered essential that the buildings for the Royal Academy should be erected upon that portion of Burlington House which was next to Piccadilly, replied—
"For the objects of the Royal Academy during the annual exhibition, it is essential that they should be near a thoroughfare."
Lord Colchester then asked—
"You would object to their being placed in the garden behind the existing houses?"
And Sir Charles promptly replied—
"It would be tantamount to the extinction of the institution."
The Committee—all able men—were naturally startled by so strong an expression of opinion, and he was further asked—
"What would be your opinion of Burlington House, with the present open space in front of it, and the gardens behind it, as a desirable or undesirable site for the National Gallery?—I think it would be a very good site."
"Can you suggest any better site?—I cannot."
Then Lord Stanley of Alderley — not a person, be it remembered, hostile to Her

1311
Majesty's Government, but a Member of the Cabinet—put this question—
"Is not the present site as good, if not better, than Burlington House, and would not all the reasons that have been urged to the advantage of the present site for the Royal Academy equally apply with regard to the exhibition of the National Gallery?"
That was certainly a very awkward question, and Sir Charles replied as follows:—
"I confess I think there is some truth in the reasons I have heard given by Lord Overstone, with regard to the comparative seclusion of Burlington House; I think that a quiet preparation before approaching pictures by the Old Masters is desirable. It never struck me before; but I have been impressed with that and other observations I have heard from Lord Overstone."
And again he is asked—
"You think that calm preparation, which is desirable before approaching the Old Masters, is not necessary before-entering upon a collection by modern artists?"
To which he replies—
"I quite think so. I think that the works of our fellow citizens are more nearly allied to present and public interests; and that the transition is easier from the crowds of London to the efforts of living artists than to productions which belong to a remote period."
Now Lord Overstone, who started this view of the subject, seemed to be impressed by the very peculiar position which the Director of the National Gallery and the President of the Royal Academy had been made to occupy through his fault, and he put this question—
"Is not it the case that modern works have more the character of a show, while the exhibition of the Old Masters has more the character of study?"
To which the President of the Royal Academy replies—
"I do not like to use the word 'show,' with regard to the excellent pictures which we sometimes see on the walls of the Royal Academy, but I admit the principle completely."
The Under Secretary (Mr. Layard) said this was the true principle to go on. If that was so, had the country been under a delusion for many years? They had always assumed, and he did so now, that the national collection should be on a site where the nation could see it. Now, with respect to the Royal Academy, his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who was going to support this proposal, had found great fault with the management of that institution. He (Lord John Manners) did not profess to be a virtuoso, or to know much about the character,
1312
constitution, and results of the Royal Academy. He did not wish to say a single word against that body or the works which they had exhibited—he had great regard for the first, and great admiration for the second. But when they were asked, without a word of explanation from the Government, as to what was to be done respecting the Royal Academy, to hand over to them the finest site in Europe, he must entreat the Committee to reflect for a moment upon the essential distinction between the functions of the Royal Academy and of the National Gallery. The Royal Academy, from the necessity of its existence, could open its doors, and then only for a money payment during a very short period of the year. For a money payment during three months of the year only the public were admitted within its walls. The National Gallery was open without payment four days in every week all the year round; and, therefore, when the House of Commons was called upon to sanction a transfer of this sort, and to hand over this most valuable, this most desirable, and this which was described as "the finest site in Europe," to a private body, who charged a shilling for every person who went in, and who could not, from the nature of their operations, open their doors for nine months in the year, he thought this a very serious consideration of itself. They had heard something of "reticence and reserve," and when they added the "reticence and reserve "practised by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of "Works as to any stipulation or engagement entered into by the Royal Academy when they obtained possession of this national building, he thought the Committee would agree that this was a most rash and hasty conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government had arrived. So much as to site. Now, as to space. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that the true policy was to build new galleries vast enough to receive all the presents and bequests which in all time to come might be made to the nation. He thought this a most curious principle. It was notorious that the National Gallery had received as presents much which those intrusted with the management would rather not exhibit. It was said that if pictures were not liked they might be rejected. But when whole collections were left to the nation, it was necessary to accept or to reject the whole. He

1313
submitted, therefore, that it was a dangerous principle to build galleries in order to receive every bequest or gift that might possibly be made to the nation. The proper principle to proceed on was to build on a site capable of future additions a gallery large enough to receive the pictures the nation already had, and not one large enough for anything beyond that which they might or might not hereafter receive. If they provided sufficient space for the pictures they had, and sufficient space could hereafter be made available for those they might acquire, then the Committee had done all that was required. He believed there was ample space at Trafalgar Square to accommodate all the existing pictures, together with the probable accretions to the collection, at a slight expense. The time must come when the accretions must be brought to a termination. We could not go on adding to the collection indefinitely. Something like 2,000 pictures would be a collection to which it would not be advisable to make additions. He repudiated, therefore, the notion of having gigantic brick and mortar erections, for the accommodation of innumerable pictures—good, bad, and indifferent. The right hon. Gentleman said there was an available space at Burlington House, fully equal to the area of Trafalgar Square; but there was room in the National Gallery's own premises, after Incurring only a small expense. Witness the evidence of Sir Charles Barry and Mr. Pennethorne before the different Committees. A scheme had bee n prepared by an officer of the National Gallery, according to which, at a very slight expense, an additional gallery, 200 feet by forty, could be obtained in the rear of the existing National Gallery without buying a single inch of land. The right hon. Gentleman said that scheme had not found favour with the military authorities; but he (Lord John Manners) had reason to believe that the highest military authorities had no objection whatever to the scheme. If further space were required in process of time, it was a great mistake to suppose that the military authorities were wedded to the site of Trafalgar Square for their barracks. They were perfectly ready to have their barracks put in another position; this was a mere question of cost, and there was no difficulty in the matter. The space which might thus be acquired on the present site, with a portion of the barrack-yard, would afford
1314
accommodation to the National Gallery for years to come, and might be cheaply and well given. There was a proposal of Sir Charles Barry for refronting the National Gallery, and adding three or four times the existing accommodation. He (Lord John Manners) did not recommend that plan, nor any other in particular; but there it was. Besides, Mr. Pennethorne had made a plan with a like view. So also had Captain Fowke, and his scheme would add tenfold to the present accommodation for about £50,000 All these schemes were before the House, with the sanction of eminent and practical names; and all he said with regard to them was, that they constituted reasons why the Committee might safely reject the proposed Vote, on the ground of expense, on the ground of space, and on the ground of site. It had been urged that if the National Gallery were retained at Trafalgar Square, and the Royal Academy spent £50,000, £60,000, or £70,000 in building rooms at Burlington House, they would have no money left to carry out their needed and projected reforms. This meant merely that if this Vote were passed the building in Trafalgar-Square, upon which in 1860 some £17,000 was expended, was to be handed over to the Royal Academy in perpetuity, with no condition that they were to spend any money at all in improving it, and indeed with no probability of their doing so; for if the money is to be spent in effecting the reforms suggested by the noble Lord's (Lord Elcho's) Commission, it will not be available for other purposes. This was a proposal which would hardly find favour with the House or the country. He believed that if the House had any regard to space, to economy, and to the feelings and wishes of the great body of the people out of doors, he might with confidence ask them to reject the Supplemental Estimate, the more so as such a course would have the effect of settling the question, at all events for the present generation. Those who voted for the removal of the National Gallery to Burlington House would do their best to lose a situation which was in the highest degree popular, and at the same time admirably adapted to the requirements of such an institution; while those who voted against the proposal of the Government would have the satisfaction, if they succeeded, of knowing that they had prevented the carrying out of a mischievous, uncalled for, and extravagant

1315
scheme. The noble Lord, in conclusion, said he would vote for the rejection of the supplemental Estimate for the new National Gallery, Burlington House.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he intended to vote for the proposal of the Government with a perfect conviction that we had arrived at the point at which the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was the only one that could be accepted. He believed that no person ever passed the present National Gallery building without feelings of disgust. There were buildings to whose unpretentious ugliness one became reconciled; but about the National Gallery building there was something perpetually intolerable and offensive. Inside, matters were almost worse. The whole of Europe might be ransacked without finding a building so unfitted in every respect for the reception of a national collection of pictures. If they wished to amend the exterior they must pull it down; they could only render the interior fit for use by gutting it entirely. The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) had referred to the opinion of Sir Charles Barry. Well, he (Mr. Gregory) had been looking to the evidence of Sir Charles Barry in 1848. He said—
"I am of opinion that if the site of St. Martin's Workhouse were purchased, if an alteration were made in the barrack-yard, if a piece of Castle Street were stopped, and if the portico and other portions of the building were taken down, and if considerable additions were made to the present building, then I should consider the site to be one of the best in England."
But the noble Lord had forgotten to state that when Sir Charles Barry was asked in 1857, whether he still continued to believe that the present site of the National Gallery was the best, he replied that he had modified that opinion, and that he considered the British Museum was the best site for the Gallery of Pictures. The question was, first of all, with regard to space. We had to house all the pictures, many of which were at present insufficiently housed. We had to bring into one collection the pictures now scattered about. But there were the national drawings, at this moment at the British Museum, and to dissociate which from the national pictures appeared to be a ridiculous solecism. The noble Lord had spoken of the determination evinced by the House of Commons, under Lord Derby's Administration, that the National Gallery should remain where it was and the Royal Academy be sent away; and he asked where
1316
was the further evidence to account for a change of opinion since that event. Well, since the Government of Lord Derby the subject had been under the consideration of a fresh Commission, and that Commission had recommended the removal of the Gallery to Burlington House. The Commission had also given it as their opinion that, even if the space now occupied by the Royal Academy were given up to the National Gallery, the remedy would be only temporary, as the pictures might be expected to outgrow in a few years the space available in the entire building. In a few years it would be necessary to obtain the ground occupied by the barracks, and' the baths and wash-houses in the rear; and this would involve considerable practicable difficulty as well as expense. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had been referred to by the noble Lord; but that hon. Member when examined before the Royal Commission said that, while retaining his opinion in favour of the existing site, he had re-considered the subject, and thought that it would cost half a million of money to place on it all that was necessary for the purposes of the National Gallery, while the Government scheme was estimated to cost no more than £152,000. Considering the cheering with which the noble Lord's speech was received, chiefly from below the gangway, it would seem that those vigilant guardians of the public purse had no scruple whatever in spending £500,000. ["No, no !"] He confessed he was not prepared to pay this sum to buy fresh ground, when, at that moment, they had got ground in two places, each fit for sites for our Galleries and Museums. They had bought ground at Burlington House, and they did not know what to do with it. They had bought ground at Kensington, and they were racking their imagination and brains to find out what to do with it. He wished that hon. Members would go to the National Gallery oftener in order to see the class of women by whom it was frequented. The visitors really appeared to him to consist of housemaids and soldiers. He had been there frequently himself, and so could bear personal testimony to the fact. The noble Lord had spoken of the accessibility of the present Gallery, but he regarded Burlington House as being also extremely central— it was one of the most acceptable places in the whole of London, and he did not believe that the public would be the slightest sufferers by the change. Considering that

1317
this was a matter in which action ought to be taken at once, and considering that the plan which the right hon. Gentleman proposed not only provided for the present pictures, but for future acquisitions, and considering that all this could be done for a comparatively small sum of money, he would most cordially support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that one very strong recommendation of the present site of the National Gallery was that it formed a very fine space capable of enlargement, and made the building what a National Gallery in every other capital appeared, a conspicuous object. A heavy expense had been incurred in adjusting the square in front of it, and the building, though many hon. Gentlemen objected to the architecture, was, in his eye, plain, simple, and handsome; the portico, which was removed from Carlton House, being very beautiful. At the time the building was erected complaints were made that it wanted heighth; but if the dome and what were called the "pepper-boxes" were taken away, a very fine gallery might be constructed above the present rooms, and elevation would thus be given to the whole structure. The sum of £17,000, which was expended in altering the interior, was granted expressly on the condition that the building should permanently remain the National Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had said that the proposed new gallery would all be lighted from above; but it was a great mistake to have a picture gallery entirely lighted in that way. A large proportion of pictures were painted from a side light, and there ought to be a side light in portions of a National Gallery, in order that some pictures, and particularly cabinet pictures, might be viewed in the same light as they were painted in. The National Gallery was so favourably situated that an additional set of apartments erected on the top of the present would be completely placed above the thick atmosphere of London, which did not ascend above a certain height. True, there was a large chimney belonging to the Government waterworks at the back constantly belching out smoke; but that chimney was under the special charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works, and, when an Act of Parliament had been passed to do away with smoke, it was disgraceful that so much smoke from that chimney was allowed to be sent forth. At Burlington
1318
House the light would come entirely from two dark streets—Cork Street and Burlington Street. He believed that the coat of the present National Gallery, taking into account the money spent on the ornamentation of the square and for the purpose of making alterations in the gallery itself, amounted to upwards of £200,000, and he asked whether that expenditure was to be entirely lost, and the whole thing handed over to the Royal Academy. What would be the expense of the new gallery? The right hon. Gentleman confessed to £150,000, but that estimate was likely to be more than doubled in the end, and it was perfectly ludicrous to suppose that anything would be gained by beginning to construct a new National Gallery. He hoped the House would adhere to its previously expressed opinion, and that the Government also would regard its promise, while for himself he should support the Motion of the noble Lord.
MR. COWPERsaid, that after the speech of the noble Lord he wished to make a few remarks in reply. In the first place, he thought the noble Lord did not agree with the hon. Member who spoke last in fervent admiration of the existing building. It was humiliating to the nation that its fine pictures should be placed in a building so unworthy of them. It was an ignoble, disjointed, mean, and petty building, and yet full of pretension. The exterior was unsatisfactory, and the internal arrange merits were equally so. The rooms were too low for the proper lighting of the pictures and too small for the circulation of the visitors. It was wanting both in the dignity and the convenience of a national building. As the noble Lord knew, the gallery was not large enough to contain all the pictures that ought to be hung. If, however, it was possible to remain content with the present building, he would not propose to interfere with it; but when it was a question of building, it was proper to consider the right place and the right way of building. The suggestion of the noble Lord to run a light gallery over the barrack-yard was open to the objection that it would interfere with the light and air of the barracks, while the visitors to the gallery would be annoyed by the noises in the barrack-yard underneath them. The noble Lord's proposal would not prevent the large expenditure which had been alluded to, as although the gallery as constructed according to the noble Lord's proposal would

1319
contain all our pictures now banished to Kensington, yet a demand for enlargement would speedily arise, and then any addition would involve the expenditure of a very large sum of money. The scheme of the noble Lord would be inconvenient and unsatisfactory, and, if adopted, would deprive the country of an opportunity of obtaining the best gallery in Europe. He did not so much refer to the exterior, and they knew that in most galleries the internal arrangements had been sacrificed to the architectural demands of the exterior; yet he thought the scheme of placing a long gallery at right angles with the present building would produce a very ridiculous "effect, contrasting the new and handsome elevation with the present low and mean building. There were no satisfactory picture galleries in France or Italy, and the only models for imitation were to be found at Dresden and Munich. But recent experience of galleries built for temporary purposes had taught us much, and in the Exhibition buildings at Dublin, Manchester, Paris, and at Kensington, they had seen galleries where pictures had been properly hung, and conveniently seen by multitudes of persons. For those Exhibitions the architects had thought only of placing the pictures and the free circulation of the visitors, and therefore they had been completely successful. All the advantages secured at those places could be secured in the new site; but the noble Lord's proposal was a retrograde step from which we could never recover. Before it had become clear that the existing gallery was insufficient for the national pictures, the Government did all in their power to make it as useful and convenient as possible. They covered over the central hall which, separating the National Gallery from the Royal Academy, was of no use and of no architectural beauty, and thus they obtained what was now the only good room in the building, and enabled the country to receive the Turner bequest without the risk of delay and without the expense of building. If the plan which he proposed were adopted, the new gallery would be erected at Burlington House, and then it would remain for Parliament and the Government to decide to what use the building in Trafalgar Square could be applied. Although he thought the national pictures required a building of greater dignity and better arrangement than the present National Gallery, yet he did not think that for exhibitions of modern pictures annually held
1320
these faults would be so marked. He thought, therefore, that it would be a good thing to hand the building over to the Royal Academy. He proposed that, not for the benefit of the Royal Academy, but for the benefit of the national pictures, which could be best provided for in a building expressly erected for the purpose at Burlington House. But no arrangement had been entered into with the Royal Academy. That would be a matter for further consideration. If the Royal Academy were allowed to possess that building—and it was very important that the annual exhibition of modern pictures should be in a place where they could be well seen, since crowds of people took the utmost interest in them, and there could be no doubt that exhibition promoted art— if the Royal Academy were to take possession of that building it would, of course, not be expected that they should have it without paying for it. There was one way in which they might pay for it—namely, if the opinion of those persons should prevail who greatly desired to see improvements of the facade of the National Gallery, the Royal Academy might be required to do that work. If, on the other hand, it was thought desirable that they should pay rent, the Royal Academy would be able to do so. And they should remember that the alternative proposition made by the late Government in 1857 did give gratuitously a site to the Royal Academy, and that site being about a quarter of the whole ground, which cost £140,000, what was proposed to be given to the Royal Academy would be worth £35,000 or £38,000. Whatever other arrangements should be made, he hoped the Committee would not lose the opportunity of getting a gallery which would be worthy of our pictures, and the internal arrangements of which would at least carry out this practical purpose— that the pictures should be seen. It should be remembered that there was a good deal of smoke around Trafalgar Square. Smoke was still found in the building, and was doing material damage to the pictures. Again, sufficient protection was not given from fire. If the pictures were burnt the loss would be irreparable. Modern pictures might be painted over again, but nothing could supply the place of the Old Masters. With reference to the question on the paper as to finding further accommodation for the University of London at Burlington House, he feared there was not much prospect of that without

1321
interfering with the accommodation required for other objects.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had remained a short time longer in office something would have been done in this matter. He could not assent to this Vote unless there should be some agreement come to between the Government and the Royal Academy. Six years ago the Royal Academy would have accepted the offer of the noble Lord to build their own gallery in Burlington Gardens, and if the Government had given them a site of the value just mentioned, that would have given a sufficient hold upon them to oblige them to come to any terms the House might have chosen to lay down. That arrangement was broken up; the Royal Commission did not appear to have advanced them at all, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) now came down with a scheme the only recommendation of which appeared to be that it was the very reverse of the scheme of the noble Lord. In his opinion the site of the National Gallery was the best site for the national pictures. The Royal Academy was a very popular exhibition for three months in the year, and wherever it might go the public would be sure to find it out, and visit the collection as readily as they did in its present situation. Nor did he see what claim they had to have the whole of the site handed over to them. The right hon. Gentleman attributed to the noble Lord a wish to build a gallery at right angles to the present building, reaching over the barrack square; but all the noble Lord said was, that there was every facility for obtaining increased accommodation if it was required. He, however, believed that there was sufficient accommodation in the building for the present collection, and that there would be for years to come.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that his vote on this subject would be solely dictated by an honest belief as to what would be for the real interest of art. His noble Friend thought it for the interest of art that the pictures should remain in Trafalgar Square, but in that he differed from him. He thought it would be for the interests of art that the pictures should be transferred to Burlington House. In 1856, when he brought forward the subject of a Royal Commission, he had a wild vision of all these fine works of art being collected together at Kensington Palace. That was a
1322
Utopian scheme, and he no longer believed in it. The Commission of 1856 reported in favour of the retention of the pictures on the present site, but they qualified it so far that they said it should be sufficiently enlarged. He read the Report as mainly directed against the attempt to remove the pictures to Kensington Gore. The spirit of the Report was that the collection should be placed in a central situation; and when they considered how London was spreading on all sides, the difference between the centralness of Trafalgar Square and Burlington House was hardly worth mentioning. The subsequent Commission of Inquiry into the Royal Academy two years later reported last year. What was the conclusion with reference to the national pictures? That if they were prepared to make the additional accommodation at Trafalgar Square it would be well that the national collection should remain there; but, if they were to remain, they must be prepared to purchase the barracks and build others elsewhere. He believed the Chelsea barracks cost £250,000 and the site £100,000. His hon. Friend took a Utopian view, and wished to sweep away the barracks, the baths and wash-houses, and other buildings, and to erect a new National Gallery for the sake of the public. But there was not the slightest prospect of the Government proposing, or of that House sanctioning, in our day, any such scheme as that. If, indeed, they were willing to do that in the interest of the pictures, let them do it, and probably they would get as good a gallery as at Burlington House. But he did not believe they were prepared for such an expenditure. They would rather go on patching, cribbing a bit from the barracks here, and another bit there. When his noble Friend came to that part of his case, the House evidently felt that it was the weakest part, for the cheers which had previously greeted him then ceased. His noble Friend said all he proposed to do was to find space for the present collection; and when he came to speak of a provision for the future, it merely amounted to the covering over of a small portion of the barrack-yard. The alternatives which the House had really to look in the face were either a large expenditure for sweeping away the barracks and the workhouse, and then building on that site, or the adoption of the plan of the Government for transferring the collection to Burlington House. Under all the circumstances of the case he recommended

1323
the adoption of the practical and useful suggestion of the Government. The feeling among many hon. Members appeared to be, that the proposal of the Government was a job for the benefit of the Royal Academy. Now, no one would accuse him of an over-favourable disposition towards the Royal Academy, and he had always felt surprised that he should ever have had the honour of being invited to dine there, because on more than one occasion he had deemed it his duty to call attention to the defects in the administration and constitution of that body. But the House ought to dissever the question of the accommodation for the national pictures from the question of the accommodation for the Royal Academy. Let them settle what was best for the national pictures, wholly irrespective of the Royal Academy. They would, he believed, do what was best for the national pictures if they adopted the proposal of the Government. Having done that, it would be left for the House next year to consider whether they should hand over the rest of the building to the Royal Academy, which was now in occupation of one part of it. If the Government were ever in a position to make that proposal, he hoped they would take care to exact from the Royal Academy such conditions for the interest of art as would justify the handing over of that portion of the building to it. Though the Royal Academy was nominally a private institution, it was essentially a public institution, or so far so, at least, that no private association of artists could compete with it—that it had a monopoly of art in this country. And it was the duty of the House of Commons so to regulate that monopoly in the interests of artists and of art that it would be a sound and rightly conducted national institution. It would not follow, if they transferred the national pictures to Burlington House, that therefore the building in Trafalgar Square should not be improved. One of the conditions to be imposed on the Royal Academy might be that it should spend on the present building the sum it proposed to expend elsewhere. What with the fountains, what with the statues to Havelock and Napier, with the Nelson column, and one thing or another, they had done what they could to disfigure the finest site in Europe. [An hon. MEMBER: The Lions.] Sir Edwin Landseer had been four years engaged upon these lions, and Baron Marochetti stated that Sir
1324
Edwin Landseer daily worked harder on them than he did. ["Question!"] Let them not discourage a distinguished artist who was giving his time and skill for a mere trifle. ["Question!"] He had thought it might not be uninteresting to hon. Gentlemen to know from one who had seen Sir Edwin at work, that when completed these lions would gain for him a name as a sculptor of animals equal to that which he now possessed as a painter. In conclusion, he hoped that the Committee would not hastily reject a Vote which he was sure was one the Government had brought forward in the interest of art.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that if when the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) made his clear and conclusive speech the House had been as full as it was now, the Government must have been induced to withdraw the Vote in deference to the general feeling. The noble Lord had shown that at the period when the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire announced to the House that the National Gallery was to remain where it was, the statement was received with unanimous satisfaction on both sides. The noble Viscount now at the head of the Government in 1860 fully accepted that announcement; and in asking for a Vote of £17,000, pledged himself that the National Gallery should remain where it was for the reception of the National pictures, and that an early arrangement should be made for the Royal Academy to quit the building. How was it that, in face of such statements, the question had remained in abeyance? It was on account of the ideas entertained by the managers of matters at Kensington, who, in one of their earliest Reports, claimed to have the National Gallery removed thither; and the influence of that illustrious body continued until the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire announced, simultaneously with his statement that the National Gallery should be devoted to the national pictures, that the Government had dissolved its partnership with the Kensington people. Why had the noble Viscount not kept his pledge? It was said there had been the Report of a Commission which had changed the current of opinion both in and out of the House. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) did not seem accurately to recollect the transactions of his own Commission; for on the question of the site for a new National Gallery, they stated that they forbore, as being beyond their province, from giving

1325
any opinion. The views of the Commissioners, so far as they had entered into the question, were rather remarkable. Their idea was, that it was necessary to provide accommodation in the form of rooms for the Royal Academy, in order that the Government might be able to exercise what they thought a legitimate control over the Academy. They proposed that the Government should nominate certain lay Academicians, who were to have no knowledge of art, and who, in addition to the duties intrusted to them in the management of the Royal Academy itself, might be expected to render important services in Parliament and elsewhere. For example, they were to satisfy the natural curiosity of Members of either House with respect to the proceedings of the Academy, and they were to advise the Chief Commissioner and the Government upon all subjects relating to art, in order that such mistakes as had hitherto occurred might be avoided in future. Such was the purpose for which Parliament was now asked to make a present of £140,000, at least, to the Royal Academy. The evidence taken before the Commissioners threw a light upon the probable views of the lay Academicians, for he found the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), after stating that the site in Trafalgar Square was a fine one, asking whether, if they obtained possession of it, the Royal Academy would undertake to remove the unsightly things there; and, as he had not then fallen in love with the lions, which he had since seen, whether they would take away the Nelson Column among the rest. It thus appeared that for £140,000 Parliament was to buy the right to put lay members into the Royal Academy, that those distinguished gentlemen, with no professional knowledge of art, were to regulate all the proceedings of the Government and the Chief Commissioner in all matters of art; and, finally, that the Royal Academy were to he accommodated with rooms, on condition that they should remove the Nelson Column and all the rest of the monuments in Trafalgar Square, leaving the lions to the admiration of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire. He thought the House would pause before giving up a public site to a private body, especially since there was a large amount of public property behind the National Gallery, which, without the frontage, would be of no use at all. It was not true that the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) had
1326
proposed any particular scheme. What he had said was, that there was public property behind the National Gallery, and that the very persons paraded as authorities by the Government had themselves suggested plans which would be quite sufficient to provide for all the wants of the nation for many years, as far as the exhibition of pictures was concerned. But, besides that, the House had the pledge of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government— a pledge on the faith of which a large sum of money had been voted—that the National Gallery, if all devoted to the exhibition of pictures belonging to the nation, would itself be sufficient for many years to come. Moreover, it was to be remembered that Trafalgar Square was not a mere thoroughfare, but a point to which many great thoroughfares converged; omnibuses and cheap conveyances of every kind passed through it in hundreds, the great penny thoroughfare of the Thames came close up to it, and that in the immediate vicinity there was now a railway in communication with all parts of the kingdom. It was in all respects a locality in which a public institution like the National Gallery should be placed. What reason, he asked, was there that the nation should be driven from its own natural habitation in order that the Royal Academy, a mere visitor, might take possession of its property in perpetuity? He believed the Royal Academy was willing to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks; and he was quite sure that, if allowed to erect its own building at its own cost, it would flourish more than if taken under the control of the Government, seduced into silence and acquiescence by a bribe of £140,000.
MR. FERRANDsaid, that much had been said in the interest of art—he wished to make a remark in the interest of the taxpayers. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read a severe lecture to some hon. Members who ventured to suggest that justice should be done to certain naval officers at the expense of a few thousand pounds; and he called on the House to support him in resisting the Motion, and spoke of the suffering which a large portion of the taxpayers endured by reason of the imposts which he was obliged to levy from them. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman, when a Vote of £150,000 was asked for, for the removal of the

1327
National Gallery from the site which a majority of hon. Members considered the best suited for it, sat in silence, and said not a word on behalf of those who would have to find the money. Why did he not lecture the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) for proposing the present Vote? He (Mr. Ferrand) appealed to the financial reformers below the gangway, and reminded them that in a few months they must appear before the electors, and that their votes would be commented upon on the hustings; and that, if they supported the Government in this gross job, they would many of them find themselves at the bottom of the poll.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, the chief argument in favour of the Government proposal had been stated to be that of economy. Now, in 1848, Sir Charles Barry on being asked to give his opinion as to what could be done with the site in Trafalgar Square, prepared a plan which showed that the National Gallery might be so extended and improved as to afford six times the amount of accommodation now given to the national pictures and the Royal Academy combined. Sir Charles Barry had shown how by taking part of the site of the workhouse and a part of the barracks a gallery might be erected sufficient for the wants of a century to Come. When a railway company could go to any quarter of London and build a large terminus, laying out in various ways the ground round about it, why should the Government alone be impotent to procure sufficient space for an important public institution? It was the Kensington Gore scheme which prevented the Report of the Committee of 1848 being acted upon. Anybody looking at the Reports of that Committee might see there was a practical course traced out which the Government had nothing to do but to follow with advantage to the country. On the ground of economy he supported the proposition of the noble Lord opposite.
MR. WALTERsaid, he had not the honour of being acquainted with a single member of the Royal Academy, and had not to acknowledge even the compliment which was paid to his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), so much, it seemed, to his surprise. He looked at this question as simply one of fact, which any hon. Member could decide for himself from his own observation, and without reading the Report of the Commission. The fact was that we had two great institutions side by
1328
side—the National Gallery and the Royal Academy. They were both under the same roof, and the building had become so crowded that they were elbowing each other, and one of them must be turned out. The question was, which of the two should be ejected. That was a matter, it seemed to him, which ought to be decided by the degree of popularity which one of these institutions had obtained over the other. He himself was a lover of the Old Masters, and could not, therefore, be supposed to speak with any prejudice in favour of the works of their modern rivals. He was bound, however, to say —and anyone who had looked into the case would corroborate it — that of the two institutions the Royal Academy enjoyed by far the larger share of popularity. He would venture, were it Parliamentary, to make a bet that for one person who went to see the Old Masters fifty at least went to see the exhibition of the Royal Academy. ["No!"] He had no hesitation in asserting that as a fact, and he appealed to anybody who had the means of getting at the statistics to confirm it. He did not put this forward as an evidence of good taste; in his judgment, it showed a want of taste —he mentioned it merely as a fact. It required a different kind of education from that which the public usually received to appreciate the Old Masters, and there were other reasons which accounted for the preference popularly accorded to modern paintings. People had friends among the living artists, and there was a greater demand for their works. He might use the very argument of his hon. Friend behind him, as to the advantage of a central situation like Trafalgar Square, and its great accessibility by the river and the railway, in support of his case. If it were true that the Royal Academy was more frequented than the National Gallery, then they ought to afford to the public greater facilities for visiting it. He did not regard this as a question of public expense. He had no doubt there was about the same economy in the one view as in the other; but he looked at the matter as one of public convenience; and discarding a good deal of prejudice which he must own he had once entertained, he held that, in the interest of the public, it was better that the arrangement now proposed should be carried out than that the Royal Academy should be turned away.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I wish, in the first place, to explain the change of opinion to which reference has been made. Undoubtedly, in 1860—I think it was—I adopted the decision of the late Government, that the National Gallery was to remain in Trafalgar Square, and that the Royal Academy was to have assigned to it a portion of the ground in Burlington House Gardens, close to Piccadilly, where it might erect a suitable edifice for its own purposes. Subsequent considerations, however, have induced me to alter that view, and I now think that, on the whole, the arrangement which we propose would be best—namely, that the National Gallery should be built on the ground to the rear of Burlington House, and that the Royal Academy should, under certain conditions, hare the use, not the possession, of the building in Trafalgar Square. Now, this is really not a party question. We ought all of us to have the same object at heart, and that is, first, to provide a proper receptacle for the collection of ancient pictures which we now possess, and next, to promote the display of modern art and the education of the artist, so that the public may know from year to year what the progress of art is in this country. With regard to the latter aim, I must say that it seems to me to have been entirely lost sight of in the discussion of this evening. And yet it lies at the root of the whole system of a National Gallery. For what purpose is a nation to have a collection of admirable pictures? They are intended not simply for the gratification of those who go to look at them, but to serve as a means of instruction in the formation of a great and distinguished school of national art. That is the main object of a National Gallery; and it should be combined with a Royal Academy which shall afford the means of instruction to those who had devoted themselves to this profession, and of exhibition to those whose pictures are deemed worthy of display. With regard to the National Gallery, we have more pictures than the present building can contain, and we want additional accommodation. The question is, how to obtain that accommodation at the least expense. The noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) proposes a scheme which would inevitably lead to great expense—it is, that we should enlarge the present building in Trafalgar Square. In order, however, to make such an enlargement as would suffice for the pictures we
1330
now possess and those we are likely to obtain, we cannot proceed on the make-shift plan of constructing a gallery set upon iron pillars at the back of the present building. In order to make the gallery answer the purpose it would be necessary to take the barrack yard, to buy the workhouse and the other buildings connected with it; and, to satisfy those who look at the matter with a critical eye, the front of the present building would also have to be altered. That would necessarily involve very great expense; and when the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Ferrand) calls on the Gentlemen below the gangway to recollect that they will have to render an account to their constituencies within a limited period of time, I may use the same argument to induce them to vote for that plan which will produce the best accommodation with the least charge on the public revenue. A good gallery for the exhibition of pictures requires peculiar internal arrangements, and provision must be made for these. Within the ground at Burlington Gardens we can obtain a suitable receptacle for our pictures, ample in accommodation, and satisfactory in regard to the means of displaying them, and we can get this at a less expense than that at which we could procure the same accommodation at the other place. By one plan you will get excellent accommodation at a small cost; by the other you will be led into an enormous expenditure, the amount of which I defy any man precisely to limit; and when it has been incurred you will not have the same advantages for exhibiting your pictures. I do hope, therefore, that this House, which prides itself on its economy, and which often spends hours in discussing very minute sums in the different Estimates, will not, by acceding to the Motion of the noble Lord, lay the foundation for an immense expenditure, but will adopt the more economical and efficient scheme proposed by my right hon. Friend.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Before the Committee goes to a division I hope it will seriously consider the position in which it is placed by the speech just delivered by the noble Lord. I well remember, on an evening when the House was remarkably thin, when there were barely forty Members in it, that the noble Lord induced those forty Members to pass a Vote of £ 17,000 for the enlargement of the Gallery in Trafalgar Square precisely for the reason

1331
that he had made up his mind that Trafalgar Square should form the site for the permanent gallery for the receipt of the national collection. At that time the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works—I was going to call him the First Commissioner for Taste—I beg his pardon —had not discovered that these domes were only fit for a suburban villa; he had not discovered that these rooms were narrow, disjointed, petty, and dusty; but he told us that if that £17,000 was laid out on this building it would make it everything which could be wished; and, moreover, that it would adapt it singularly for a permanent National Gallery. To-night, however, the right hon. Gentleman has not only made these discoveries, hut he has actually succeeded in doing that which is still more wonderful—he has converted his noble relative; and now the noble Lord having whiled that £17,000 from our pockets, comes down and says, "I have since seen reason to alter my opinion—you must lay out £150,000 on this Burlington House scheme.'' Really, if I had not had an answer ready to my hand—an answer, too, from the noble Lord's own Chancellor of the Exchequer—I should not have troubled the Committee this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had been twitting the Government for their large expenditure on Burlington House, and this is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says in reply —and it is certainly very curious, that this speech has been allowed to stand without a preface. The hon. Gentleman said—
"He regretted as much as the hon. Member could do that such long periods should elapse before any conclusion could be arrived at as to the disposal of buildings of that kind, the price of which had been paid and which entailed a large annual charge for interest. He had no hesitation in saying that this and other circumstances of a like kind were entirely owing to the lamentable and deplorable state of our whole arrangement with regard to the management of our public works."
Then he goes on to explain the cause of this very much as I should do myself, and it really seems as if the right hon. Gentleman had foreseen the speech which the First Lord of the Treasury has made tonight—
"Vacillation, uncertainty, costliness, extravagance, meanness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated, were united in our present system. There was a total want of authority to direct and guide."
1332
And he concludes in these words—words which I should have been afraid to utter myself, and which certainly seem to require a special preface all to themselves—
"He believed such were the evils of the system that nothing short of a revolutionary reform would ever be sufficient to rectify it."
In the face of declarations such as these, in the face of vacillations such as I have described, not only on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, but of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who has told us tonight that he got that £17,000 not exactly on false pretences, but from not having properly looked into the matter, is the House prepared to vote this estimate of £150,000? Recollect what has been the cost of this wretched place we are sitting in—£750,000 was the original estimate; £3,000,000 has been the cost. The House of Commons will be wanting in its duty to the country if, in spite of the speech of the noble Lord—who, however well fitted to lead us in foreign affairs, is a very bad leader on anything connected with economy—it does not refuse to enter on this expenditure; and I call on those who have any feeling for the public purse to support the Motion of the noble Lord late First Commissioner of Works.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the erection of the New National Gallery at Burlington House."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 122 Noes 174: Majority 52.

(1.) £51,127, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.

(2.) £39,147, to complete the sum for the Treasury.

(3.) £19,883, to complete the sum for the Home Office.

(4.) £53,015, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would take that occasion to ask for some explanation in respect to the despatches written by and received at the office o the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs He thought that some distinguishing marl should be placed upon the despatches published in the blue-book, in order to show which of them were communicated by telegram, and which had been written it

1333
the ordinary way. He must complain of the off-hand and unceremonious manner in which he had been answered by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he asked for information on the subject. That hon. Gentleman, in the absence of the noble Viscount, had replied to him in a manner more worthy of the senior partner of the firm of Quirk, Gammon and Snap, than of an official whose duty it was to furnish such information as was required by that House from the Department which he represented. The privilege of asking questions was one of the most important they possesssd, and he (Mr. Darby Griffith) would never allow it to suffer injury or prejudice in his humble hands.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that he could only repeat the explanations he had given upon that subject on former occasions. A large portion of the Government correspondence was at present conducted through the electric telegraph. The despatches were sent in cipher, and the answers to them were communicated in the same form. The Government afterwards published the substance of them, although in different language. The objection to marking despatches sent in cipher with an indication that it had been so sent was that by that means materials would be furnished by which ingenious persons so disposed might obtain a key to the cipher used.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that he was not satisfied with the explanation. He looked upon this as a mere piece of official obstinacy and red-tapism.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 23,421, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
(6.) £17,306, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked for some explanation of an item of £10,600 charged for Contingent Expenses.
MR. PEELstated that this sum was required to defray the expenditure of the Privy Council Office under the Public Health Act. £3,000 was annually placed at the disposal of the Privy Council to pay medical and other officers who were from time to time deputed to conduct inquiries and experiments; £2,000 was for the national vaccine establishment; £2,000 for vaccination inspection, and the remaining £3,600 was a matter of account arising from the medical department of the Privy
1334
Council having been unaware of the rule that payments should only be made out of I the Votes for the current year.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISE, in reference to the charge for expenses connected: with the inspection of sheep to prevent the spread of disease, desired to call attention to the fifth Report of the medical; officer, ordered to be printed on the 14th of April. He believed it was the desire of the medical officer that the Report should be of great benefit to the country, and he had no doubt the effect of the appointment would be to correct some of the fallacies of the faculty; but, on the other hand, he thought the contents of the Report were enough to raise a panic in the country. Every fifth animal, and by consequence every fifth mutton chop, was stated to be diseased, while there was not only death in the pot but in the pail. The total loss by preventible diseases in cattle was estimated at £6,000,000 yearly. He wished to know who was to be held responsible for such statements, inasmuch as the medical officer who had despatched eminent veterinary surgeons on commissions of inquiry, not only through this country but abroad, disconnected himself in a note at the end of his Report from the opinions put forward by them. The Report stated that much of the epidemic disease was attributable to foreign origin; but if they referred to the Customs Report they would find that the medical officers of that Department stated that in the year when the small-pox broke out amongst the sheep in Wiltshire that not a single sheep entered into London suffering from that disease. On the Continent 2½ per cent covered the losses of the Cattle Insurance Offices, but in this country the Cattle Insurance Offices had to be wound up in consequence of the cattle dying so fast. He was anxious to know how the Inspector and his assistants were paid.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had already explained the source from which those gentlemen were paid. He did not exactly understand what it was the hon. Gentleman complained of in the Report. He appeared to admit the great ability of the Report generally, but he took exception to Professor Gamgee's Report on cattle diseases in general, who was engaged under the direction of the Inspector to make that Report. There was great doubt as to the origin and extent of the diseases of cattle, and a Select Committee was investigating the subject, and

1335
the Inspector had gone into it in such a manner as the great interests of the country demanded. The hon. Gentleman seemed to object to the Vote on account of the discrepancy between the Reports; but, considering the difference of opinion that prevailed on the subject, he did not see how they could require two medical officers to agree before they were paid.
Vote agreed to.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that before the Chairman reported Progress, he wished to express a hope with regard to the Vote for the National Gallery. The Committee having rejected the Vote of £150,000 for a new National Gallery in one of its economical fits ["No!"] — well, then, in one of its uneconomical fits ["Oh!"] —he wished to know what course the Government intended to take. The feeling of the Committee appeared to be in favour of retaining the National Gallery in its present site, but any person who had attended to the discussion must have come to the conclusion that the House of Commons desired to have a building in every way worthy of the nation. If not, there was no meaning in the Vote the Committee had come to. Now, he found by a letter to the Treasury, written by Sir Benjamin Hall some years ago, that the estimate of Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor of Public Buildings, for enlarging and improving the National Gallery—an estimate demanded by the Treasury a few years ago—was £500,000; and he wished to know whether, before the Session closed, the Government would be prepared to ask the House for a Vote towards the erection of the new National Gallery, which the Committee wished to occupy the site of the present building. ["No !"] If this was not the wish of the Committee, it had only stultified itself by its Vote that night. He would not press for an answer to his question at that moment, but he would express a hope that the Government would take the matter into consideration.
MR. SCLATER BOOTHsaid, that the noble Lord had assumed a great deal in the interpretation he had put upon the Vote. The House of Commons had simply rejected the scheme of the Government, and had expressed no opinion with regard to a building worthy of the nation. They had expressed no wish that a new National Gallery should be built in Trafalgar Square, but the feeling rather was that a very moderate extension of the present building would be sufficient. What the
1336
Committee wanted was to get rid of the Royal Academy. That body had plenty of money, and could afford to build itself a gallery.
MR. HIBBERTwished to know whether the Government would, in consequence of the Vote come to that night, take any steps to make the whole of the National Gallery available for the purposes of the national pictures?
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
(Re-committed) BILL [BILL 111].
RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, this Bill was applicable only to railway companies, and he could not see any reason why it should not be equally applicable to gas and water companies, many of which would be established in small places if they could get an Act of incorporation or an Act of Parliament without going to an enormous expense. In some cases the capital required would not exceed £1,500 or £2,000, while the expense of obtaining an Act would be about £500.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONobserved, that the Committee did not clearly see their way to laying down any general conditions applicable to all works, and had, therefore, refrained from making any recommendation on the subject.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGEEALDpointed out that, under the 3rd clause, powers were given to companies to make railways where there was no opposition; and under the 9th clause limit was imposed to the opposition. This latter clause he objected to, for there was no power of opposition, in case of consent of all the landowners on the line, by any party other than a railway or canal company, although damage might be done to parties whose land was not scheduled. He would not, however, object to the Bill going into Committee.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that landowners under this Bill were in a better position than they would be under a Private Bill. All persons whose lands were touched by the proposed works must not only have given their consent, but the agreement between the purchaser and

  1337
  landowner must be produced before the Board of Trade before the certificate could undergo consideration. If the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee it would find that all the cases referred to were properly provided for.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

WEIGHING OF GRAIN (PORT OF LONDON) BILL— [BILL 119.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CRAWFORDmoved the second reading of the Bill. The City of London possessed by prescription and by charter from James I. the right of measuring all grain brought within the port of London. It was proposed by this Bill that this privilege should be commuted for a charge upon the weight of the grain, the result of which would be that Mansion House charges amounting to £2,000 a year would be relinquished. The grain according to the proposal made would be weighed for 25 per cent less than the sum now charged upon the measurement. The Corporation would relinquish a sum of £5,000 per annum. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had given notice that inasmuch as the Bill seeks to impose a Tax, in part for the private use and benefit of the Corporation and for no public purpose, on all grain imported into the port of London, the Bill ought not to be proceeded with until the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills had been complied with. This was entirely erroneous. The Bill had the assent of the trade, the assent of the chairman of the Corn Exchange, and of the chairman of a public meeting held for taking the matter into consideration. It was not for the private use of the Corporation of London; the Corporation had no private interests, but applied its revenues for the public good. The Bill was not solicited by the Corporation after the manner of Private Bills, but was a necessary supplement to the Inland Revenue Bill of the year. The whole of the trade of London was affected by its provisions, and it had the same rights and affected the same interests as the many Acts relating to London which had been brought in as Public Bills.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYmoved the adjournment, of the debate.
  MR. AYRTONprotested against entering upon the Bill at two o'clock in the morning. Hon. Members were not to sit there to aid the Corporation in levying taxes to enable them to give dinners. He would not prolong the discussion, but would call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Sir John Shelley.)
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o clock.

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading— Banking Co-Partnerships* (No. 113); College of Physicians* (No. 114).
Second Reading—Public Schools [H.L.]* (No. 30).
Report—Naval Agency and Distribution* (No. 83); Naval Prize* (No. 87).
Third Reading—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) [H.L.]* (No. 103), and passed.

ARTILLERY PRACTICE IN PLYMOUTH SOUND.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHwished to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary for War on a subject of some importance as regarded the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. A few days ago a waterman, named George M'Cay, had been employed to convey an officer of H.M.S. Warrior to that vessel, and on his return his boat was struck by an 8-inch shell fired from the citadel, where firing practice was going on at the time. The result was that M'Cay himself was killed; the boat was upset, and another man who was with the poor waterman nearly lost his life also. This practice from the citadel had for a long time been a great inconvenience to the inhabitants of Plymouth and its neighbourhood. In some cases its consequences were ludicrous, while in others, such as that which he had just stated to their Lordships, they had been fatal. On one occasion a Dutch Admiral was on his way across the Sound to pay his respects to the authorities of the port, when his boat was surrounded by a shower of missiles. The gallant officer at once hoisted a flag of truce, and despatched a boat to inquire whether war had broken out between the two countries, that he had been assailed in that way. The case of M'Cay was not an isolated one, and there were several persons at Plymouth who had received compensation for damage done to their boats. The defence set up in the more recent case was not sufficient to justify the continuance of the practice. Captain Henry said that the firing was right, but that the shells sometimes went to the right or the left out of their proper course when there was a ripple on the water. In this case the boat was not within the line of fire, but then the accident had been caused by the deflection of the shell from its proper course; but, as a similar occurrence might take place again, he submitted to the noble Earl the practice was a dangerous one. He knew it to be so from personal experience, a shell having fallen on one occasion within fifty yards of a boat in which be was seated. He wished to know the opinion of the Government on the subject.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that unhappily the fact stated by his noble Friend was but too true. The unfortunate man had certainly lost his life in consequence of a shell fired from the citadel at Plymouth. But it was due to the officer
1224
commanding the firing party to state that he had ordered the line of practice to be cleared upwards of two hours before the firing was commenced; and that the shell which killed the poor man had deflected almost at right angles, and ricochetted several times before it struck the boat. He had further to observe that the shell was not a charged shell, but had merely a bursting charge. At the same time the liability of those missiles to deflect, and the fact that such a lamentable accident had taken place, clearly showed that the matter was one deserving the most serious consideration of the Government; and on hearing of the accident he at once gave directions, which had, in fact, been anticipated by the General commanding at Plymouth, that while the matter was under consideration, firing from the citadel should be discontinued. It was not easy to find places for firing practice, but he need not say that no consideration of inconvenience would weigh on the minds of the War Department as against the probable recurrence of such a melancholy accident.
THE EARL OF MALMBSBURYsaid, he was very glad to hear the answer of the noble Earl; because last summer he had been an eyewitness of the danger arising from the practice from the citadel. It had been blowing a gale the day before, the Sound was full of yachts and fishing boats, the shot was falling around them, and one shot fell not more than twenty yards astern of his own yacht.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsuggested that a general measure should be introduced, empowering officers superintending firing practice from forts to remove vessels out of the line of fire.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was afraid that he should not be able to introduce such a measure. It was due to the officer in command at the time the accident took place that he should express his opinion that no blame was to be attributed to him.

SIR ROWLAND HILL.
Message from THE QUEEN, delivered by The Lord President, and read by The Lord Chancellor, as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty, taking into consideration the eminent Services of Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B., late Secretary to the General Post Office, in devising and carrying out important Improvements in Postal Administration, and being desirous, in

1225
recognition of such Services, to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour upon him, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to grant Sir Rowland Hill the Sum of £20,000."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into consideration on Friday next; and the LORDS SUMMONED.

THE COUNTESS OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE.
Message from THE QCEEN, delivered by The Lord President, and read by The Lord Chancellor, as follows: —
"VICTORIA R.
"Her Majesty, taking into consideration the distinguished Services performed throughout a long Series of Years by the late James, Earl of Elgin and Kincardine, Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India, and being desirous, in recognition of such Services, to confer some signal Mark of Her Favour upon his Widow Mary Louisa, Countess of Elgin and Kincardine, recommends it to the House of Lords to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make Provision for securing to the Countess of Elgin a Pension of £1,000 per Annum for the Term of her natural Life."
Ordered, That the said Message be taken into consideration on Friday next; and the LORDS SUMMONED.

REV. FORTESCUE ANDERSON.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid: My Lords, the Correspondence for which I am about to move, according to the notice on the paper, relates to the imprisonment in Grodno of the Rev. Fortescue Anderson, a graduate of the University of Oxford, and son of the English chaplain at Bonn, who was formerly well known as a preacher in this country. Neither the individual nor the facts would suffice perhaps to merit the attention of the House, unless the case tended to throw light upon a question of more general importance. It has been conspicuously and frequently asserted that when injury to British subjects has arisen, our system has been to domineer over the minor States, and truckle to the powerful communities with which we are brought into relation. Of this tendency to safe attack and to dishonouring submission, instances are given in what has passed between Great Britain and Greece, Japan, Brazil, upon the one hand, and the United
  1226
  States upon the other. Whatever be the truth, the Correspondence which I ask for will illustrate the manner in which the Foreign Office is disposed to guard British subjects against any wrongs which Russian authorities may perpetrate upon them.
  My Lords, the facts are brief and easy to present. Mr. Anderson had formed at Bonn, where as I have said his father was the English chaplain, an intimate acquaintance with Count Alexander Bisping, a Lithuanian nobleman, who studied in the University of Bonn, and to whom Mr. Anderson had given instructions in the English language. The count, reaching his majority, and being an orphan, resolved to visit his large estates in Lithuania; and in February, 1863, urged Mr. Anderson to accompany him. Mr. Anderson consented on reflecting that Count Bisping belonged to that class of Polish landowners who disapproved the insurrection as unfortunate, or useless, or ill-timed, however dear to them the objects it pursued, however odious and intolerable the misgovernment which led to it. On February the 26th the two left Bonn for Berlin, where their passports were duly viséd at the British and Russian Embassies, and went on by Konigsberg, by Wilna, and to Grodno, an important town of Lithuania, which stands on the direct route from Warsaw to St. Petersburg, Between March and September they visited the farms and country houses of Count Alexander Bisping, which were I scattered in the neighbourhood. They: never mixed with the insurgents. At: Konigsberg, Count Alexander, so guarded was his conduct, sent away to Bonn the firearms he had with him. Mr. Anderson, in the beginning of September, determined to go back to his father. He was to make one more expedition with the count from Grodno to a farm not very distant. It was on leaving Grodno for this purpose that the circumstances happened which brought his name before the Foreign Office and the public. Up to that moment he had been the guest and the companion of a nobleman who did not join the civil war. And at that moment, so far from being dangerous to the Czar, he was on the point of quitting his dominions. The travellers produced their passports at the barrier of Grodno. They were detained, stripped, examined, driven to the prison of the town, brought before the governor, handed into dungeons without a reason being assigned for the proceeding. The cell of Mr. Ander-

  1227
  son was in so revolting a condition that it would be indecent to describe it to the House. He passed the night in the midst of vermin, with scarcely any food, and in an atmosphere by which his health was sensibly affected. The next morning at eleven he was brought before a military court, which sat upon supposed abettors of the Polish movement. The most ridiculous pretences were made to justify his capture. An air-gun was produced which had been found in his portmanteau. But even this important proof of making war upon the Czar was afterwards rejected by his judges. Scythes were then exhibited which had been taken by some Cossacks from a farm of Count Bisping to support the accusation. But no charge could be attached to Mr. Anderson about them. After that, his papers having been seized, they came upon his sermons; and although a Jew supposed to be familiar with the English tongue was ordered to interpret them, even this unfavourable commentator could find nothing revolutionary in them. The tribunal seemed to be convinced without a practical experiment that these discourses were entirely consistent with, if not essentially conducive to, the strict repose of those who listened to or studied them. After that the correspondence of his father was explored; and hostile inferences drawn from the occurrence of the phrase "unhappy Poland," and the expression of a fear as to the safety of Mr. Anderson among the Russians. At last, baffled in every attempt to fix criminality upon him, the commissioners, instead of giving him his freedom, again consigned him to the dungeon he had quitted. But more—and here is found the aggravation of their conduct—they declined in a peremptory manner to let him communicate with the British representatives at Warsaw or St. Petersburg. A subject of Her Majesty and priest in the Established Church of which she is the head, after his accusers were exposed and his innocence established, was recklessly imprisoned and deprived of all means to establish his identity, to vindicate his rights, or to invoke the power and protection of the State which he belonged to. Remote from every aid, in solitude and helplessness, he saw before him the gloomy vista with which prisoners in Russian Poland are familiar. The House may recollect three instances in which British subjects have been thrown into prison, but in which no such extremity as marks the present case was hazarded
  1228
  Mr. Shaver, the Canadian, of whom your Lordships heard so much in 1862, was detained by the United States; but he addressed two letters to Lord Napier, one from Fort Warren, one from Fort La Fayette. Captain M'Donald, when seized upon a Russian railway, communicated from the scene of his confinement with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. The three naval officers arrested in Brazil were not denied the means of writing to the British Consul in a manner which brought about the speedy restoration of their freedom. For the conduct of the Russian authorities to Mr. Anderson, I doubt very much if any precedent is likely to suggest itself. My Lords, there is little more to add, and I shall not detain the House from other business on the paper. Better fortune was in store for Mr. Anderson. Not many hours after his arrest three English travellers, Mr. Clark, the Public Orator of the University of Cambridge, Mr. Birkbeck, who also holds a distinguished office in that learned body, and another gentleman, arrived at Grodno on their road to Wilna. They heard of the imprisonment directly from a source which they are still too considerate and too guarded to divulge. On Thursday, September 10, after various discouragements and many oscillations from one public office to another, they at length succeeded by the golden key which opens doors in Russia, in gaining access to the governor. The governor, although profuse in courtesy, declined to listen to them on the subject which they came to press upon him. It became quite clear to him, however, that the arrest of Mr. Anderson would no longer be concealed from our representatives or from our Foreign Office. The authorities retired from a game which the arrival of the three travellers had turned into a hopeless one. On Friday they saw Mr. Anderson. He was no longer kept a prisoner. After weeks of tedious correspondence between Lord Napier at St. Petersburg, and the authorities at Grodno, his freedom was regained. No doubt the highest credit is due to the exertions of the Public Orator and his companions; no doubt their exertions were successful. And it is not denied that Lord Napier backed them to the utmost of his power. But this in no way affects the outrage upon public law of which the Russians became guilty, when they denied to Mr. Anderson the means of correspondence with St. Petersburg or elsewhere. And it is no

  1229
  defence of this outrage that it ceased as soon as it became impossible to persevere in it. Nor does the final rescue of Mr. Anderson from prison affect the insecurity to which British travellers are liable by the proceedings first taken against him. The arrival of the Public Orator and his companions was wholly accidental, they might have pursued their journey without stopping at Grodno. It was accidental that they heard of Mr. Anderson's imprisonment. It was accidental that they had the time, the disposition, and the power to be useful to him. The functions of the Public Orator — as some of your Lordships know who have lately witnessed his performances— are too absorbing in their character to permit of his frequently arriving in distant parts of Europe the moment British subjects have been lawlessly detained. The wrong, therefore, and the insecurity resulting from it, are not affected by his happy interference in the case of Mr. Anderson, And it becomes material to ask in what manner it was brought under the notice of the Ministers at St. Petersburg; what language was employed, and what reparation was demanded?
  The Correspondence may be useful also in making our public hesitate before they move too far towards alliance with a country which is ready to trample on international and British rights, so long as darkness shelters it in doing so.
  The noble Lord then moved for an Address for
  "Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cabinet of St. Petersburg on the Imprisonment in Grodno of the Reverend Fortescue Anderson, a British Subject, during the Autumn of 1863; also, Copies of any Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Reverend Fortescue Anderson on his Imprisonment."
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, the case which the noble Lord had brought before the House was of a very simple character. It happened that in September, 1863, the Rev. Mr. Anderson went to visit a Polish proprietor near Grodno, at which time the country was in a state of insurrection. Two persons went before the Russian authorities and accused Mr. Anderson of furnishing arms and ammunition to the insurgents. Mr. Anderson was arrested; and when Lord Napier made inquiries upon the subject he was informed that the Russian authorities had examined into the case, and that finding no evidence against
  1230
  Mr. Anderson he had been liberated upon condition of leaving Russia. Afterwards a telegraphic message was sent from this country to procure Mr. Anderson's liberation, but before it was received the gentleman had been set free. Mr. Anderson then went to Bonn, and addressed a representation to the Foreign Office, claiming a pecuniary compensation. The matter was referred to the Queen's Advocate, upon whose report the Government declined to interfere in the case. Mr. Anderson, it seemed, had gone, for his pleasure merely, into a country that was in a state of insurrection, and that was a circumstance which naturally exposed him to suspicion; and the circumstances of his case did not present any grounds upon which an application could be made by the British Government to the Government of Russia. With respect to the papers, he did not see that any good purpose would be served by their production, and therefore he should decline to produce them.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEmade some remarks which were not heard.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, the case would have been different if the gentleman who was arrested had been in the country upon commercial business; but that was not so in this case.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, in reply, that unless the Correspondence, or part of it, was given, an unfavourable inference would be drawn as to the conduct of the Government.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he should not produce the papers unless he was pressed to do so; but if he produced any he should produce all.
  Motion agreed to.

CROWDED STATE OF PARK LANE.

  OBSERVATIONS,
  THE EARL OF LUCANrose to call the attention of the Government to the great public Inconvenience occasioned by the overcrowded State of Park Lane, and to the pressing Necessity of partially opening Hamilton Place for public Traffic. The noble Earl said that the state of Park Lane was too well known to make it necessary for him to dilate upon the inconvenience and danger arising from the obstructions that constantly took place there. Park Lane was a narrow, crooked thoroughfare, carrying the greatest amount of traffic through the narrowest space of any in

  1231
  London. He would remind their Lordships that until Kensington was reached, it was the only communication between the north-west and south-west of the metropolis. The extensive districts of Tyburnia, Paddington, Belgravia, Brompton, Pimlico, and Kensington had no other mode of intercommunication but Park Lane; and their Lordships must bear in mind that the great railways—the Great Western, the North Western, and the Great Northern—must communicate with the Victoria station and the South Western station by Park Lane, and consequently during the greater part of the twenty-four hours there was a constant stream of vehicles passing through it—drays, waggons and carts, cabs and gentlemen's carriages. There was a part of the street where, for the distance of 150 yards, the breadth of the carriage way from kerb stone to kerb stone was only 18 feet 6 inches. There had been constant complaints in the House of Commons of the accidents that were always occurring in this street, and it had been found necessary to station two policemen at the end of Park Lane. In this very narrow part of the street there were two public houses, which seemed to be extremely popular, for whenever he passed, he saw gentlemen's carriages standing in front; and near them was a corn chandler's, where carts seemed to be always loading and unloading. These of course greatly obstructed the thoroughfare. He believed it would be extremely difficult to find a greater inconvenience than Park Lane even in this metropolis, which was perhaps the worst regulated on the earth. There were two ways, no doubt, in which the evil might be entirely removed, or much mitigated. One side of Park Lane might he taken down. They might begin by removing Gloucester House, and there were some four or five other houses; but he believed they would not effect the desired improvement at a less cost than £170,000. Now unless it could be shown that there was no other way of relieving Park Lane, this would obviously be a most foolish expenditure of £170,000. The other plan would be the opening of Hamilton Place. It certainly would not be desirable that Hamilton Place should be open for general traffic; but he thought it might be opened for light traffic, such as that which is now allowed to pass through Lord Westminster's and the Duke of Bedford's property, or through the Park. What he proposed should pass through Hamilton
  1232
  Place were private carriages and cabs. He believed the cab traffic to be the most important in London; all men of business used cabs, and he had once read that a man without any extravagant expenditure might easily spend £200 a year in cabs. All lawyers and commercial men betook themselves to cabs. Objections, no doubt, were made to opening Hamilton Place. It was said that Hamilton Place was not wide enough. No doubt there was one part narrower than the rest. The narrowest part was opposite Nos. 5 and 6, where, after allowing 17 feet for the footway, there remained only 29 feet for carriages, which might easily be increased to 31 or 32. Seeing that the utmost width of a gentleman's carriage was 6 feet, and that a cab did not exceed 5 feet in width, if two gentlemen's carriages were standing on opposite sides of the street they would still leave space enough for three cabs to pass abreast. The great difficulty was how to deal with the Crown lessees. But if the Crown gave its consent he did not see why Crown lessees should he sacred or inviolable more than any other persons. There were only six proprietors, he believed, in all. The occupiers or leaseholders feared very much that their privacy was likely to he interfered with; and he admitted that with regard to No. 6 there would be considerable interference, because part of the garden of that house must be taken for the purpose of widening the footway. But a garden, he thought, was of very little value in London, and one which might be supposed to be capable of pecuniary compensation. With part of the neighbourhood he (the Karl of Lucan) was familiar, for his father built one of the houses, No. 4, and the earliest years of his life were spent in this house. He might venture to say that every good room in these houses looked towards the Park, and the lower rooms were left entirely to servants and children. The light traffic he suggested could hardly be supposed to interfere with them. He thought it would be well the lessees should understand what was commonly called "Give and take." When these Houses were constructed the public were allowed to come very nearly under the windows on the Park side. It was long after the houses were built that the gardens were placed there. The advantage gained by the lessees in respect to the gardens would be a very good set-off against any disadvantage to them from the opening of Hamilton Place. Private interests ought

  1233
  not to stand in the way of an urgent public improvement. The improvement he was suggesting was certainly as desirable as any now going on in the City of London. If private interests were always to be considered sacred from interference, we should never have a railway or any other public improvement. The authorities of the City of London were pulling down houses by the hundred, and ejecting the inhabitants by the thousand, for the proposed Holborn Valley improvement, which was estimated to cost £750,000. He wished to contrast the opening of Park Lane with what was proposed with respect to the Holborn Valley. He had read, in common with other noble Lords, the petition of a Mr. Pontifex, a gentleman who was spending some £1,500 a week in wages. Mr. Pontifex said that he should be required to give up his premises, not because the whole of them were wanted for the purposes of improvement, but in order that the site might be resold. The City of London had powers of taking land under their Act, and they were said to be taking a great deal more land than was necessary for their improvements, in order that they might Bell it again and thus reduce the estimated expenditure of £750,000. He thought that if the traffic of Park Lane could be relieved in the way he had described, the lessees might console themselves with the reflection that they had not to deal with the authorities of the City of London. Her Majesty herself had set a very good example in this respect. When Her Majesty opened the Parks to light traffic she made a very great sacrifice, and he thought the lessees of the Crown should follow her example. Having stated the grievance, he would now proceed to suggest a remedy. Several years ago an Act called the Metropolis Local Management was passed, by the 72nd clause of which it was provided that every vestry or district board should, with the consent in writing of the Metropolitan Board of Works, have power, within their respective parishes or districts, to extend, widen, or improve any street, road, or way, for the, purpose of facilitating traffic, or any other public purpose; and to take by agreement or gift any land, Crown land, or any other property: the expenses were to be paid out of a general rate; and they were empowered to raise any sums which might be necessary for carrying out such improvements. It appeared to him that that clause was applicable to the present case; and it was
  1234
  a matter of great surprise to him to find that the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, a very active member of which he perceived in his noble Friend opposite, should have allowed this clause to lie dormant for so long. He considered it to be the positive duty of the vestry to avail themselves of the powers contained in this Act, in order to carry out its provisions. His belief was that if the vestry were to put themselves into communication with the lessees, they would be able to make a satisfactory arrangement, and that the expense of the improvements in Hamilton Place would not exceed £5,000 or £6,000. The whole improvement might be effected at a cost of from £50,000 to £60,000, and, consequently, no additional Act of Parliament would be necessary. If the vestry could not come to an arrangement with the lessees, it would be open to them to obtain an Act of Parliament which would contain the necessary powers.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS, as s member of the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square—though neither an active nor an influential member—wished to say a few words in vindication of that body. According to his noble Friend's statement Park Lane was a means of communication between enormous districts in the north and others in the south of London, and yet his noble Friend wished to impose upon the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, the burden of effecting this great metropolitan improvement. The Vestry of St. George's were the representatives of the ratepayers of that parish, and were bound to watch over the interests of that body. It was bound to remove inconveniences crated by the parish itself, but not those created by the whole metropolis. The duty of carrying out improvements of a general character was intrusted to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had the power of defraying the expense by levying a rate over the whole metropolis. If the whole of the metropolis was to be benefited, the whole ought to contribute, and the burden ought not to he thrown solely on the parish of St. George's. He thought, therefore, the vestry of that parish could not be justly accused of supineness or apathy. His noble Friend had not stated, and their Lordships did not know, whether the First Commissioner of Works was prepared to assent to this improvement on the part of the Crown, and it was highly probable that the lessees would refuse to produce the leases under which they held.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, their Lord-ships would agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) that the overcrowded state of Park Lane occasioned a perpetual nuisance owing to the stoppages which constantly occurred there. The real question was how it could he relieved, and there was a difference of opinion respecting the best mode of doing this. Some years ago a Committee of the other House recommended, by way of improvement, that Hamilton Place should be opened for traffic. The First Commissioner introduced a Bill for that purpose, but it was opposed by the Treasury on two grounds—first, that in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown it would be a breach of faith with the lessees to open Hamilton Place; and, secondly, that it was not the business of the Government but of the Metropolitan Board of Works to make the opening. He believed the matter was now under the consideration of the Metropolitan Board.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he could hardly think the statement of the noble Earl the President of the Council to be valid. In the first place, the Law Officers of the Crown did not appear to be consistent in their opinions. Three years ago he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been ejected from a house which had been held by his family for upwards of eighty years, on the assigned reason that it was required for a temporary Foreign Office. He received the value of his lease, and some compensation for the inconvenience to which he was subjected. He did not believe that the lessees of Hamilton Place would resist any fair proposal that might be made to them. With respect to the argument that these improvements ought to be paid for out of the general rates of the metropolis, he did not think there was much force in it. The argument might have been a good one twenty or thirty years ago, but now it did not stand upon the same ground. The fact, was that the impediment was caused by the enormous concourse of people whom the railways brought from the country. If the metropolis were left to the regular inhabitants there would be room for every one in the streets, but owing to the new invention of railways, which gave facilities to every one to come to London, the streets were becoming choked. He thought, therefore, it would only be fair that the improvements rendered necessary by this influx of visitors should be paid for out of the general taxation; indeed, no tax could be
  1236
  more fair than a general tax for the relief of the principal streets of London.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that the inconvenience now experienced in Park Lane would be remedied to a great extent by simple police regulation. It was a most monstrous thing that the whole traffic should be stopped because one or too tradesmen choose to allow their carts to stand for hours together at their doors. One cart standing at a particular part of the Lane, just opposite the entrance of his house, permitted only one line of carriages to pass, putting an entire stop to the flow the other way. He did not see why the police should not have power to prevent any carts being allowed to stop in Park Lane for two, four, or five minutes at a time. He did not know whether they had the power, but was told they had not, and it was a power which might advantageously be intrusted to them. He agreed with his noble Friend who had just spoken, that the railways had an effect upon the streets of the metropolis. Since he (the Duke of Cambridge) had lived where he did, the traffic through Park Lane had enormously increased. This was caused, to a great extent, by the opening of the Victoria station. Formerly there were no omnibuses passing down Park Lane; now there was a regular service of them; and the flow from the Paddington station to that of Victoria was enormous. He might assume that this was not the proper London traffic, and he could not help thinking that the expense of the improvements should he borne not by the ratepayers of St. George's or of the metropolis, but by the country generally.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that nothing more was required to relieve Park Lane than to give the public possession of the small angle of the Park between Grosvenor Gate and Hyde Park Corner. The communication between Bayswater and Kensington had been facilitated in a similar way. No expense would be thrown either upon the metropolis or upon the country at large.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [H.L.] (No. 30.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was to provide that any person ac-

  1237
  cepting office in a public school should do so subject to the future legislation of Parliament.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he wished to take this occasion to refer to one or two points raised the other evening by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope). His noble Friend had hardly done justice to the head master of Eton in representing him to have said that at Eton nothing was done in the way of teaching English. It was true that at Eton nothing was done in regard to the direct teaching of English, but the head master distinctly stated in his evidence that they did profess to teach English through the teaching of the classics; and if proper attention were paid to the matter, no doubt a very real and substantial amount of instruction in English might be imparted in that way; but it was a question whether it was enough. His noble Friend had expressed an opinion that undue prominence was given in the recommendations of the Commissioners to the subject of applied mathematics. The Commissioners, however, were bound to consult, not merely their own views, but the state of public feeling in the country, and the opinions of men of experience and authority. Accordingly, in assigning the positions they had done to applied mathematics, they had been guided very much by the evidence of the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, Dr. Whewell. In regard to physical science, he must confess his own ignorance of the subject, he had, therefore, no personal authority on the subject; but he felt that, in face of the testimony borne by such men as Sir Charles Lyell, Professor Owen, Professor Faraday, and other eminent men of science, the Commissioners would not have been justified in recommending less than they had done. This matter was connected with another, which he might term rather elegant accomplishments than learning—music and drawing. His noble Friend opposite (Earl Stanhope) had made some very amusing observations, that a man who did not like music did not necessarily like drawing, and vice versâ. Now, it was very well known that as a general rule boys did not like any work at all; and what the Commissioners desired was that the opportunity of ascertaining whether they had capacity and taste for certain studies should be not only offered, but actually forced on them, without which they never would know it. It had been stated that many persons in ma-
  1238
  ture life, having discovered an aptitude for particular branches of natural science, had expressed deep regret that their attention had not been called to these subjects when they were young. It was in order to draw out the dormant powers of the boys that the Commissioners wished these things to be brought before them; and he had no doubt they would be thankful for the recommendation. These studies or accomplishments were generally taught in private schools and in families; and there appeared no reason why they could not be introduced into the public schools with advantage. There was no risk of the health of the boys being injured by the addition of these new subjects of study. The actual amount of work would not be increased, although there would be greater variety. It was his own opinion and he believed that of several of his colleagues on the Commission, that in one or two of the public schools, and especially in some of the greater and more important establishments, the amount of work might be, augmented without any danger to health; but in no case would the recommendations of the Commissioners necessarily lead to any increase of labour. Indeed, in certain respects, they had even advised a diminution in the amount of work done. He was anxious that there should be no misapprehension on this matter, and he would just state the distribution which they proposed of an Eton boy's day. Eight hours would be allowed for sleep, two hours for meals, and a short daily chapel service, while the remaining fourteen would be equally divided between work and recreation—seven hours to each. The work would include all the preparation of school tasks, in which some boys might be slower than others, but which all would be able to accomplish without losing their share of relaxation. They recommended that, with all those safeguards, when a boy had arrived at a certain age he should be enabled to drop certain parts of his work, if he had clearly shown inaptitude for them, in order to take up other parts in which he had proved himself likely to succeed better. They recommended that this course might be adopted when a boy was about sixteen years of age. His noble Friend opposite had said, when a boy was arriving at proficiency in a subject the Commissioners would take him from it. That was precisely what they would not do; but when a boy had not arrived at proficiency in a particular study, and showed no likelihood

  1239
  of doing so, they recommended that he should be removed from it and put to other work. The recommendation was one which he hoped the House would adopt, because it was based upon some very strong evidence; he referred particularly to that of Mr. Evans, at Rugby. There was little more with which he wished to detain the House, except in reference to what had been said about Greek and Latin composition. In his admirable Life of Pitt, his noble Friend opposite (Earl Stanhope) said, he thought perhaps with somewhat questionable accuracy, that that great man was not a proficient in the "laborious inutilities of classical metre." That was his noble Friend's expression, and it was one which had rankled in his mind ever since he read it. And the other day his noble Friend said that the verses done for the Person Prize for Greek Iambics at Cambridge were a preposterous attempt. [Earl STANHOPE: I never said anything of the kind.] Yes; his noble Friend said that if the shadow of Shakespeare could revisit the earth he would turn to raillery the preposterous attempts made to put him into Greek metre—Shakespeare or Massinger, or some such dramatist, being the authors selected for those Iambics, and that was the Person Prize. He apprehended that Shakespeare did not know Greek; but if his noble Friend could find a single person acquainted with Shakespeare and also with the Greek tragedians who would adopt his opinion that the Porson Prize Poems were preposterous productions, he would almost promise to agree with his noble Friend likewise. His noble Friend had alluded to the Germans. They were, no doubt, very laborious and deeply learned; but in knowledge of the languages he was not aware that they excelled English scholars. Nor could his noble Friend produce one Oxford or Cambridge tutor among those who had given evidence before the Commission who had advocated the abolition of that practice. One eminent man, Mr. Neate, might be quoted; but he was no witness for his noble Friend, as he went far beyond him, and was for abolishing the study of Greek altogether. The question was, if any one could be found who, while in favour of the study of Greek, was against Greek composition. Dean Liddell had been quoted, but he, though he gave some damaging evidence as to the imperfect preparation of boys from public schools, was certainly not against the practice of composition. And with regard to Dr. Whewell,
  1240
  as an old pupil of his, he spoke with the utmost reverence of him; but he would himself admit that the classical languages were not the subject in which he spoke with special authority. He ventured to say that no such authority could be found. His noble Friend had wholly overlooked the great general argument against him— namely, the intense pleasure, delight, and interest which boys with any turn for the classics manifested in Greek and Latin composition. No doubt he spoke from experience, and, perhaps, with some little bias; but he was sure not only he but others felt both at Eton and Cambridge the utmost pleasure in the work of composition. Half their interest in their work would have been removed if composition had been taken away. He thought it was wise in the present Session to limit legislation on these matters to the extent proposed; and he agreed to a great extent with their Colleague in the House of Commons (Sir Stafford Northcote), that the main object of Parliament should be to reform the governing bodies of the schools and then wait and see what they would do themselves in the way of improvement. Whether the Government ought to appoint an Executive Commission to negotiate with the schools on points of detail was another point; but at present he held that the main thing for Parliament to do was to reform the governing bodies. The Commissioners had recommended in almost all of the schools the addition to the governing body of a small number of persons of distinction appointed by the Crown. If he was concerned in the management of one of those schools, he should be of opinion that such a system would add honour and dignity to the establishment. Recently a good deal had been done to improve schools. The most of these attempts had been made since the appointment of the Commission; but he hoped that what had been done in this way would be regarded as merely provisional, and would be overhauled by the new governing bodies. He had heard with regret that in some of the schools there was some soreness and some complaints of unfairness on the part of the Commissioners. But he must say that having regard to the nature and extent of the work undertaken by the Commissioners, it was hardly to be expected that this could be altogether avoided; and he did not think any serious objection had been taken to the general scope of the inquiry or

  1241
  to the conduct of the Government in having appointed a Commission. He had always thought that after the Universities had been subjected to a severe inquisition, it was quite impossible for those great schools to escape inquiry, or to be left to self-action for reform in their system. Before sitting down he begged to acknowledge in the heartiest way on the part of the Commissioners the spirit in winch they had been met by the heads of the various schools. The Government were met in the same way in the first instance, when the late Sir George Lewis opened communications with the authorities of these nine schools; and there was not one subject as to which they were not willing to co-operate with the Commissioners. As to the proposals made in the Report, many of the Commissioners had the utmost affection for these schools, and would have been better satisfied if they could have recommended that less change should take place in them. But the Commissioners felt bound to report according to the evidence as they found it, and he hoped their Lordships would approve the spirit in which they conducted this inquiry.
  LORD DE ROSexpressed his surprise at the statement of the Commissioners, that hoys of nineteen or twenty went to the University from the Public Schools grossly ignorant of the classics, knowing very little of the Christian religion, and not desirous of learning more. Why, was it possible their Lordships did not recollect that the Christian religion was inculcated in these young men by their mothers and guardians in early infancy, and was it likely they would permit such gross neglect as that young gentlemen of Eton should go up to the Universities in this state of ignorance? Then it was said to be the habit of some of the Eton boys to get half drunk on the Sunday afternoon in public-houses. Why, there never was a grosser calumny. The "Christophers" was not a public-house where bargemen or such persons went; when any of their Lordships went at four o'clock to their clubs for a glass of sherry it might as well be said that they went to drink at public-houses. On certain days the Eton boys might be seen wandering all over the country, but there was hardly an instance of complaint against them on the part of farmers and gardeners. This could not be said of private schools. When Dr. Hawtrey showed a French gentleman the boys at their boating, cricketing, and other amusements, the visitor said, "This is all
  1242
  very delightful; but where is your surveillance?" To which Dr. Hawtrey replied, "We have no surveillance; that is my system." He certainly thought that an Eton boy was an admirable model of what an English gentleman ought to be. In the army the colonels of the best regiments always said, "Give us an Eton boy." And in the navy the same thing was said. He confessed that he thought the details of these schools might be too much meddled with, and that it was dangerous to interfere with a system which had given satisfaction for so long a period. In the Report of the Commissioners a good deal was said about fagging. Now, he thought this was one of the most useful trials to which boys were exposed. In early days he had the honour of frequently cleaning the shoes of the most rev. Prelate at the head of the Bishops' Bench, and he had never found himself the worse for it. The most rev. Prelate treated him with the kindness and good nature which his Grace had ever since displayed, and he (Lord de Ros) had never felt degraded by fagging for him in this way. He hoped, therefore, that no recommendations of the Commission would affect the practice of fagging. With regard to Greek Iambics, he agreed that it would be far better to substitute for them some modern language—French or German.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEthought that the evidence of the Dean of Christ Church as to the classical knowledge of the young men who went up to the University could not be very much depended upon, because it was notorious that no young men whatever went to Christ Church for the purpose of reading. They were supposed to be rich, and went to the University mainly for amusement. There might also be some little wish on the part of the Dean to uphold the School of Westminster; but, before he made such sweeping assertions, it might be well that he should look better at home.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I certainly think that the statement of the Dean of Christ Church was one of the most astounding I ever heard, and one which, so far as my own limited means of information goes, is hardly borne out by my own recollection of the facts. I must, however, protest against the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose), that Members of Christ Church go there merely for amusement. My Lords, I do not think that such has been and I hope

  1243
  that such never will be the case, though I hope also that amusements will always form a considerable part of the pursuits there. As to the Bill itself, I do not think it desirable to oppose it; but, at the same time, I beg to observe that considerable alteration may be necessary when we go into Committee. It was only this afternoon that on reading the Bill I became aware of what seems to me an extraordinary proposal. The preamble sets forth that—
  "Whereas it is expedient that no impediment should be created to the free action of the Legislature in making the said changes in the governing bodies of the said colleges and schools, by the acquisition of vested interests in the property of the said colleges and schools, by persons who may be appointed to offices in the governing bodies thereof, after the date of the introduction of this Act into the House of Commons."
  Why the House of Commons? Why should it not date from the period of its introduction into this House?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: It is a mistake in the first print of the Bill. The Bill is now to date from its introduction into the House of Lords.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: That is all very well; but it is by no means the whole of my objection, for if this Bill is to run from the date of its introduction into this House—
  EARL GRANVILLE: The 30th of May.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: Then a great and an unjustifiable wrong will be done by the operation of the Bill. On the 1st of June a gentleman who has been an assistant-master and lower master at Eton for twenty-five or thirty years was elected a Fellow; and, therefore, if this Bill is to stand in its present form, it would by one single day cut him off from the hard-earned fruits of his long service; it would be a direct privilegium levied against him — a Bill of pains and penalties to deprive him of the position to which he has so long looked forward. Such a proposal would be perfectly monstrous, and I conclude that the Committee will, without any hesitation, strike out these words. Now as to the subjects which have arisen in the course of this debate, I think all parties agree that classical studies should be made the foundation and groundwork of our school teaching. The only difference of opinion is as to the nature and extent of the additions to be made in the school work, and the relation which these additions are to bear to the
  1244
  original field of studies existing in the various schools. Your Lordships will see that there are two principal and obvious considerations—first, the time available for these additional studies; and, secondly, looking to the age and the variety of intellect of the boys, the nature and extent of these studies. Bearing this in mind, and applying it to the observations made by my noble Friend as to Greek composition, I should be inclined to draw a strong line of demarcation between Greek composition in verse and prose. It seems to me that the study of prose is necessary and most profitable, but that the study of verse is more a matter of luxury. I, for one, should be glad to see the study of Greek verse confined to the highest forms of public schools. Exercise in composition in prose, however, I think is absolutely necessary in order to attain grammatical accuracy and scholarship. But it is perfectly clear that so long as the Universities maintain Greek composition as an integral part of their system, and assign honours to it, so long will it be necessary for public schools, in preparing boys for the Universities, to bestow close attention on the subject. My noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton) advocates the addition of a very large amount of work to that already imposed, and he has numbered up the various studies which it is proposed to add. They consist of modern languages, either French or German, music or drawing, and history. I think your Lordships will agree with me in the opinion that the most important of these recommendations is the study of modern languages,- especially French. I would not for a moment undervalue the acquisition of French or any other modern language. On the contrary, I attach the highest possible importance to that department of study. I would give a boy every encouragement in the study of foreign languages, and make success a point of honour with him. I would make failure a point of shame; but I think it is absolutely impracticable to incorporate them as an integral portion of the public school system, and I think I can show the House ample reasons for that opinion. Obviously the best, if not the only good, mode of teaching French is by means of a French master; but if you employ a French teacher to teach French, and incorporate the French as an integral part of your system, the result will be that you must place the French master upon the same

  1245
  footing and give him the same authority as the other assistant - masters. The other assistant-masters, however, have intrusted to them the maintenance of discipline, the formation of the mind, and the inculcation of certain great principles and traditions which are handed down from one generation to another, and in the performance of these duties I absolutely deny that a foreign master can take any part. If this view be correct, you are driven to the necessity of teaching French, not by French, but by English masters. Is it possible to conceive that an English master can undertake such a duty in a. public school like Eton? I acknowledge that it is quite possible for the master to be critically and grammatically correct, but, to take the most obvious objection, he must, in nine cases out of ten, find some difficulties in accentuation. It would, consequently, be in the power of any clever and intelligent lad who, from family reasons, had been educated abroad to turn his master into such ridicule that his authority would be endangered. But it has been urged that this mode of instruction is already adopted in some public schools. That I believe to be quite true; but I would ask whether the result has been successful? I hold in my hands conclusive evidence to show that no such success has practically attended these studies. As to conversation in French, it has been acknowledged that boy will learn more of the language in three months' residence a road than in five or six years' study at home. I say, then, that it is a simple waste of time to attempt to incorporate these studies with your present school system, because you must sacrifice classics and other work in order to make room for them. As to the music and drawing, I shall not enter upon the discussion of their merits. I beg, however, to enter my protest against the proposed study of English composition. I have been at a loss to know what is meant by English composition. Is it intended to turn out all these boys as great authors and poets when they leave school? Such a result would be a most terrible infliction. All that is necessary for a boy when leaving school is, so far as composition is concerned, that he shall be able to write a clear and intelligible letter and draw up a clear and intelligible statement. The best discipline for the study of English composition is not to be found in the study of the English language as such
  1246
  in the first instance, but in the study of Latin literature, which gives you the key, so to speak, of the greater part of the European literature. I should as soon have thought that the Commissioners would have recommended that the boys should be taught Lindley Murray as that they should be specially taught English composition. I think that classical studies, if fairly worked out and completely mastered, are the best introduction to every other department of study. So, too, with regard to the study of modern history, the boy who has mastered thoroughly the history of the Roman Commonwealth, will best understand the constitutional history of England in Hallam, and the boy who has become perfectly acquainted with the rivalries and jealousies of the Greek States will most readily appreciate the complicated relationship of the Italian republics as viewed in the pages of Sismondi. The Commissioners recommend also the study of natural science, which, as they themselves admit, involves chymistry on the one hand, and physics on the other. But is it supposed that it will be possible for a boy to master even a portion of the subjects comprised under all these bends— especially when the numerous divisions and sub-divisions are taken into account? The only subjects upon which I think all would desire to see an increase of study attempted in our public schools are French and mathematics, though the former, as I have said, cannot well be made obligatory. There is an impression abroad that the Commissioners, with the very best intention, in their Report, are endeavouring to do too much, by imposing upon boys an amount of study which they cannot possibly give. If that be so, one of two evils will happen—either you will raise the standard of education at our public schools to too high a level, and thus do mischief to the boys by imposing too difficult a task, or you will greatly contribute to produce that most mischievous of all mischievous systems—cramming. I am sure that my noble Friends in their Report have no intention of doing anything of that kind, but such, I am convinced, will be the result of the course they propose to take. You may give a smattering of education—a general knowledge upon many points—but that general knowledge will, in the long run, turn out to be but particular ignorance. I have to apologize for having occupied your Lordships' time—but while I have thought it my duty to express my

  1247
  views with some particularity, and to criticize somewhat freely the Report of the Commissioners, I beg my noble Friend to believe that I am not blind to its merits, and the great care which has been bestowed upon it.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that having been educated at Eton, he naturally felt great interest in the subject before the House. He could not agree with the noble Lord who had just spoken, in defending without qualification the system of education pursued at Eton. He admitted that that system had many good points, but he also agreed with the Commissioners that it required very considerable modification. He accepted classics as the basis of education, but he thought there were other subjects to which greater attention should be given than was at present done, and that some branches of education which were not now taught should be added. He would remind their Lordships that education had two objects—one, the training and strengthening the faculties of the mind, and the other the acquisition of useful knowledge. Of the two, perhaps the former was the most important. To some extent the system pursued at Eton was deficient in its means to obtain these results, and especially as to that important branch of education—the acquisition of the French language. He regretted to hear his noble Friend say that French ought not to be made a part of the education, as he did not think it was fair to allow boys belonging to the highest classes in the country to pass through their time at Eton without being compelled to acquire a sound knowledge of the French language. It was inconvenient and sometimes difficult for a young man after the age of eighteen to acquire a knowledge of a not very easy language. He would not go beyond French, but the study of that language, he contended, ought to be made an integral part of education; and he would not be deterred from insisting upon that condition by any difficulty of employing a French master. Indeed, he could not see why a distinguished French gentleman might not accept a post at Eton or other public schools, to teach French, just as the master who taught Latin. Then it was said that as some changes had been made at Eton, therefore no other changes were required. He could not take that view. It was to the credit of the Eton masters that they had made some useful changes, and he only wanted them to go somewhat further in the
  1248
  same direction. He had often noticed to masters at Eton that it was an actual disgrace to the school to send up to Cambridge, where mathematics was held in peculiar esteem, young men in whose education that study had not been made an integral part. That consideration, urged by others of greater authority, had prevailed with the Eton masters, who had made a salutary change by introducing mathematics as an integral part of school work. That instance showed that it was possible to make some changes in a good system of teaching without injury to general results. He only wished to add French as a branch of study, for he did not agree with the Commissioners that music and drawing ought to be made parts of public school work. He even felt a doubt as to the natural sciences, although a lecturer upon those subjects might be of advantage to the boys. The introduction of these additional branches of education might, to some extent, justify an observation made on a former evening that too much work would be imposed upon the boys, and that, therefore, it was necessary to consider whether any portion of the present studies could be reduced. That consideration brought him to the much debated questions of Greek and Latin composition. Upon that point he had always held a strong opinion, believing that too much time was devoted to verse making; to be sure he had never attained that proficiency in it which had been displayed by the noble Lord near him (Lord Lyttelton). In former days at Eton, the making of Latin and Greek verses was held to be a most essential part of education; but he desired to see the time occupied in that way materially reduced. There was only one other point to which he would advert. The Report of the Commissioners had been regarded as speaking unfavourably of Eton, which belief had raised a spirit of opposition. He would much regret if that were so, as the labours of the Commissioners had been most useful to public schools, and had been conducted in a spirit of fairness to the public schools which he hoped would he responded to. It was quite true that there were many boys who went from Eton to Christ Church imperfectly prepared; but then, again, there had been many young men from Eton who had greatly distinguished themselves. If, therefore, Eton could produce such creditable pupils, he urged upon the masters of the school to make such judicious alterations in the

  1249
  system of education as would raise the average results. There could be no doubt that a considerable number of boys had left Eton in a state of ignorance which reflected no credit upon the school. That fact had been stated by the Commissioners, and the reasons given, together with the remedies they suggested, and he hoped the good sense and public spirit and love for the school which prevailed among Eton masters would induce them to adopt such of the recommendations of the Commissioners as would remedy the evils admitted to exist.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he desired to any a few words in explanation of what had fallen from a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon). The noble Earl had spoken of the date at which the Bill was to take effect. He regretted if the delay in bringing in the Bill should have done any harm to any one, for certainly that was not the intention of the Commissioners. Those who were interested in a reform of certain schools had wished that it should date from the presentation of the Public Schools Commissioners' Report; but that was felt to be too strong a proceeding. The course of dating the Bill from the period of its introduction was, he was informed, according to usage and precedent in such cases, Their Lordships were aware that the Commissioners had reported in favour of certain changes in the governing bodies of schools; but if new interests were created it was manifest that the changes would be postponed, and the object of the Commissioners defeated, because Parliament always dealt lightly with vested interests. He did not think any objection would have been raised to the Bill if it had not been for the particular case to which the noble Earl had drawn attention. But if the Bill was not actually brought in, the intention to bring it in was announced a month ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must, therefore, have been notorious to the Provost and Fellows of Eton. They must also have been aware of the recommendations in the Report of the Commissioners. It would, therefore, have been only wise and proper that they should have communicated with the Government as to the line which they intended to pursue. There was, therefore, the knowledge they might have had and the knowledge they must have had of the actual introduction of the Bill, and with that knowledge they had proceeded to elect a
  1250
  Fellow. The gentleman so elected must have known that he took the election subject to any change that Parliament might think proper to adopt. The proceeding at Harrow was very different. The appointment which had been made there was accepted subject to any future change if the school were remodelled. His feeling, however, was this—he would much rather postpone a reform than do injustice; and, therefore, if it were the opinion of their Lordships that the Bill should not be operative till it passed he should have no objection.
  LORD BROUGHAMbegged to express on his own behalf, on behalf of nil the friends of education and of the community at large, the deepest obligations to his noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) and his Colleagues for the able and diligent manner in which they had conducted this great inquiry, the result of which was the production of a body of great bulk, and certainly of unprecedented value, of the most important information derived from the most authentic sources, and accompanied with valuable suggestions. Even those who differed from those suggestions and other parts of the Report were entirely agreed as to the great ability and diligence which had been shown by the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he did not rise to enter at length on the great question of education at our public schools — a subject which he felt convinced affected the future destinies of the country; but he was anxious to say a few words upon one point, on which he thought the Report of the Commissioners hail been somewhat misunderstood. If the object of their recommendation had been to impose an additional amount of labour on an industrious boy he should have considered it more injurious than useful. But the object of the Commissioners was entirely different. They did not want an industrious boy to work more, their object was to give work to the idle by enlarging the choice of their studies. They took a very narrow view of education who would give a boy only the knowledge of two dead languages, and yet that appeared to be the average result of our educational system. With every admiration for the Greek and Latin languages, and fully sensible of the advantages to be tie-rived from their study, he would nevertheless object to say that if a boy had no turn for Greek and Latin he should study nothing else, and that he should be either

  1251
  a dunce or an idiot. Boys might be found by the hundred who, although they had no turn for Greek and Latin, had very good understandings, and it was a great hardship that because they could not attach themselves to the study of the classics they were not to be instructed in other branches of knowledge. It was not always the case that boys who attained the greatest proficiency in classical studies afterwards became the most useful members of society. The Commissioners intended to give other objects of study; how they were to be adopted was the difficulty. Where pronunciation entered so largely into the possession and utility of modern languages it would be exceedingly difficult to engraft them on an English school. The difficulty was not confined to England. Foreign nations had found the difficulty themselves. But with regard to mathematics and physical science there might be a much larger infusion of that element, not so much to make a busy boy do more as to give boys a choice of studies. This was done at Marlborough School. Therefore he hailed the Report of the Commissioners as turning the attention of all those who had to do with public schools to the importance of enlarging their sphere of study. What was wanted was, not that the work for industrious boys should be increased, but that the number of boys who were industrious should be increased. It was a scandal that English gentlemen should so often be wholly ignorant of the commonest things pertaining to physical science, while the less cultivated classes were familiar with them. As to the controversy which had been going on relative to Greek composition, his own impression was that no man could understand a language well without writing in it. Although not agreeing in all the suggestions of the Commissioners, he yet approved them in the main, and anticipated great benefit from their adoption.
  THE EARL OF POWISwas understood to suggest that the precedent set in a former Act, in regard to the filling up of cathedral appointments, should be followed in the present Bill—namely, that the Bill should only apply to appointments to be filled up after the passing of it.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexpressed his dissent from the statement made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) with respect to Rugby School. He understood the noble Earl to say, that the attempt of Dr. Arnold to engraft the study of modern languages in the
  1252
  ordinary studies of that school had been a complete failure. But his own experience in that matter was quite the reverse. It was true they might not be able to impart a Parisian accent to the boys who learned French at a public school, but they could be taught to read the French language and literature, and so be put in the way of more easily acquiring a more delicate and intimate knowledge of the language if they should afterwards have the good fortune to spend a short time in France. He agreed with the noble Earl that it would not be easy for a Frenchman or German speaking English imperfectly to teach a number of English boys; but it was not impossible that both French and German might be taught by persons who were not natives of France or Germany. When he first took charge of Rugby School, the Chevalier Bunsen had mentioned to him the name of a linguist of European reputation, who afterwards became Professor of Modern Languages at Oxford, as being a man who then might undertake the office of instructing boys at Rugby in modern languages. So that it was quite possible to find foreigners of the highest capacity to undertake the office of instructing boys in public schools in modern languages. Again, many an Englishman of education had spent great part of his life abroad, and would afterwards be qualified to teach a. foreign language in a public school. He believed that at Rugby there was now an Englishman who was able to teach German and teach it well; while another foreigner, who was not a Frenchman, was able to teach French with great advantage to his pupils. He wished further to state that his experience did not lead him to suppose that instruction in the modern languages at all diminished boys' opportunities of acquiring a knowledge of the ancient classics. On that point he would refer to what was stated in the evidence of the Dean of Christ Church respecting Eton. The accuracy of that evidence had been questioned by the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose); but the Dean of Christ Church was not a likely person to make any statement of which he was not prepared to prove the accuracy. Now, certainly, modern languages were neglected at Eton, and yet Eton did not possess a higher reputation for classical teaching than many establishments in which the modern languages were taught. He thought the speech of the noble Earl op-

  1253
  posite was calculated to do mischief, by giving his great authority to the idea that the public schools were at present in so satisfactory a state that they did not require any of the reforms recommended by; the Commissioners. He should be sorry to force any particular system of education on the public schools, because any change to be useful must be made voluntarily. He believed there was every disposition on their part to adopt the very valuable suggestions made by the Commissioners, and he trusted that the noble Earl's remarks would not tend to impress them with the idea that they were now so perfect that they needed no improvement. What was wanted in all these schools was that they should have the best possible master. They should do away with the restriction, where it existed, as to selecting the master from the teaching staff. It was often better to introduce fresh blood and a little free trade in these as in most other matters. Then, if the best head master possible were appointed, let him have liberty to carry out suggested improvements. Public opinion would be brought to bear upon him, and they would then get the best possible system of instruction. He would hare liked to see in the Report some recommendation for making it more easy for classes not in opulent circumstances to avail themselves of the public schools. All the recommendations he had seen rather went the other way. The present practice of receiving a number of boys from the town or neighbourhood in which the school was situated was disparaged, and an examination at which a few clever boys should obtain scholarships was rather suggested as a substitute. Now, at Rugby, a number of widows of naval officers, clergymen, and others of that class, availed themselves of the opportunity of living there to send their sons to school. He did not say that that might not be altered with some advantage, but he did not think it would be well to rely entirely on competitive examinations for introducing the sons of persons in narrow circumstances. There was a tendency to think that it was their duty to educate clever boys only, whereas the object of these schools was to educate stupid boys as well. He was not clear that Sir Walter Scott or the late Duke of Wellington would have succeeded in such an examination. He was anxious to see these schools made available to the largest possible portion of the upper classes of this country.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was anxious to take that opportunity of declaring his views were in accordance with those of the right rev. Prelate. He was quite sure that whatever advantage might be derived from the education of a particular number of clever boys in foundation schools, which were more or less of an eleemosynary character—and he did not deny that some benefit might be obtained from open scholarships even in those schools —anything like the rejection of boys who might not be thought clever would defeat the intention of the original founders, and would be contrary to the duty of the trustees. It would be a great misfortune if, for the purpose of encouraging a few clever boys to obtain advantages which probably they might not require, the managers of grammar schools should pay no attention; to the benevolent intention of founders to provide a good education for boys whose parents were in moderate circumstances, and who otherwise might be unable to acquire the advantages of a good education —at all events to the same extent. He wished to make one or two observations on another point adverted to in the Report of the Commissioners, to which the attention of Parliament had not been directed in the; course of the recent discussions. He mentioned it because he was afraid that some of the recommendations of the Commissioners tended to aggravate that which he could not help thinking was a prevailing and increasing evil. Although he believed it was necessary to add to the present course of study at public schools a greater I attention to mathematics, history, and some of the modern languages, yet he was afraid that the recommendations of the Commissioners, if carried out to their full extent, would introduce such an amount of variety that they would rather tend to foster a superficial education in a great number of subjects without a well-grounded knowledge of any one of them. He hoped the country would understand that whatever alterations might be made in the public school system, the real evil could not be removed I by the public schools themselves—that was to say, boys were now sent to a public school I at a comparatively advanced age, with very little groundwork of education, but with a considerable amount of superficial knowledge of a great number of things, which was not only not a good groundwork of education, but was actually worse than no foundation at all. The other day a head master told him that he had in his school

  1255
  boys of the ago of fourteen, three of fifteen years, and one of sixteen, who were just beginning, after two years spent in the school, to work their way through the easiest Latin books, such as were the usual studies of boys of ten. He went on to say — and to this he (the Earl of Derby)requested particular attention, that certain private schools, piqued themselves upon the great progress their boys made; whereas they made no progress whatever in anything which deserved the name of education. He mentioned one boy who came to him with a great reputation for lyrics, but who knew little or nothing of the Latin grammar, and another who had gone through the greater part of Newton, but who in reality could not do the simplest problems in Euclid. Such boys were afterwards sent to college, and their parents were frequently dissatisfied with the progress they made there, but the truth was they had to begin everything over again; it was impossible to ground a boy in Latin grammar, which was the basis of all grammar, twice over, and if he had not had the groundwork laid early he had no foundation upon which the superstructure could be raised. A public school was not a place for teaching the elements of grammar, for it was not possible there to give the requisite attention to each particular boy, to find out what his difficulties were, to assist him in getting over them, and to make him fag at the hard work which must be encountered at the beginning of all grammar, and which ought to be done either at home or in a private school. Whatever, then, might be the defects of the public school teaching, he believed a large proportion arose, not from the public school system, but from the fact that hoys were sent to Eton or Harrow partially instructed up to a certain point in a great number of things, but really ignorant of the first elements of education. It was impossible, in teaching the Latin grammar, to follow the plan suggested by the Irish gentleman who, on being told that the first two lessons were the hardest, proposed to begin with the third. Where the first and second lessons were not thoroughly mastered there could be no foundation to build upon, and he hoped parents and the teachers of private schools would be impressed with the conviction that it was their business to lay the groundwork, thus giving the public schools and the Universities a fair chance of being able to rear the superstructure. If, on the other hand, they persisted in
  1256
  contenting themselves with imparting a superficial knowledge of a great number of things, which was not education at all, or even the foundation of it, their work would be thrown away, and all the labour of public schools would be incapable of producing fruit.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the noble Earl could be scarcely aware how the Commissioners were at one with him in this point. He hoped that the noble Earl's remarks would go forth to the country, and that the attention of parents and persons interested in education would be drawn to that portion of the Report in which the Commissioners commented at some length and with some spirit on the state of ignorance in which boys were sent to the public schools. It was exactly because they thought, as his noble Friend thought, that boys should be grounded at school, that they had recommended that there should be an examination for entrance to the public schools, that examination to be proportionate and adapted to the age of the boys.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that as an old head master, he desired to tender his cordial thanks to the Commissioners for the patient industry and indefatigable zeal with which they had prosecuted their inquiries, and for the most valuable Report which they had presented to Her Majesty; so valuable that it had been read everywhere with avidity. It was agreed on all sides that classical literature should be the staple of public school education, the object of which was, not to communicate a vast amount of information, but to cultivate the moral and intellectual faculties—and (if he might venture to speak of the intellect as an instrument)—to strengthen, sharpen, and polish the intellect to the highest degree, so that it might be made as efficient as possible for any purpose to which it might be applied in after life. The danger of introducing too many subjects was, that they might distract the attention of a boy and prevent him from exercising his mind as he ought to do; and hence he was rather inclined to think that the Commissioners had recommended too great a variety of subjects. At the same time he thought that French or German ought to be made an integral part of public school education. The reason, as he believed, why so much attention had not been paid to these matters was, that the French or German master was not placed in a posi-

  1257
  tion of sufficient respect. Hitherto boys had been obliged to attend the French or German master out of school hours, and therefore he was naturally unpopular with them; and, besides, discipline had not been so rigidly enforced in his ease as in that of the other masters. If, however, French or German were made an integral part of the school work, and the head master were to attend to the representations of the French or German master as much as to those of the master of any other department, he had no doubt that the languages might be cultivated with great advantage to the boys. He spoke from experience when he said that a very early acquaintance with French, followed in after life by a little intercourse with foreign countries, enabled one to speak the language with comparative ease. As the subject of Greek composition had been spoken of, he would say that while he thought it would be undesirable to make Greek composition a necessary qualification of every boy, he was persuaded that as long as there were prizes in the Universities for Greek prose, or verse, it would be impossible to view the accomplishment in any other light than as one suited for boys who had a turn for it. Allusion had been made to the governing bodies of public schools. In some instances there was a very limited area from which the governors were chosen. It would not always be expedient to extend the area from which the governors were chosen, but he had in view cases in which schools had suffered from a too limited area. The great thing, after all, was that trustees and governors should choose the best master they could, and, having chosen him, that they should leave him to his own discretion and judgment in the management of the school. If they did otherwise they would never have first rate men. As to the council which had been proposed, it would not be desirable to have one the decisions of which should be binding; but he thought there might be advantage in having a council to give ad vice. Reference had been made by his noble Friend (Lord de Ros) to the high opinion of Eton entertained by general officers. He had himself heard an anecdote of the Duke of Wellington, when about to despatch a young officer on some duty of importance, asking at what school he had been educated, and on being told, "Westminster," replying, "That will do-all right." The public schools were undoubtedly very valuable institutions, but
  1258
  still they were susceptible of improvement, and he thought that the Report of the Commissioners contained some important recommendations which it would be well to follow.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONexplained that it was not his intention to make any charge against Rugby. He found, however, on referring to some memoranda which he had by him, that in quoting from memory he had attributed to the head master of Rugby a statement made by the head master of St. Paul's; but the general burden of the evidence bore out his view — that where French was obligatory as a study the pupils might be taught to read, but not to speak the language conversationally.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that if even he had not intended to take part in the debate, he must, after the numerous references which had been made to him, have felt it necessary to say a few words. In the first place, he would briefly recapitulate his former argument. The Commissioners had recommended the introduction of five or six new branches of study in the public schools, and, as he stated the other evening, it seemed impossible to accomplish that object without either undue pressure on the time and health of the boys, or without withdrawing some of the existing tasks. He admitted the value and necessity of these new studies, and the main object of his remarks on the former occasion was to show how other studies of less practical utility might be curtailed or relinquished. Above all, he had pointed out the disproportion between the value of a knowledge of Greek versification and the time and trouble that were requisite for its attainment. In support of that view he cited the opinion of a high authority— Dr. Whewell. In reply to that statement, it had been stated in the present evening that Dr. Whewell was eminent only as a mathematician; but those who spoke thus must surely be unacquainted with the extent of Dr. Whewell "s labours in classic literature—in Plato for example. In point of fact, he was distinguished as a great scholar as well as a great mathematician. But if Dr. Whewell's testimony was not sufficient, perhaps Lord Macaulay's might be accepted; and it was to the same effect. In his short but excellent Life of Pitt Lord Macaulay said—
  "Mr. Pitt had never while under his tutor's care been in the habit of composing in the ancient languages, and he, therefore, never ac-

  1259
  quired that knack of versification which is sometimes possessed by clever boys whose knowledge of the language and literature of Greece and Rome is very superficial."
  It seemed then, that in Lord Macaulay's view, exactly as in Dr. Whewell's, boys might have a knack of Greek and Latin versification and yet possess only a superficial knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages. The rising intelligence of the age was beginning more and more to declare against the enormous consumption of mental labour, for an accomplishment learnt only to be again immediately forgotten, or which, if retained, could only rank at best as a graceful pastime. It seemed impossible that such an object could much longer "stop the way," or be taken as a substitute for other and far preferable branches of knowledge. Looking more especially to Eton, it was significant and unfortunate that in exact proportion as Greek versification bad increased the study of French had declined. The late Prince Consort in a generous spirit founded prizes at Eton for French and German; and from conversations he had had the honour of holding' with His Royal Highness he knew that this was an object he had much at heart. But this liberality on the part of the Prince had not been met by any corresponding energy on the part of the school. Indeed, so far from it—the study of French at Eton appeared of late to have gone backwards, instead of forwards. There was the testimony on that point of Mr. William Johnson, one of the ablest of the assistant-musters. He was questioned by Sir Stafford Northcote to the following effect:—
  "French counts in the examination on trials, does it not?"—" It was dropped in the last examination for the middle division." "What was the cause of that?"—" I do not know." "Does it not seem rather hard that it should have been dropped?"—" Yes."
  He rejoiced to find that his noble Friend on his left (the Earl of Derby) and the right rev. Prelate opposite concurred in the view that French and, to some extent, German, ought to form part of the course of the study in the public schools. Indeed, that seemed to be the general opinion of their Lordships, as indicated by the debate. The only opinion to the contrary had been stated by his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Carnarvon), from whose views, as expressed that evening, he (Earl Stanhope) must say that he entirely dissented. His noble Friend seemed to stand forward as the champion of all
  1260
  those errors of system at Eton, which the highest authorities at Eton had themselves condemned. As to the employment of a French gentleman as teacher, he saw no reason why he should not he respected as much as any other master.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONexplained that all he said was that a French gentleman would probably fail to exercise that influence over the boys which he ought to possess.
  EARL STANHOPEsaw no reason why, if he were a gentleman of education and intelligence, that should be the case. Foreign gentlemen were engaged in education at Oxford, Cambridge, and elsewhere without any such result, and why should it be otherwise at Eton? He hoped that, after the weighty and authoritative expression of opinion which had been elicited on this question, the governing body of Eton would be induced to reconsider this question, and to remedy the deficiency in their course of education. Reforms of this kind are far better made from within than from without. It is most desirable to carry along the existing powers towards the measures of improvement that have become necessary, instead of overruling and compelling those powers by the force of extrinsic legislation. He therefore earnestly desired to see the necessary reforms carried out by the governing bodies; but, in order that they might be, it behoved those bodies to weigh well the very judicious statements in the Report of the Commissioners, and also the comments which those statements had elicited in that and the other House of Parliament.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.