Sitting of 8 March 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Turnpike Trusts, appointed (List of the Committee); Schools of Art, appointed (List of the Committee); Taxation (Ireland), nominated (List of the Committee, see page 1217).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Court of Justiciary (Scotland) [Bill 31]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Land Drainage (Provisional Orders* [Bill 25].
Third Reading—Inclosure* [Bill 26]; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland)* [Bill 38].

LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. TITEsaid, that this Bill proposed, among other objects, to run a short line through the Dulwich College estate. Bills for the formation of lines practically similar to this, had been before Committees in 1862 and 1863, and on both occasions the powers required had been refused on the opposition of the College. Last year the Company had succeeded in passing their Mitcham and Tooting line, after the Committee had negatived the preamble of the Bill, only through the assent of the College, that part of the scheme to which the College objected having been withdrawn. But this project was, for all practical purposes, the same as that then withdrawn; and, therefore, the application of the Company, an unfitting one, having been twice before rejected, now amounted to a breach of faith with the College. Five or six years ago new Governors were appointed to administer the affairs of Dulwich College. They had now 400 or 500 boys at school there, and were about to rebuild the school-house. It was very hard that the Governors should be put to the expense of opposing a third Bill promoted by the London and Brighton Company, and he therefore trusted that the House would protect the College by rejecting the Bill at its present stage. He would move that the Bill be read a second time to-day six months.
  CAPTAIN JERVISseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Tite.)
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the Bill was not the same as those which had been promoted by the Company before. The London and Brighton Company's regular and authorized lines were debarred from access to their London Bridge Station; and the present line was intended to complete the connection between that terminus and Deptford Wharf, and thus to afford additional accommodation, not only to a large
  1634
  and most important suburban district, but to the inhabitants of more distant places on the Brighton lines. The only opposition to it was that from Dulwich College, the trustees of which alleged that it would pass through their estate, and had, on that account, been twice before rejected. But the line was entirely different from that which had been before rejected, would pass through an entirely different part of their estate, and had been so altered as to do as little damage as possible to their property. He trusted the objection of the College trustees would not be allowed to prevail.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLS,as Chairman of the Committee which threw out the Bill of last year, said, it was then understood that the College was not to be persecuted any more by such schemes. He did not say there was any foundation for a charge of bad faith; but if the Bill were substantially the same as that of last Session, he would advise the House to reject it.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that this was not the same line as that of last year, and that unless it passed, a new and valuable line of railway, belonging to the London and Brighton Company, would have no communication with the City and the Thames.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONrose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Schemes within, the limits of the metropolis, and to move that, according to the recommendation of the Committee, certain Bills be not proceeded with in the present Session. He would state to the House the result of the labours of the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, appointed to consider the railway schemes affecting the metropolis. The Joint Committee had received evidence which they thought material to the objects they had to consider, and sufficient to enable them to discharge the duty confided to them. At the outset of their inquiry they eliminated from their list of railway schemes such as appeared to them might be proceeded with in the ordinary course on their own merits.

  1635
  Those schemes were generally merely improvements of railways already authorized, and had for their object such matters as the making of junctions, giving greater station accommodation, rendering curves less dangerous and inclines easier. These Bills, about ten in number, were at once set free, and were now proceeding in the ordinary course. The Committee had then to consider what lines ought not to be proceeded with, and they selected eight, which, not being of an urgent character, might very well be postponed to a future Session. It must be remembered that the Committee did not absolutely condemn any of these schemes—did not pronounce any opinion, on the merits, inasmuch as they could only hear one side and receive primâ facie evidence—the object for which they were appointed was to see whether, taking into account the enormous number of schemes affecting the metropolis, it would not be prudent to postpone some of them for future consideration. Among the schemes which were to be dealt with was the "Victoria Station and Thames Embankment Railway," which was proposed to be constructed on the pneumatic system. The objection to this scheme was twofold—first, that the pneumatic principle was untried for the conveyance of passengers; and secondly, that the lines between which it was to form a link were worked upon the ordinary system of locomotives. For these reasons it appeared to the Committee that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with this Session. The Oxford Street and City Railway was also proposed to be made on the pneumatic principle, and was postponed on the ground, that the principle had not been tried, and that a great metropolitan thoroughfare like Oxford Street was not the place in which the experiment should be first tried. It was thought also that the "London Main Trunk Underground Railway" might be postponed. That scheme proposed, among other things, to make a new station for the Great Eastern. But the Great Eastern proposed, by a Bill of its own, to make such a station west from its present position, according to the recommendation of the Lords' Committee of last year. The Bill to which he was referring, however, proposed to tap the Great Eastern two or three miles down the main line, and to bring its traffic direct into the metropolis. The Committee thought that the Great Eastern should be allowed to make its own proposition to Parliament. The
  1636
  "Charing Cross (Northern)" was recommended to be postponed on account of the great works now in progress throughout London to connect the London, Chatham and Dover with Farringdon Street, and so with the Great Northern and Midland; and the "Charing Cross (Western)," because in their view it proposed to throw an unnecessary bridge across the Thames, and was, in fact, in conflict with a great principle which the Committee of last year, and the Committee of the present year, thought it desirable to keep in view—namely, that of distributing the local traffic of the metropolis by an inner circle of railways. As for the "London Union Railways," if any one would look at the map he would see that that scheme, if any, would bear postponement. It did not propose to accomplish any one object which the promoters of metropolitan railways thought important. The "Tottenham and Farringdon Street Railway" was also proposed to be postponed, on the ground that time should be given to see by experience what would be the effect of the increased traffic now brought to Farringdon Street before any further progress was made in establishing there a great central station.
  When the Joint Committee was proposed it was thought to be a very exceptional proceeding, and he, himself, though he proposed it, was under the impression that such a course ought to be adopted only under extraordinary circumstances; for the principle that a Committee of this kind should stand as it were between the public and Parliament, between the subject and his right of being heard by Parliament, was a matter which deserved grave consideration before it was adopted. The Committee did not pronounce any opinion as to the merits of the several schemes—they simply considered what schemes might fairly be postponed for further consideration:—but in justice to the parties who might thus be prevented from proceeding during the present Session, it was proposed that the fees incurred on account of the Bills thus recommended to be postponed should be remitted. His hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Crawford) was of opinion that the Joint Committee had not gone far enough, and would have had them put an end as it were to all metropolitan railway legislation during the present Session. [Mr. CRAWFORD: No, no!] At all events, that was the effect of the petition which had been placed

  1637
  in his hands by a deputation from a public meeting in the City, over which his hon. Friend presided, and which recommended that no new railway should be considered in the City of London during the present Session with the exception of the East London scheme, which was to connect the north with the south by way of the Thames Tunnel. But he must remind his hon. Friend that, if the course recommended by the Joint Committee was strong and exceptional, the course which his hon. Friend proposed of postponing the rest of the schemes was still stronger and more exceptional; because his hon. Friend would prevent the promoters from going on with their Bills, without having any evidence submitted to show that there was a case for postponement. The Joint Committee had an opportunity of hearing some of the most competent men in London upon the subject of metropolitan railway communication, and had before it the Reports of the Board of Trade and of Mr. Bazalgette, engineer of the Metropolitan Board of "Works, and the evidence of the engineer of the Commissioners of Sewers. Mr. Haywood, the engineer of the City, though he said that the construction of some of the proposed railways would interfere with the sewers, and seriously disturb the traffic during the time of their construction, added that, on the whole, one or two of them would be of very great benefit to the City. And when the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) asked, whether he would look upon the present overcrowding of the City, which could not be relieved to any considerable degree by the opening of new streets, as an evil as great as the temporary interruption caused by the making of the lines, Mr. Haywood said that, considering the population of London doubled in thirty-seven years, and that the demand for means of transit increased in a still greater degree, he could not see how the increasing demands of traffic could be satisfied without railways. New streets would cost a million a mile in the metropolis, and where were the funds to come from? This gentleman then went on to say, in reference to the necessity of giving greater facility of communication to the mass of people, whose business led them into the City of London every day, that the population within a certain radius round the commercial centre of London—that was, the City—was as dense as it could possibly
  1638
  be, that the increase of population was filling up the space beyond the radius, and the distance between the homes of people and the City would become so great, that railways would be the only means to enable them to go to and from their residences. The Committee had evidence to show that cheap and frequent communication would be required by the labouring population from their homes to the places of their business, and therefore the Committee did not feel at liberty to say that no railway whatever, interfering with the City of London, should be proceeded with during the present Session. They thought that the inner circle system of railways for the metropolis presented great advantages; and, therefore, seeing that a portion of that inner circle system must pass through the City of London, they did not feel themselves at liberty to break that link, which they thought so necessary for the circulation of traffic in the metropolis, merely because a portion of the inner circle passed through the City of London. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of London proposed that, before anything was done in London, and before any new works were undertaken, some Commission of Inquiry, composed of distinguished men, should be appointed. The petition suggested, he believed, that the engineers of the Board of Trade, the engineer of the Board of Works, and the engineer of the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, should be appointed to consider what railway schemes would be most advantageous for the City of London, and that until they had considered the wants of the City and the best mode of providing for them, no private projectors should be allowed to proceed in that House with any railway Bill relating to London. He was at issue with his hon. Friend on that proposal. The House might appoint a Commission to consider the best mode of constructing some great public works which the State was about to execute and provide funds for; but, he contended, that to appoint a Commission to indicate the best railways that could be constructed in the City of London would be doing very little, unless they could also tell what parties were likely to come forward to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission. The Commissioners might recommend, but the projectors of schemes—who regarded their own profits—would not be bound by the recommendation of the Commissioners. He believed that

  1639
  the far better course was to leave to private enterprize and to private projectors, as had always been done in this country, the suggestion of such schemes as those projectors thought best calculated to promote their own interest and the public advantage at the same time. It would still be the duty of the House, before granting powers to carry out the schemes of any of these private projectors, to examine fully into the matter in order to guard against powers being granted which would interfere with private rights in a way not demanded by the exigencies of the public interest. He believed that the rule always acted on in this country, to leave these undertakings to be carried into execution by private enterprize, was the best and safest rule; and, therefore, he must rather demur to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, that the House should defer all proceedings in reference to railways in London until some Commission had indicated what were the best lines and made a Report to Parliament. He hoped that he might safely appeal to the House of Commons to support the Resolutions to which the Joint Committee of both Houses had come. It might be said that the Committee did not sit for a very long period of time. But they sat long enough, at any rate, for the object in view. They sat from day to day, and there was no loss of time by hearing long speeches from counsel, by putting irrelevant questions to witnesses, or by the examination of witnesses who had but little information to give. The time devoted to the consideration of the subject was well and fully employed, and he believed that the Joint Committee, unanimous as they were on every point but one, which was whether a particular line should be postponed, came to a wise and well considered decision, which, he trusted, would be supported by the House. It was impossible for any Member addressing the House to explain the details of particular railway schemes. A great deal of matter of this kind must be taken on authority; and he contended that a Committee of both Houses was an authority whose advice might be safely taken. He therefore appealed to hon. Members to give him that support which would enable him to pass the Resolutions of which he had given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the following Bills be not proceeded with
  1640
  in the present Session—namely, Victoria Station and Thames Embankment Railway, Oxford Street and City Railway, London Main Trunk Underground Railway, Charing Cross (Northern) Railway, Charing Cross (Western) Railway, Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway (Extension to Charing Cross), London Union Railways, Tottenham and Farringdon Street Railway."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. AYRTON,referring to the London Main Trunk Underground Railway Bill, said, he wished the decision of the Joint Committee to be reversed with respect to that Bill. It had long been a question of grave consideration how they could remove the working people from the crowded places where they were compelled to live and frequently were compelled to labour, and also to relieve the more densely populated parts of the metropolis. By the extension proposed by this line, the Metropolitan Railway would be extended through the dense parts of the eastern side of the City of London, and still further eastwards, in order to connect that line with the system of railways now existing in the east of London and brought to a focus at Bow Common. The object of this line was to enable people to go from the centre of the metropolis to that part where they could be most conveniently and economically located. He found, on looking at the Reports of the Committee of the House of Lords, of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of other bodies who had investigated the subject, that, so far from this scheme conflicting with any Report which had been made, it was entirely in accordance with all the requirements imposed on directors of railways. The Committee of the House of Lords expressly recommended that railways in London should be carried out by tunnels under ground; and that it was desirable to connect the east and west ends by railways, as well as the north and south of London. All this was accomplished by the scheme he now referred to; and the Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the engineer of the Board of Trade, made no objection to it. But the Joint Committee, without hearing evidence, as they had been told, came to the conclusion that this railway should not be proceeded with, and they recommended that another railway, having a somewhat similar object, should be sent to a Select Committee. Now, since the Joint Committee made their Report the other scheme had been withdrawn, and the result would be, if this were post-

  1641
  poned, that the only scheme for the part of London he had mentioned could not be inquired into, and many important interests would consequently be neglected. The scheme which the Committee said ought to be rejected was the very scheme which accomplished the most important recommendation of the Lords' Committee; and unless it was allowed to proceed, the working classes would have no chance of that main line from east to west, which would be such an advantage to them. The fact was, the Joint Committee had condemned the very line which was necessary as a link in order to carry out their recommendation in favour of an outer circle railway. This line would secure to the working classes ready access from the centre of the metropolis where they were employed to a district where they could procure comparatively cheap and healthy house accommodation. He therefore moved that Nos. 1 and 2 schemes of the Main Trunk Underground Railway should be exempted from the Motion for rejection.
  Amendment proposed, after the words "London Main Trunk Underground Railway," to insert the words "except Schemes Nos. 1 and 2."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONthen moved an Amendment, that the Charing Cross (Western) Railway be omitted from the list of Bills which it was proposed should not be proceeded with during the present Session. The Joint Committee appeared to have had two favourite schemes, both of which went up the Thames Embankment. Now, he was of opinion that that was not the proper direction which they ought to take, and that it would have been much better to adopt the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reject. It was clear that if the railways were to be made under the Thames Embankment, either the works of the latter must he suspended during the construction of the railway, or they must all be carried on at the same time and under the same direction. Another objection was, that the schemes accepted did not carry out the principle recommended by the Lords' Committee of last year for the northern side of London. The House of Lords' Committee recommended a circular railway, and indicated where it might go—that it should not join but go near the
  1642
  large railways, so that passengers could readily go from one station to the other. On this side of the river that principle would not be carried out. They passed from the Victoria Station to Cannon Street, passing by the Houses of Parliament and destroying all the sewers in that part of London. Now, if they had taken the Charing Cross Extension, which had already cost £3,000,000, they might have crossed the Thames at the far end of the Houses of Parliament, and have gone direct to the South Western Railway, connecting Belgravia and all the western districts with the South Western Railway, and then they would have been able to communicate with the Brighton Station and the South Eastern Station in Cannon Street. The scheme of taking the railway up the Thames Embankment was so bad, that there would be only fifteen feet below it for the purpose of railway, and the result would be that the tunnel would not be more than twelve feet in diameter—that was to say, in depth. That was not a proper depth for a tunnel; and it would be one of the greatest nuisances conceivable if the railway was to be carried the whole way from Kensington to the City entirely underground.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Charing Cross (Western) Railway."—(Sir Joseph Paxton.)
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he felt some delicacy, having been a member of the Joint Committee, in asking the House to accept their conclusions without further discussion; but he thought, considering the nature of the questions which had been considered, the House had no other option unless it was prepared to refer the whole matter over again to some other tribunal. These were mainly questions of detail; they were very complicated, and he defied any man, whatever his ability or experience, to make them intelligible to an assembly like the House of Commons without the aid of maps and plans. He wished to remind the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton), that the Joint Committee had not taken upon themselves either absolutely to sanction or absolutely to condemn any of these competing schemes. It would have been impossible for them to do so without taking evidence and hearing counsel pro and con; and if they had done that, their sittings would have lasted the whole Session, in which case the practical result would have been the postponement

  1643
  of all the Bills till next year. They had simply struck out certain projects, not because they were bad in themselves, but because they did not appear to them to press urgently for consideration; and it was a matter of importance that the traffic of London should not be interrupted by the construction of a vast number of lines simultaneously. There were others for which they thought the primâ facie case was stronger, and these they had proposed should be sent before ordinary Private Bill Committees; but they had in no sense given them their sanction. If the House accepted their decision, those Bills would be inquired into in the usual manner; the objections of opponents, if any, would have their due weight, and, if the Bills were thrown out next year, the other competitors for supplying London with railways would have an opportunity of having their schemes examined. He had not heard from the hon. Member for Coventry a single consideration which had not been discussed by the Joint Committee; and, upon the whole, he would advise the House not to attempt the impossible task of discussing these schemes in detail, but to accept the decision of a tribunal appointed by both branches of the Legislature.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had opposed the appointment of the Joint Committee, but as they had appointed it, he thought the only course the House could pursue was to take their Report for what it was worth. He blamed the Committee not for what they had done, but for what they had left undone. Many of the schemes which they had recommended should be sent upstairs, might very fairly have been rejected. The wisest course would have been to stop all railway legislation for the metropolis this year, for then the whole question could have been discussed in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. One of the schemes which were to be allowed to proceed was recommended by the Joint Committee, not on account of its merits as a railway, but because its projectors proposed to make a new street through St. Giles's. It might be desirable that the new street should be made; but did any man in his senses believe that the railway company could afford to make it out of their share capital? If a Commission had been appointed, the subject of a new street through St. Giles's would have been considered in a more satisfactory manner than it could possibly
  1644
  be by a Private Bill Committee upstairs. He hoped, however, that the Private Committee would bear in mind the statement just made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), that it was not to be taken for granted that every Bill sent upstairs had received the approval of the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee had simply knocked certain schemes on the head, and, indeed, he inferred from the tone of the noble Lord, that hopes were entertained that many of the projects sent upstairs would be rejected also.
  Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CRAWFORD,moved, after "Tottenham and Farringdon Street Railway," to add, "and so much of the Metropolitan District Railways Bill, No. 33, as refers to the proposed works situated to the eastward of Blackfriars Bridge, together with the Metropolitan District Railways Bill, No. 34." He did not rise for the purpose of complaining of the decisions of the Committee, and his proposition would not increase the number of Bills to be sent upstairs, but would make an addition to the list of schemes postponed. "What he and the citizens of London generally objected to was, that the subjects had been referred to the Committee in so limited a manner as to preclude the Committee from considering very important matters in connection with the trade and commerce of the City of London. What he sought was to include among the rejected schemes so much of the Metropolitan District Railways Bill as referred to the district between Blackfriars Bridge and the Tower. The line was to pass along the new street to the point of junction with Cannon Street, then to proceed eastward by the station of the South Eastern Company, past the statue of King William, and thence through Eastcheap and Tower Street till it reached the neighbourhood of the Tower. It was not possible for the ingenuity of any railway engineer to have laid out a line which would interfere more than this would in the course of construction with the trade and commerce of the City. Hon. Members had noticed the obstructions in Piccadilly caused by the works connected with the main drainage, and some of them would have seen the interference with the traffic in the New Road while works of the Metropolitan Railway were going on. Now it was proposed to introduce a similar inconvenience

  1645
  into the City of London, to the entire obstruction of trade along the whole line which the railway proposed to take. One reason why the Thames Embankment scheme found favour with the House was, that it would do away with the construction of the low level sewer along the Strand; and if the Strand was entitled to so much consideration, surely something might be said on behalf of the vast interests centered in the City of London along the line of this railway from Blackfriars Bridge to the Tower. The line was to be underground, it was true, but they knew the damage that was done to a large amount of property in the New Road and elsewhere by the construction of the Metropolitan Underground Railway. Could any one conceive it possible that a line could be constructed through the part of London he had mentioned without doing serious injury to the foundations of the enormous warehouses and buildings near which it would pass? But that was not the only ground upon which he asked the House to accede to his Motion. They would have shortly abutting upon the City no less than nine first class railway stations, some of them terminal, connecting the City with all parts of the country; and he thought experience would suggest that the better course would be to wait and see the effect produced upon the internal communication of London by those central stations, instead of committing themselves to the principle, that a great line of railway should be constructed through the heart of the City. He had read the evidence of the Committee of the House of Lords upon this subject, but not having seen the evidence taken before the Joint Committee he was scarcely inclined to accept its decision upon trust. He should have been content if the consideration of the whole question had been referred to a single individual of the great ability and intelligence of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), but it was too much to ask the representatives of great civic and commercial interests to assent at the will of five Gentlemen to schemes which would come upon their property and interfere seriously with their business. He had heard it stated that 800 houses had been purchased by one railway company in a part of the town where no large business was carried on, and that measure involved the turning out of house and home of many more than 800 families. He had already called attention to the hardship experienced by persons who came upon railways for
  1646
  compensation, and if any one desired to inquire into the extent of the loss and even ruin which small tradesmen and artisans suffered from the encroachments of railways, he referred them to the pages of the local newspapers, such as the City Press. The argument in favour of this railway was that it completed the inner circle; but if the Metropolitan District Railway were continued from the present terminus near the Great Western station, and brought round by Kensington and Brompton, near the Houses of Parliament and along the Thames embankment, it might be made to form a junction with the Chatham and Dover and Metropolitan Railways in Farringdon Street, thus completing the inner circle. Upon the ground of the great interference with the commerce of the City set forth in a petition from a public meeting held one day last week, he asked the House not to proceed further with the part of the scheme referred to in his Amendment.
  MR. TITE,in seconding the Amendment, said, that the question discussed at the meeting in the City was the real nature of the railway communication required by the commercial population, and it was stated distinctly that one line on the west, constructed by the great railways on the north in union, to take all the nothern traffic, and another on the east, the one described as the East London Railway, for the southern and continental trade, would give them all that they wanted. The question resolved itself into one of an inner circle for passenger traffic, and he was of opinion that, for public convenience, it would be better that this line should be stopped at Blackfriars Bridge, before it encroached upon the Thames embankment. The £1,000,000 expended to make the great street 100 feet wide to the Exchange, would be superseded by this railway being in exactly the same line with it. It was supposed, too, that all the passengers from Charing Cross to Cannon Street would be carried by the Charing Cross Railway, and facilities having been granted for the construction of that line, they should not interfere with it, at least until the subject had been well considered.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and so much of the Metropolitan District Railways Bill, No. 33, as refers to the proposed works situated to the eastward of Blackfriars Bridge, together with the Metropolitan District Railways Bill, No. 34."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the main question which the Committee had to consider was, what lines should not be proceeded with. They took evidence specially on that point. When they came to the particular line to which his hon. Friend's Motion referred, they found they had not sufficient evidence to justify them in recommending that it should not be referred to a Select Committee of that House. If there was that strong case against the proposed scheme which his hon. Friend alleged to exist, the Committee, which would hear evidence on both sides, would not grant to the promoters the powers which were asked—namely, to interfere with lands or houses. That was his answer. His hon. Friend had given them no evidence except his own mere opinion. He had not adduced any authority why this line should not be heard; for, as the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) very well put it, the Committee did not, as his hon. Friend the Member for the City stated, recommend or sanction this scheme; all they said was they had not sufficient evidence to justify them in refusing it a hearing. He was quite convinced that a Parliamentary Committee would weigh carefully all the considerations put forward by his hon. Friend, and he did not believe they would grant the powers asked unless the public convenience was so great as to countervail any private injury or inconvenience that individuals might be called upon to submit to. He would only state, that the public meeting of which his hon. Friend was Chairman, distinctly stated in their petition that they did not pretend to be acquainted with the exact details of all the metropolitan railway schemes now seeking the sanction of Parliament for their construction, and which contemplated taking houses and lands in the City; but, in common with nearly every person engaged in business, they thought before legislative sanction was accorded to their promoters, the most careful consideration should be given to the whole question. He entirely agreed with the language of that petition. The most careful consideration should be given to the question. They had commenced that careful consideration, and in reference to the lines to be proceeded with it would be continued before the Select Committee of the House. He, therefore, called on the House to support the finding of the Committee.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he believed
  1648
  that the alarm which had been excited in reference to these schemes was greatly exaggerated. He had given particular attention to this matter, and he was enabled to state that the whole property to be taken by the Metropolitan District Railway amounted to under fifteen acres, of which seven acres were along the Thames Embankment and the new street. There were eight acres of private property, of which six would be covered over and sold off, leaving only two acres to be permanently occupied by the line. There was, therefore, no cause for the alarm that was now said to exist.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 277: Majority 201.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following Bills be not proceeded with in the present Session—namely, Victoria Station and Thames Embankment Railway, Oxford Street and City Railway, London Main Trunk Underground Railway, Charing Cross (Northern) Railway, Charing Cross (Western) Railway, Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway (Extension to Charing Cross), London Union Railways, Tottenham and Farringdon Street Railway.
  Ordered,
  That the Fees which have been incurred in respect of the said Bills be remitted.
  Ordered,
  That the Report of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Railway Schemes (Metropolis) be referred to all Select Committees to whom any Railway Bills within the limits of the Metropolis may be referred.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)

  THE MUTINY ACT.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Judge Advocate General, If it is his intention to make any alterations in the 162nd and other Clauses of the Mutiny Act; and, if so, if he will state the nature of such alterations?
  MR. HEADLAM, in reply, said, the Mutiny Bill would be committed that night, and he would only state that it was not his intention to propose any alteration in the clauses referred to.
  COLONEL NORTH: Then I give notice, when the Mutiny Bill is in Committee, that I shall move a clause to the effect, that it shall be unlawful for the Judge Advocate General, or the Deputy Judge Advocate, to take a part in proceedings of

  1649
  a court-martial, similar to the part taken by the Deputy Judge Advocate during the recent trial of Lieutenant Colonel Crawley.

  ARMY —NEW BRIGADE OF HORSE ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If the whole of the increased expense caused by the new Brigade of Horse Artillery is to be borne by the Home Government, or to be shared with the Indian Government; and whether it is intended that this augmentation shall absorb one of the Supernumerary Colonels Commandant of the late Indian Artillery?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that while the new Brigade of Horse Artillery was in this country the whole expense would fall on the Imperial revenue. But he wished to explain that what had taken place on this subject was not so much the formation of a new brigade as the division of the old brigade, consisting of ten batteries, into two brigades of five batteries each. This alteration was rendered necessary in order to supply the relief of four brigades of Horse Artillery in India. The additional expense which was incurred by the appointment of commissioned officers and noncommissioned officers had been met by other reductions in the regiments of Artillery. The extra expense would, therefore, be very trifling indeed. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member's second question, he had to inform him that there were two supernumerary colonels and two supernumerary lieutenant colonels absorbed by the new arrangements on our own, and not on the Indian list.

  MHOW COURT MARTIAL —CASE OF PAYMASTER SMALES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the Judge Advocate General, What was the date at which the Queen was recommended to confirm the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial by which Paymaster Smales was cashiered; and whether Her Majesty was advised to confirm that sentence after consideration of the proceedings of the Court Martial; what was the date at which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales; was the sentence of the Court Martial confirmed, or had it been overruled at the date at which
  1650
  the proceedings were laid upon the table of the House; what are the grounds on which the Queen was advised to pardon Mr. Smales, after Her Majesty had been advised to confirm the sentence by which he had been cashiered; and were those grounds apparent on the face of the proceedings?
  MR. HEADLAM, in reply, said, as to the first part of the question, he had to state that Her Majesty never did confirm the sentence of the Mhow Court Martial, and was never recommended to do so. It was confirmed by Sir Hugh Rose, under the authority he had for that purpose. "With respect to the next question, the date at which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales was the 13th of July last. "With regard to the third question, he found in the blue-book that the proceedings were laid upon the table of the House on the 3rd of July, consequently long after the finding of the court-martial had been confirmed in India, but before the pardon was granted on the 13th. As to the last question, the grounds upon which Her Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales were that the trial was not a fair one. The unfairness consisted partly in the manner in which the witnesses for Mr. Smales were arrested and kept in close custody during the trial, and partly also in the manner in which their testimony was discredited. It was also considered that the charges were irregular, and consequently rendered it uncertain what was the precise crime of which the prisoner was found guilty; so that had the trial taken place in this country it would not have been confirmed without revision.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to know, Whether the proceedings of the Mhow Court Martial were approved of by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. HEADLAM: No; I have given to the House a summary of my opinions upon the proceedings.
  SIE JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table the Letter from the War Office in which the restoration of Mr. Smales to the half-pay of his former rank was authorized or announced; whether the accounts of Mr. Smales with the 6th Dragoons have yet been adjusted; and what previous employments in the Public Service had been held by Mr. Smales; whether he had been removed from any of them, and, if so, for what reasons?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that the circumstances connected with the restoration of Mr. Smales to the half-pay of his former rank were the following:—After Her Majesty had been pleased, as had been just explained by his hon. and learned Friend, to pardon Mr. Smales, it became the duty of Earl de Grey to consider what effect that pardon should have. It was his duty to take care that Mr. Smales should not receive any advantages which did not necessarily follow from the pardon, and equally his duty to see that he should receive the full benefit which that pardon entitled him to receive. Some correspondence took place between the War Department and Mr. Smales, on the one hand, and the Judge Advocate General on the other. The result was, that the Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that, although the pardon did not have the effect of reinstating Mr. Smales in his appointment of Paymaster of the 6th Dragoons, it gave him a claim to be restored to the service and placed upon half-pay. Earl de Grey, therefore, acting upon that recommendation, restored Mr. Smales to the army on the half-pay of his former rank. After that explanation, he did not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend would wish to have the letter from the War Office in which the restoration of Mr. Smales was announced; but if he wished for it he could have it by moving for its production. As to the second question, the accounts of Mr. Smales with the 6th Dragoons had not yet been adjusted, and the adjustment of those accounts formed a subject which was being discussed between Mr. Smales and the Indian Government. But he should mention that the settlement of Mr. Smales's accounts with the 6th Dragoons had had nothing whatever to do with his restoration to the service or his being placed upon half-pay. Mr. Smales was placed upon half-pay because that was decided to be the proper course, and it was not conditional in any respect upon the adjustment of his accounts. "With respect to the last questions, what previous public employments had been held by Mr. Smales, whether he had been removed from them, and for what reasons, the statement of Mr. Smales's employment was as follows:—In 1830 he was appointed Acting Ordnance Clerk at Sierra Leone; in consequence of a court-martial upon which Mr. Smales was a witness he was removed by order of the
  1652
  Governor for having in his opinion given false evidence on that court-martial. Mr. Smales returned home and appealed to the Board of Ordnance against his removal, but was informed that the appointment which he had held at Sierra Leone had already terminated, and therefore there was no longer any necessity for investigating the case. However, he was almost immediately after appointed by Lord Hill an Ensign in the Royal African Corps, by which it might be supposed that no stigma rested on his character. He served in that Corps as Lieutenant and Captain until 1842. In 1844 he was appointed paymaster of the 1st Dragoon Guards, and exchanged to the 7th Dragoon Guards in 1845. He was Captain on half-pay in 1848, and in that year sold his commission. In June, 1854, he was appointed Paymaster of the Wilts Regiment of Militia, and on the 3rd of March, 1855, he was made chief Paymaster of the Turkish Contingent by Lord Panmure. His services were dispensed with at the close of the Crimean war, but in September, 1858, he was appointed Paymaster of the 9th Dragoons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), and in 1859 he exchanged to the Pay-mastership of the 6th Dragoon Guards, the Inniskillings. The only employment from which he was ever removed previous to the Mhow Court Martial was that of Acting Ordnance Clerk; but the circumstances had not been inquired into, and ought not to be considered as sufficient to exclude him from the public service.

GOVERNMENT TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Despatch from Earl Russell to Lord Bloom-field, at Vienna, of 18th January, 1864, to which an Answer was returned by Lord Bloomfield, of the date of the 19th January, from Vienna, printed among the Danish Papers, was sent by telegraph from this Country; and whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would have any objection to direct that, in future, Despatches sent by telegraph should be distinguished from those sent by the ordinary means of communication, in order that the dates of Despatches may correspond with the facts of their transmission and answers, and be at once intelligible to Mem-

  1653
  bers of the House without further explanation.?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he must regret that he had been unable to explain himself clearly to the hon. Member the other evening. He would, however, again endeavour to do so. Those Despatches which were published were not sent by telegraph, but they were founded upon short telegrams sent in cipher. Each telegram was afterwards expanded into a full Despatch, in order that the House might have the whole matter before them. For the very obvious reasons that telegraphic messages must be very short, they could not be produced literally in their original cipher. Care was, however, taken, when acknowledging a Despatch, to state whether it was telegraphic or not. The hon. Gentleman would find from the answer, whether the original Despatch was sent by telegraph or not. If, for example, it was considered necessary to send a Despatch from London to St. Petersburg, with the view of receiving an answer on the same day or the day afterwards, it was evident that it must be sent by telegraph.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must complain that the hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. He had given him notice of his question, which he wished to be answered by his chief, and he presumed that the hon. Gentleman would have come there to answer it on behalf of his chief.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he really did not know what answer he could give to the hon. Gentleman. It seemed to be quite impossible for him (Mr. Layard) to make the hon. Gentleman understand. In the very Despatch to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, the answer stated that it was a telegraphic Despatch. It would be an insult to the sense of the House to explain that a Despatch sent to St. Petersburg, which was replied to on the same day or the day afterwards, must have been sent by telegraph.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I ask the Under Secretary of State, whether he is prepared to answer this question on the part of the Secretary of State or only on the part of himself? ["Order!"]

DENMARK AND GERMANY—ANSWER OF PRINCE GORTSCHAKOFF,

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, For an explanation of a passage which occurs in a Despatch from Lord Napier to Earl
  1654
  Russell, dated January 6, 1864 (No. 644 of the Papers on the Affairs of Denmark, &c), in which the following language is attributed to Prince Gortsehakoff:—
  "The four Governments, that is, England, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, happily now thinking and acting in harmony on a question still more important than that of Holstein and Schleswig, ought not in this matter to be split into two camps opposing each other."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rather conclude that the question to which Prince Gortsehakoff alluded must have been the decision of these Governments with regard to the invitation to attend a general European Congress. There was no other question to which he could have referred, or upon, which any concord was established. If the hon. Gentleman, means to inquire, as I suppose he does, whether there was any combination of these four Powers against France, I assure him there is no ground whatever for any such supposition.

FEES TO PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had received a communication from Mr. Hope Scott, in reference to the statement made a few evenings since by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that in future any Counsel appearing before Private Bill Committees might do so for a sum not less than fifteen guineas, correcting that statement, and informing him that for the future the sum required to be paid to Parliamentary Counsel need not exceed ten guineas. He, therefore, desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has received any communication to a similar effect?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, I have received no such communication. On the former evening I read a document which was put into my hands by an influential Member of the Parliamentary Bar, and which, I believe, contained the understanding arrived at by that body. The evidence we received upon the subject, before the Committee of last year, was—That no Parliamentary Counsel was permitted by professional etiquette to take less for the first day than five guineas for a retainer, ten guineas on his brief, ten guineas for his attendance, and five guineas for a consultation. That was what we were informed by the evidence of those who paid the fees, and those who received them. We were also told that the practice was, that, on days after the first, no less

  1655
  than ten guineas for each day should be received as a refresher, and five guineas for a consultation fee; and we certainly were led to understand that the consultation was a matter of course, and that whether it was thought necessary or not by the parties, the fee was generally paid. The document which I received stated that a considerable change had been made by the Parliamentary Bar in the practice, and that they had consented, by a general understanding amongst the leaders, that in future there might be a smaller refresher, or no refresher at all, according as the parties and the Counsel might agree. There was to be no minimum in the case. With regard to the consultation fee it was never to be paid, unless the parties considered" the consultation necessary; and its amount was to be settled between the client and the barrister. I was also told that no change was to he made in the brief fee, and that no less than five guineas was to be taken for a retainer. I therefore stated that no Counsel could enter a Committee-room for less than fifteen guineas. My hon. Friend, however, informs us, on the authority of Mr. Hope Scott, that in future a sum of ten guineas may be taken—that is, five guineas for the retainer and five guineas for the brief fee; that anything over ten guineas would be a matter to be settled between the clients and the barrister. That, no doubt, is a considerable change, and a very considerable relief to suitors. But, although it is a considerable reduction, and a handsome concession on the part of the Bar, I should not be discharging my duty if I did not state that the feeling of suitors and of all those with whom I was in communication on the subject was, that the Parliamentary Bar should be regulated by the same rules as to fees as prevail in the ordinary Courts of Law and Equity.

  COURT MARTIAL ON COLONEL CRAWLEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. D. FORTESCUEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, inasmuch as the Plans published with the Proceedings of the Court Martial on Colonel Crawley are liable to mislead the House, by representing the quarters in which Sergeant Major Lilley died as containing more than double their actual amount of accommodation, he would object to reconsider his former decision, and allow hon. Members an opportunity of inspecting the Models?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot admit, Sir, that the plans which have been published with the proceedings of the court-martial at Aldershot are in any degree calculated to mislead the minds of hon. Members. I think that if they will look at the plans in connection with the evidence referring to them, it is impossible that any misconception can arise as to the quarters in which Sergeant Major Lilley died. The reasons stated by me for not removing the models from the custody of the Judge Advocate General remain as strong as they were when I first explained them; but, at the same time, I have to state that if any hon. Member is not satisfied with the plans produced, my right hon. and learned Friend is quite willing to afford him the opportunity of inspecting the models at his office. Having answered that Question, perhaps the House will allow me to appeal to it, and to ask whether hon. Members intend to re-open the trial of Colonel Crawley, and to enter into minute details which have been already decided at Aldershot. It was considered by the Government that, as the proceedings of the court-martial in India had been published, and as they were supposed to reflect considerable blame upon Colonel Crawley, it would be most unjust to that gallant officer if the proceedings at the court-martial held at Aldershot were not given as full and wide a circulation as those which were supposed to implicate him so much. The conduct of the Government in ordering the court-martial at Aldershot has been the subject of criticism, and the Government are perfectly prepared to afford the House all the materials that could be possibly desired to form a judgment upon the merits of their conduct. But the Government did not expect, and I think the House will hardly hold it to be right, that when a full and ample investigation has been gone into before the only tribunal to form and pronounce a decision upon the case, it is hardly fair, or honourable, or consistent with our notions of fair play, that the evidence should be again gone over in this House, and that the country should be invited to arrive at a different conclusion from that already formed.
  MR. D. FORTESCUE: I entreat the House not in any way to prejudge the question of the court-martial, or the Resolution which I intend to bring forward, I beg now to ask the Judge Advocate, whether he can explain the circumstances

  1657
  under which an important passage in Dr. Barnett's evidence (between questions 591 and 592), relative to an alleged curtain in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters, which appears in The Times report of the court-martial on the 26th of November, 1863, has been omitted in the official Report of the Proceedings?
  MR. HEADLAM: In consequence of the notice given by the hon. Gentleman, I have compared the report contained in The Times newspaper with the original record in my office, and I have to state that the original record is identical with the papers which have been laid before the House. But on comparing the original record with the report contained in The Times, I find that the passage in The Times' report is not in the original record. The passage referred to is as follows:— "To the Court—I have no recollection of ever seeing a curtain in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters." I cannot state how those words appeared in The Times and not in the official record.

DENMARK AND GERMANY. THE CORRESPONDENCE—PAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to put the Question, of which I gave notice yesterday, to Her Majesty's Government. It relates to the papers respecting the affairs of Denmark. The House is aware that the last, and, as we now understand, the final instalment of papers respecting the affairs of Denmark comes up only to the termination of the month of January. Since that period many important transactions and incidents have occurred in these matters. We have had an announcement, for instance, of an armistice; afterwards of a Conference; and finally, among other matters of moment, the invasion of Jutland. The House will find in the papers before us no official record whatever of these events. The House does not know why the armistice and the Conference were proposed, what objects were contemplated in the propositions, and why those propositions failed. What I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government is, Whether it is their intention to submit further papers on the affairs of Denmark to the House; and, if so, how early they will be in the hands of Members?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the only matter which causes delay in pre-
  1658
  senting further papers is the negotiations or communications now going on with regard to a Conference. As soon as those communications are brought to a close one way or the other, which I should hope will be in a very short time, further papers will be laid before Parliament, bringing the Correspondence down to the period of the close of the negotiations now going on.

THE EASTER RECESS.
  NOTICE.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House, that I should state that we propose to adjourn on Friday, the 18th instant, until the following Monday fortnight, for the Easter recess.
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL—(MR H. B. SHERIDAN) — BRITISH PROVIDENT SOCIETY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: I wish, Sir, to claim the indulgence of the House while I make a brief statement of a personal nature. I have been reminded that I omitted to refer last night to one point which was urged against me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that some six years ago I was Auditor of one of the Insurance Companies to which he referred, and that in my capacity of Auditor, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman intended to say I passed accounts that ought not to have been passed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to call the hon. Gentleman to order. I never made any such statement.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: I am very glad to hear it. I beg to explain that six years ago I twice, acted as Auditor to the Company in question, and that I subsequently withdrew from the office of Auditor. That Company was then in a position which enabled it to meet all its policy obligations. and to this moment it has, I have ascertained, met all its obligations, and all its policy holders are secured. Therefore, so far as my connection with that company six years ago is concerned, the functions which as Auditor I discharged were not exercised with reference to a Society which was not able to meet its financial obligations.

  EDUCATION.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. ADDERLEY, who had given notice of his intention to move—
  "That grants made from the Treasury to Schools for the working classes, should not, in every case, be reduced by the whole amount of all endowments,"
  and—
  "That, before laying new Minutes of Council on Education upon the table, the Vice President should explain to the House, after due notice, their purpose,"—
  said, he had given notice of two Resolutions, but he was informed by the highest authority that the second of those Resolutions was not proper in form; he should therefore confine his Motion, on the present occasion, to the first Resolution. He did not expect that any extended debate on Education would arise, because the issue he sought to raise was of very narrow dimensions. He wished by the Resolution he now submitted, to prevent coming into operation in June the Minute of Council on Education dated in last May, the effect of which would be to transfer all the endowments of schools referred to in the Minute from the school account to the credit of the Treasury. He would remind the House of the history of that Minute. It might appear that in so doing he would weaken his own case, because he must admit that the principle of excluding endowments from calculations of school incomes in some cases to meet grants dated from the origin of education grants. In the Minute of 1846 it was laid down that when the funds of a school were wholly or partially derived from endowments, such local or general permanent endowments should not be taken into account for an augmentation of the master's salary. In the consolidated Minute of 1858 the same principle was laid down, with a limitation to after the lifetime of the donor. In the Revised Code of 1862 the nature of annual grants was altogether changed, and they became capitation grants, and it was laid down that such grants were not, in the aggregate, to exceed the school pence and subscriptions. Then came the Minute of 1863, which was in principle wholly unprecedented, and an extraordinary stride in advance of the former position. By that Minute not only were grants to be reduced by the excess over the school pence and voluntary subscriptions, but the endowments were to be taken and appropriated in assistance of
  1660
  the grants and treated as part of the grants themselves. He protested against such a step receiving the sanction of the House. Small endowments, such as he was now speaking of, had always been regarded as local contributions, and it never was supposed until the Minute of the Council that they would be taken in relief of the public grants. In the first place, he would draw attention to the reasons assigned on the part of the Treasury on behalf of the principle of excluding or appropriating endowments, and show how the theory of the Treasury broke down in practice, and would then show what the general results and consequences of the principle, if practically enforced, must be. Lastly, he would suggest the right course which he thought should be pursued under the circumstances. With respect to the reasons alleged by the Treasury for excluding from calculation of income, or appropriating the endowments, they were ably laid down by Mr. Lingen soon after the Minute of 1846. Mr. Lingen stated that the Education Grant was intended to cover that portion of the field of public instruction for the labouring classes which was unoccupied by existing provisions. He denied that such was the principle of the education grant. As he understood it, the principle was that voluntary enterprize which had done so much already for popular education should not be overtasked, but should be supplemented by grants of public money. That was the principle which had hitherto been pursued, and it was rational, safe, and constitutional. The Council view of the subject appeared to him to be not only inaccurate but dangerous. It was based on two arguments, the first of which was unsound and the other untrue. The inaccurate argument was this. The Council declared that the Treasury grants to schools were intended only to stimulate and draw out private support, and that when private support had been so secured the grants might be withdrawn. His construction of Mr. Lingen's argument was this, that they had a great public object before them, and it was important that it should be supported as much as possible by private beneficence; they, therefore, laid down rules intended to draw private contributions, but when they had got them they were to withdraw these grants. In other words they angled for private benefactors with these grants, and as soon as they caught one they took the bait out of

  1661
  his mouth and reserved it to attractanother. That was a most short-sighted policy, and would in the end defeat itself; for he did not think that they would catch many fish with this bait, after one or two had been made to disgorge it, especially if they did not conceal the hook. It might, perhaps, be said that much success was not contemplated, and there was reason to suspect that at the bottom of the principle enunciated, was the feeling that endowments ought to be discouraged. It might be the opinion of those in office that endowments of all kinds were liable to abuse and ought to be checked; but then, the issue ought to be openly and distinctly raised. The Council ought not to follow the policy attributed to one of the Universities, of trying to starve an obnoxious professor whom they were unable to dismiss. In the present instance, if they could not absolutely prohibit endowments, they ought not to discourage them by a process of injustice. The question was, on which side of the contract between private individuals and the State, for maintenance of labourers' schools, were private endowments, and he (Mr. Adderley) maintained that private endowments were on the same side of the account as private contributions, and ought to be treated as such, and not as public property. Taking the question in the light of parallel cases, he might remind them that the late Lord Plymouth left a considerable sum of money to a favourite Yeomanry corps, of which he had been colonel; but the Government did not thereupon stop a corresponding amount from the pay of the men. Then, again, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who aided private benefactions out of public funds at their disposal, did not, as soon as a contribution had been secured in the form of an endowment, by their own stipulation turn round and deduct it from the grant they undertook to give. As a matter of common justice, educational endowments ought to be dealt with on the same principle as other contributions which were supplemented by the State. There was a further error in the view of the Council. They said that when a school got an endowment it did not stand in the same need of the grant. That position he could not accept. He would put the case of two parishes of exactly the same amount of wealth and population. In one, an owner set apart so much of his property as an endowment for the school; and, in the other, the owners set
  1662
  apart exactly the same amount in annual contributions. The only difference between the position of the two parishes was in the character of the givers, and the permanence of the gifts, but in local effort and sacrifice of their resources they were precisely in the same circumstances, and they had equal claims for a subsidizing grant. He did not endorse some of the petitions he had presented, which expressed merely a general cry for money, and did not enter into the question of right. The simple issue was, in a contract to supply the income of schools between private and public resources, what the parish, on the one hand, was entitled to take to its credit, and the Treasury, on the other, was bound to give, and he (Mr. Adderley) said that the Treasury was not to help itself out of the pockets of private trustees. He would now show how the principle, set up on the part of the Treasury, broke down in practice. First, in the whole of the kingdom of Scotland the principle had utterly broken down; and, considering that that was half the area of the grant, it was a considerable break down for its supposed principle. To the honour of Scotland, ever since the Reformation, there had been a rentcharge or endowment in every parish in the country for the maintenance of schools. According to the principle laid down by the Government, the Council would say to the Scottish parishes, "All this heritor's tax must be excluded from your calculations of income to meet a grant." According to the Minute of May, they must go further, and say, "This rentcharge is secured for the public purpose of education, and we must regard it therefore as public money, and we shall relieve the Treasury from charge to that extent. In fact, the substance of the Treasury doctrine to all Scotland would be, "We have nothing for you — you have no claim upon us." The grant would become a minus quantity in every rural parish in Scotland. The Scotch, however, had been too well educated ever since the Reformation to take such arguments for logic. And, accordingly, they had not only been relieved from the operation of the minute, but this heritor's tax, instead of being appropriated in reduction of the grant, was treated as a voluntary contribution to which the Government were willing to make equal grants in every parish in Scotland. "What would England now say to the justice of such a distinction drawn between endow-

  1663
  ments on opposite sides of the Tweed? Beon's Charity and Dick's Bequest furnished other instances of the impracticability of the view of the Council. Those were private bequests, leaving large funds for the benefit of schools and schoolmasters, the application of which in detail was optional in the trustees. Here was a puzzle for the Council. The trustees represented the permanent interest, and the receivers the precarious interest. It was clear that the Council had to deal with the latter; but they saw at once it would not suit their view to deal with them, and they said to the trustees, "You have a large endowment; we cannot think of employing public means to supplement your subscriptions to schools, and we must, therefore, relieve the public taxation for those objects out of the means at your disposal." But there was a proviso in both wills that the trustees should so apply the funds as never to interfere with the obligations of any contributors to those schools. The Privy Council had therefore so managed it as to do exactly that which the testators wished to prevent, and had relieved the public chest of all obligations by means of private bequests to those schools. There was also numerous cases of endowments for the payment of weekly pence for the education of poor children, in which the principle dealt with the endowments twice over. Then there were instances, where, with the consent of the Charity Commissioners, small sums allotted for bread, or clothing, or other doles, had been converted into aids for schools. In such cases it might almost be said that the claimants for such doles were still living contributors to the schools to which their doles were transferred, from year to year relinquishing their own rights as a contribution to the schools; yet by the mere fact of the doles having been twisted into the form of school endowments, these practically living contributors were taxed to the Treasury for the relief of public obligations to the poor. Endowments of schools by allotments of common land came under the same category. Because the allottees were practically life contributors, yet the school lost the benefit of the grant to the extent of their contribution. In the case of a great number of endowments created indiscriminately for "clothing and educating" certain children, he felt curious to know how the Treasury could draw a distinction. Why should it not take all to its own credit;
  1664
  or, if not, on what point rests its option? There was a case at Hayes, in Kent, where, in 1861, the parishioners in vestry consented to give two-thirds of a charity which had been expended in bread to the school. Now that this sum was proposed to be taken in reduction of the Treasury grant, the rector who had originated the movement was accused in the parish of fraud. At Harlton, in Cambridge, in 1848, a landed proprietor left £90, to which several voluntary contributions were added by other landowners, who preferred paying down a sum of money at once to making annual payments. The whole was invested in consols, and by that process, under the Minute of May, was practically handed over to the Treasury. At "White-parish, Salisbury, the Council made it a condition of their first grant that the old master and mistress should be pensioned; but this inexorable principle would not even allow for those pensions, but deducted the whole endowment from their annual aid. Mr. Baldwin wrote that there were two schools in his neighbourhood which each had £1,000 left to them. One invested the legacy to use the interest for current expenses; the other built a master's and mistress's house. The first consequently lost all benefit of its legacy which the other saved. Barrow, near Loughborough, had an endowed school for all sorts of learning; as this did not meet the wants of the working classes, the Charity Commissioners enabled them to establish a lower school with part of their endowment. The trustees handed over one - third of their funds for the purpose, and now found that they had simply relieved the Treasury to that extent at a useless cost to their upper school. He would now show what would be the result if the principle asserted were practically carried out. It appeared by the Privy Council Returns that the Church elementary school endowments amounted to £34,782 a year, and the elementary school endowments of other religious denominations to £3,328. By the National Society's Returns he found that the number of Church elementary schools endowed with small sums of from £5 to £50 was 4,678. Prom those two statements it was clear that the majority of the schools affected by the Minute were Church schools in poor rural districts. In this manner the Minute certainly contravened the express intention, of the grant. He never stood up for the plea of poverty in the rural

  1665
  districts, where there was always property enough to take its share in the work, if there were no poverty of spirit in the owners. What he contended for was, the spirit of this Minute was in direct contravention of the declared intention of the original grant — namely, that the poor were its primary object; and all construction should be in their favour. The Minute of June, 1839, said that "the rule for aiding in proportion to subscriptions should not be invariably adhered to in cases of very poor and populous districts."
  MR. LOWE: That relates to building grants.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the principle was the same whatever the application, and therefore his argument was not affected. It was certainly a contravention of the original principle to pass a Minute by which all classes of schools in the country, especially those in the rural districts, should be most deprived of the Privy Council grant; and it was quite as mischievous, if not more so, that they which needed inspection most should be deprived of the examination and inspection, and of the stimulus which was given by the Privy Council to all the schools which came under the supervision of its officers. But the schools which would suffer under this Minute were not only the schools in poor rural districts—they were nearly all Church schools. He did not desire that a Parliament grant drawn from the general taxation of the country should be administered for the benefit of any one class; but, for the same reason, it should not be spent to the special injury of any class, and least of all of the Established Church of the nation. As an evidence of what would be the operation of this Minute, it was stated that in the diocese of Carlisle, the aggregate grants under the Revised Code to eighteen schools, taken as samples, having endowments of about £30 a year each, would have been £322 a year, but by the Minute of May last they would be reduced to £87. It was also stated that nearly one-half of these schools would lose all grants, and that endowers of them to the amount of £1,830 a year were still alive. He fully admitted that there was great difficulty in drawing a Minute on this subject so as to avoid too wealthy claimants obtaining undue advantage. There must, in the first place, be a limit beyond which endowed schools should have no claim upon the public grant which was specially meant for
  1666
  the labouring classes, and ought not to be spent on classes which could afford to pay for their own education. That limit should be so fixed as to characterize the endowment as belonging to the working classes. Secondly, there ought to be another limit fixing the extent to which those who are within the first limit might claim the grant; because, although certain endowed schools might be allowed to participate in the Parliamentary grant, they ought not all to receive as large a subsidy as schools which were supported solely by voluntary contributions. But, in all cases, endowments were of the nature of private benevolence, and ought not to be taken by the Treasury as a means for reducing their own contributions. Several suggestions had been made to him as to how the difficulty might be met. Some persons thought that endowments might at a certain rate be taken for the education of a certain number of children, and that the rest of the school might be treated as a school un-endowed. That seemed to him to be a complicated mode of dealing with the question. Others proposed that the aggregate income of the schools, including school-pence, grant, and endowment, should be limited to a certain amount. There were various ways of meeting the difficulty, but he thought that the double limit which he had mentioned, which was the principle of the Revised Code, was the true principle, and that the principle which sought to appropriate private endowments in relief of the public treasury, which was the principle of the Minute of May, was a wrong principle, and ought to be abandoned. As his second Resolution was informally drawn, he would postpone it, and he would merely say a word on the principle involved in it. He thought that it would be very useful if the House could have its attention drawn to the introduction of new Minutes, and if some check could be put upon too incessant changes. They must expect changes from a very clever Minister, who had talents equal to a place in the Cabinet, and who had to let off the steam of superfluous energy which was pent up in a too narrow office. But if the attention of Parliament were called to every new Minute that was laid upon the table, it would probably prevent such numerous changes being made. Generally speaking, this system of bye-legislation in Executive offices, which seemed to be increasing, was dangerous. Still, from his own experience, he confessed

  1667
  that if every change that it was necessary to make in the administration of the Education Grant were to be brought to a Vote in that House, administration of the grant would be impossible. There was, however, a medium somewhere between this and the present mode of slipping changes on the table, without any one knowing anything of them, and often at the close of the Session. Not only did new Minutes steal upon them thus from time to time, but there were besides circulars issued in explanation of these Minutes, which very often in their importance themselves amounted to new Minutes. Something in the way of announcement of, and calling attention to, changes might, he thought, be adopted. However, as his second Resolution was so worded that it could not be put, he would defer to some future opportunity, taking the sense of the House upon the proposition which it involved, and at present would only move — "That Grants made from the Treasury to Schools for the working classes should not in every case be reduced by the whole amount of all endowments."
  MR. F. S. POWELL (Cambridge)seconded the Motion. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement as to the effect of the system in the poorer districts, and in his assertion, that the Education Grant was intended for the benefit of the working classes. It was not impossible that the House might have from the Treasury bench some loud declamation against endowed schools. He conceded every argument which could be based upon strong accusations and harsh expressions. On looking over the Report of the Education Commissioners he observed that endowed schools were abused by witness after witness. The Bishop of Carlisle said there was a danger lest the security of endowments should damp the zeal of the masters; but he added that such superintendence as was implied in Government inspection might neutralize the tendency, and he declared his opinion that small endowments should be treated as annual subscriptions in the matter of augmentation of stipends. But, in the midst of the evidence against endowed schools, there appeared some gleams of light and some symptoms of hope; and, upon the whole, no candid inquirer could say that there was anything in the Report of the Commissioners adverse to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire.
  1668
  The Commissioners themselves said that if endowed schools were to remain useful, or to be prevented from becoming noxious, they should be made the subject of cautious and discriminating reforms. Most assuredly, however, they proposed no sweeping measures, and yet their recommendations, if faithfully carried out, could not fail to be successful. They suggested, for example, that the master of an endowed school should hold a certificate either from the Privy Council, or from the Universities, or from some other public body; that there should be a change in the manner in which some masters of endowed schools were appointed; that there should be a power to remove masters; and that there should be a periodical inspection by officers of the Privy Council. The direct tendency of the new Minute would be to remove endowed schools from Government inspection, and in that respect, therefore, as well as in others, it was in opposition to the recommendations of the Commissioners. Among the many evils connected with the charities of the country, not the least arose from the doles of bread periodically given. Such doles were mischievous and dangerous; in many cases they induced persons to attend the services of religion for no other purpose than to receive the dole, and so tended to produce among the people feelings of irreverence and profanity. He should like to see them devoted to one or all of three purposes—the providing of hospital and infirmary accommodation, the promotion of education, and the relief of the aged poor. In many parts of the country attempts were now being made to apply doles to education; but, judging from letters ho had received from clerical and other friends, he was afraid that if the new Minute was not repealed those efforts would cease, and the doles would remain a source of demoralization among the people. These endowed schools were distributed over every part of the country, and admitting that many of them were in a languishing state, the question was whether, by stimulating the action of local interests, we could improve their condition. He had no doubt that such would be the effect of the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, and, in point of fact, something had already been done for endowed schools. Those schools required such assistance as the Privy Council could give; but now it was actually proposed to leave them to

  1669
  themselves, permitting them to become an obstruction to education, a resistance to progress, and a harm to the people. Many endowments had been created within the last few years, and in applying their Minute to them the Privy Council were acting not only in violation of justice and policy, but likewise in opposition to the recommendation of the Education Commissioners. There was also another point to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, and to which he wished briefly to advert. We had in existence throughout the country several free schools which possessed endowments, and which were obliged by their foundation to educate certain scholars without remuneration. Now, how did the Government propose to act towards such schools? Why, it said, "You shall still continue to educate those scholars free, but you shall not continue to receive the money by which the expenses of that education are to be defrayed." By no principle of reason or justice could such a mode of proceeding as that, he contended, be justified. But on the face of the Report itself was to be found the most powerful condemnation of the Minute, inasmuch as the proposition was there clearly set forth, that because endowed schools often obtained grants without needing them, therefore it had been decided to consider such endowments in relief of grants. But surely it was not because endowed schools often did not need grants that the grants were to be taken not from those particular schools, but from all endowed schools? The Minute, and also the Revised Code, were in his opinion bad; but there was an old proverb, that bad laws were not so mischievous as uncertain laws; and now an element of uncertainty was about to be introduced. There was a time when there was a pleasure in having communications with the friends of education in this country; but that time no longer existed. From communications which he had had with those who were engaged in educating the classes for whom this course of education was specially intended, he found that the difficulties with which they had to contend were greatly increased by the conduct of the Government, and there was everywhere a feeling of doubt, uncertainty, and suspense, and an anticipation of some impending blow. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had alluded to the changes which had taken place in the Code; but the mischief was that those
  1670
  changes never ceased. It was much to be regretted that the Government had not paid more careful attention to the Minute, and the various other documents which had been issued from the Education Office, because the want of care produced this consequence, that there were in some of the documents clauses which were in direct contradiction to the Revised Code. The Code said that trust deeds which settled the legal ownership of the premises, and provided for the inspection and management of the schools, should be prepared in accordance with one or other of the precedents which had been settled. But in January last an attempt was made to force upon the National Society in every case where there were only 150 children in the school, a "conscience clause," though it appeared that that conscience clause was not contained in any one of the precedents according to which the grants were to be made to the National Society. He contended that this was in contravention of the arrangement between the House and the Government, and that such an alteration ought only to be made by a Minute, which should be laid upon the table, and should be approved or rescinded by the House. There were many other points in which, according to his judgment, the action of the Government was most disastrous to the schools. He believed that it would be wisdom and policy in an administration which desired to promote the interests of the people to meet as far as they could every desire of those who promoted education, and he most deeply regretted that a different policy had been adopted by Her Majesty's present advisers. He saw this policy in the Minute of which he complained, in the correspondence with managers of schools, and in the general outline of the action of the Government in this matter; but he trusted that a change would come over them, and that the country might not find from the Department of Education obstruction instead of advancement; and that it would hereafter be able to repose a confidence which it did not at present entertain in an important department of the administration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Grants made from the Treasury to Schools for the working classes, should not, in every case, be reduced by the whole amount of all endowments.—(Mr. Adderley.)
  LORD HENLEYsaid, that in no part of his speech had the right hon. Gentleman

  1671
  opposite (Mr. Adderley) spoken with more truth than when he stated that it was the Schools in the rural districts which the alterations made by the Committee of Council would principally affect, and that these schools were chiefly Church of England schools. Now, if the proposition had been to vote a fresh grant for education, there might have been more doubt as to the regulations proposed; but, in fact, it was only proposed to administer a grant that already existed; and seeing that the Church of England monopolized almost entirely the education of those districts, he was disposed to look with great regret on any proposition which tended to diminish its power of extending its operations. He agreed that one of the principal grounds of complaint, on the part of the managers of schools, was the sudden changes to which they were exposed. It was, for instance, only about two years ago that the managers of schools in the rural districts were taking into consideration a Minute, under the operation of which they were to receive certain additions to the sums paid for those schools, in the belief that the increase was to be placed on a fixed basis, and was to continue for a great many years. All their calculations in the matter were, however, rudely upset by the Minute under discussion. He would call attention to the way in which its operation would interfere with the interests of the three classes of persons chiefly interested—the managers of the schools, those who taught in them, and the pupils. Now, first as to the managers. They thought that under the Minute of two years ago they were to receive a certain sum as the price of certain results to be found upon examination; but the managers of schools with endowments found, in many cases, that they were to lose the whole amount of the sums which had been promised them; and that, consequently, they must reduce their establishments. This reduction would be necessary, because in many of the rural districts it would be found impossible to raise additional subscriptions sufficient to compensate for the loss of the grant. He thought that this was a position which it was hard to put the managers in. The Minute operated, in his opinion, equally injuriously in the case of the schoolmasters, who had gone to great expense, and undergone laborious preparation, with the view of obtaining the certificate, and whom the managers would now find it impossible to
  1672
  employ at the rate of wages which they had been led to anticipate. The consequence would be, that a great number of those teachers would be thrown entirely out of employment, and be unable to find a market for their labour. Then, as regarded the scholars, the effect of the Minute would be to deprive them in a great many instances of all the advantages of Government supervision, because the stimulus which made the teachers and managers endeavour to earn as much as they could by getting their pupils to appear to the best advantage at the Inspector's examination, would no longer operate. Indeed, where the amount of the endowment and the amount of the augmentation grant were nearly the same, the managers, as they would have little or nothing to receive, might be induced to withdraw their schools entirely from Government control, whereby the efficiency of the teaching might be seriously impaired. If it were proposed to make this reduction in the grants on the score of economy, it should be deemed necessary to economize in regard to the Educational Vote, and more especially in this particular form. He thought it would be very bad economy to take away the grant on account of the existence of an endowment, because the natural result of it would be that in future no person would be found to endow a school at all from his private resources. The Report mentioned the case of a clergyman at Coventry who had set apart the sum of £28 annually for the purposes of education in his own parish, and who said that if, at the time he did so, he had known of this Minute, he never would have made such a disposition of his money. He desired, therefore, to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the very great injury which his proposed Minute would do to the cause of education generally, and more particularly in the rural districts, in connection with the Church of England schools. It would exercise a very deteriorating influence upon the character of the instruction given; and on all these grounds he trusted that some modification would be made in its terms.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, that in supporting the Resolution of his right hon. Friend, he begged to express the pleasure with which he had heard those manly words fall from the noble Lord opposite, who consistently supported Her Majesty's Government, but whose practical knowledge compelled him on this occasion to vote

  1673
  against his friends. As the manager of a small endowed school, and representing a district which contained a large number of such schools, he must enter his humble protest against the proposal of the Government. He protested against it, in the first place, as tending to alter and unsettle the arrangements—these arrangements being the result of a compromise—which were come to under the Revised Code of 1862. Under those regulations he, in common with all other managers, entered into pecuniary arrangements with teachers, and incurred other responsibilities which, if the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman were to be carried out, would be entirely destroyed. He protested, in the second place, against the proposal of the Government as tending to discourage many rural schools, which alone would be affected. Rural schools, by comparison with urban schools, suffered in the competition for capitation grants, and it was impolitic to weight them still more heavily. Few, save those who lived in rural districts, appreciated the immense disadvantages under which such schools laboured, from the difficulty of bringing children together, from their living at some distance from the schoolhouse, from insufficiency of clothing, from bad weather, and from the unwillingness of their parents to send them to school. And it must not be forgotten that it was almost impossible to give to children in country villages the same sharpness and readiness displayed by children in towns. The consequence was, that when the Inspector paid his visit they made a worse show, and suffered proportionately in the capitation grant. He protested against the proposal of the Government, in the third place, as tending to discourage future endowments and those who might be inclined to make them by confiscating to the revenue of the State the endowments already made. Perhaps he might be allowed to state the case of the parish in which he lived, and of the schools of which he was the manager. A few years ago the schools were built by relatives of his, and were afterwards endowed with a sum of £500. The trust deed showed the purpose for which the endowment was given—that the money was given as a subscription of so much a year during the life of the donor, and to save himself and others in the parish after their death, by as much as the interest of the gross sum, from paying to the support of these schools. With what justice, then,
  1674
  he asked, could the Government take away the endowment from the parish as they were about to do? If the principle were adopted it would discourage many liberal men from doing liberal deeds, and would prevent future ages from enjoying the benefits of their liberality. The right hon. Gentleman would by-and-by make a speech to which they would listen with great pleasure, and his words might be summed up in this one argument—that it was unfair to give to endowed schools in the same proportion as they gave to unendowed schools. But he (Mr. Mitford) would say in answer, that the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman could not devise means by which all schools in all the parishes throughout the kingdom could be placed on the same footing with regard to competition for the Parliamentary grant. He had already referred to the great disadvantages under which rural schools laboured in comparison with urban schools, and he could mention twenty other cases in which the same injustice would he done as in that which he had named. The right hon. Gentleman could not get real justice by his present proposition—he could only get apparent justice; and was it then worth while, he asked, under those circumstances, to meddle with such sacred things as endowments and bequests? He supported the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire. He only regretted it was not stronger. Instead of merely saying that the grants to endowed schools should not in all cases be reduced by the amount of all the endowments, he thought it would have been better if the words of the Resolution had been "that grants made from the Treasury to schools for the working classes should not be reduced, except in cases provided for by the Revised Code of 1862." It was better, in his opinion, to take their stand on that broad ground, and he should be glad if his right hon. Friend would allow the substitution of those words for his own. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Educational Department would see that the feeling of all Members on the Opposition and of many Members on his own side of the House was against his proposal, and would be satisfied with what he had at present done. The House and the country had allowed him to do a great deal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take a hint from the well known saying of the great oracle of his party—"rest"

  1675
  on the merits of what he had done, "and be thankful."
  MR. BAINESsaid, the object sought to be obtained by the Government proposal was to prevent a great and palpable waste of public money, and to bring back these grants to schools to the distinct principle upon which they were founded. Nothing was better known than that the principle of the system founded in 1846 was to find means, not to supersede, but to stimulate voluntary contributions. It needed no quotation from Hansard to prove this. Nothing was better known than the fact. Every grant was to be met by a voluntary subscription. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was just going back to the principle which existed at the outset. It had been for a time most unjustly and improperly departed from. The right hon. Gentleman the Mover of this Resolution had found it necessary to depart from the extended terms he originally employed, and to adopt a more contracted form. His original Motion was to prevent the Government from deducting the endowment from the grant in any case; but he now said merely that it should not be imperative to deduct the whole endowment from the amount of the public grant in every case. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, with the zeal he had always avowed for voluntary exertions, should have made such a Motion. Not only was it utterly unfair to give the same amount of public money to a parish having an endowment as to those which had none, but such a system tended positively to repress, discourage, and prevent the development of the voluntary principle. He should prove that, not by argument, but by facts, from documents which had been laid on the table of the House. In the parish of Clewer, Berks, National School the endowment was £61 per annum, the subscriptions nil, and the Government grant £45. In Old Windsor National School the endowment was £110, the subscription £30, and the Government grant £60. In March, Cambridge, National School the endowment was £56, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £61. In Sandbach, Cheshire, National School the endowment was £105, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £263. In "Wyburnbury (Delve's Charity) National School the endowment was £110, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £20. In Crosthwaite, Cumberland, Free Grammar School the amount was
  1676
  £124, the subscription £37, and the Government grant £82. In Glossop (Duke of Norfolk's School), Derbyshire, the endowment was £120, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £298 10s. In Barnstaple, Devon, National School the endowment was £100, the subscription £35, and the Government grant £54. In Bishop Auckland, Durham (Bishop Bar-rington's) Church School the endowment was £187, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £85. In Cirencester Church School the endowment was £638, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £108.
  MR. MITFORDinquired what year the hon. Gentleman referred to?
  MR. BAINESsaid, he was referring to papers which were moved for last year; one of them by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and the other by the hon. Member for Bolton, He was not sure whether one was the year before last.
  MR. MITFORD: That was before the Revised Code.
  MR. BAINES: It was in Fairford National School the endowment was £131, the subscription £18, and the Government grant £141. In Hanham Wesley an School the endowment was £129, the subscription £58, and the Government grant £101. In Moreton-in-the-Marsh Church School the endowment was £145, the subscription £40, and the Government grant £101. In Hereford (Scudamore's Charity) National School the endowment was £168, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £132. In Faversham District, Kent, National School the endowment was £596, the subscription £44, and the Government grant £391. In Greenwich, West Brand, Roan's Grey Coat Wesleyan School the endowment was £751, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £70. In Whitstable and Seasalter (Charity), Kent, National School the endowment was £140, the subscription £28, and the Government grant £173. In Liverpool St. Bartholomew's, Naylor Street School the endowment was £170, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £164. In Lough-borough, Leicestershire, School the endowment was £200, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £214. In Lambeth, Archbishop Tenison's School (National) the endowment was £335, the subscription nil, and the Government grant £97. Looking to these facts, he maintained that the effect of the old system was to repress voluntary action. It was a great benefit

  1677
  to the people to compel them to be active in the great, cause of education; and they would be active under the influence of motives of religion, humanity, and regard to the public peace. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would have been censurable in the highest degree if he had not put an end to such a system as he had described. When that system was put an end to, the means would develop themselves for supplying the want. First of all they would have subscriptions and collections in churches and other places of worship. Then they would have a higher scale of payment on the part of children. He believed it was a most fatal policy to keep them down to the miserable penny per week. A higher payment would be positively beneficial to parents. It tended to increase their interest in the education of their children. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), he repeated, had taken the fair, just, and common-sense course in putting an end to the monstrous system of paying no regard whatever to private endowments in his administration of the public funds. He most heartily agreed with the principles laid down by the Privy Council, and should, therefore, oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, it was always an unpleasant thing to witness the waste of labour well intended, and all the time the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baines) was detailing figures which he had evidently collected with much care and cost of personal labour, he felt a pang that all those figures should be thrown away. The hon. Gentleman had been slaying the slain; he had been killing a system which was dead, and delivering an argument, not in favour of the Minute before the House, but in favour of the Revised Code, which had been disposed of two years ago. The enormous disproportions of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken might be disposed of summarily for the moment by the observation that they referred to a system which had gone by. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that what they had to look to was not any special case, but the general principle on which these grants were originally made by Parliament. The general objects which Parliament had in view were two. In the first instance, Parliament desired to assist education in those districts where population was comparatively poor, and therefore might be presumed to be unable
  1678
  to assist themselves. Besides that, Parliament desired to draw out the voluntary subscriptions of the people, and in respect to both of those objects, this Minute sinned against the primary objects of the Parliamentary grant. With respect to the poverty of the districts aided, everybody knew that in towns education could pretty well take care of itself. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] In the towns with which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was acquainted, large sums, no doubt, could be collected for education without any assistance from Government. The really sore point was reached on getting into the more sparsely populated districts, where the same amount of wealth could not be found. He agreed with the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire that those districts could not be called too poor to support the education which they desired to promote; but they certainly were very much poorer than the districts with which they were brought into comparison. The support of education was always a matter of difficulty there, because, in rural districts, the schools depended mainly on the landed proprietors. They were, generally speaking, the chief persons possessed of wealth, they were liable to the vicissitudes of character to which human beings were exposed, and it never could be relied on that in any particular district, at any particular time, there would be found landowners who would be disposed to support education. In dealing with towns, we might rely on averages. There might be a certain number of persons indisposed to education, but there would always also be a certain number who would be zealous in the cause. But where property was comparatively concentrated, the point was to obtain a permanent support for education. Voluntary subscriptions might safely be depended on for education as long as there was a sufficient number of persons of wealth to enable us to be certain that there would be among them some zealous promoters of education; but they were no longer a safe dependence where the numbers were few. In rural districts, when a man zealous for education came into his property, he said to himself, "These schools depend mainly upon me; it is possible that my son, or some future descendant, or some person into whose hands my property may pass, may be less zealous in the cause; I will, therefore, stereotype my good dispositions by making an en-

  1679
  dowment for the school. I will secure it from all danger which may arise from a change in the character of any future tenants of my property, and I will take care that it shall he as secure in its support as those schools which are supported by the denser populations of towns." Was it not desirable to encourage people to do that? Was not that a mode of voluntary support quite as worthy of the countenance of the House of Commons as the contribution of those subscriptions the amount of which varied from year to year? It was on that ground that he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite was levelling a heavy blow at the education of the poorer districts, when, by this Minute, he said he would discourage all permanent sources of support. Here he must remind the right hon. Gentleman of one thing of which the arguers of his case had lost sight of. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baines) had mentioned cases in which there were large endowments and small subscriptions. The rationale of that was this:—When a man inherited landed property he might probably find that his ancestors had alienated a large amount for the support of a school. He knew that the school was supported by revenues which but for that alienation would be his, and he said, not unnaturally, "My ancestor has taken care of my subscription, my duty is discharged, and I will subscribe no more." There was no harm in that, the school flourished just as well—it was merely a different mode of taking the amount, and that explains why parish endowments may be very large, and voluntary subscriptions nothing at all. Then there came the other object of the Privy Council—the encouragement of the voluntary subscriptions of the people. In this country the system and principle of endowments had become so much a part and parcel of our institutions, it had entered so thoroughly into our social life, we relied on it for the supply of so many wants, that at this time of day it was hardly open to us to start the question, whether endowments were good or bad. But if it were desirable to raise that question, it ought to be done in a direct manner. He maintained that the voluntary contributions of the people, in the shape of permanent endowments, were just as worthy of encouragement, just as great an object of self-devotion, showed just as great zeal in the cause of education, and were just as powerful an aid to the pro-
  1680
  motion of that cause as if they were temporary and evanescent. Therefore, the objects contemplated in the original scheme of education appeared to be not only equally but better attained by the encouragement of endowments than by the encouragement of temporary subscriptions. It was on these two general principles that he opposed the Minute of the right hon. Gentleman. But he had special grounds also, which were intimated in the Motion appended to the Resolution' of his right hon. "Friend (Mr. Adderley), which he had not been able to put. There were peculiar features connected with this Minute which the House of Commons was called on to take notice of. Two years ago they had a battle on the Revised Code, which ended, as all political battles in this country must do, in a compromise. Each side yielded a great deal to obtain what was generally believed to be a permanent settlement. It was accepted, to a great extent, by the managers of schools. They, bowing to the will of Parliament, set themselves to the task of undertaking new liabilities, bearing new burdens, and discharging new duties, on the faith of that settlement, which they believed to be permanent, and to the maintenance of which they thought the authority of Parliament was pledged. But the object of the right hon. Gentleman, since he had been in the Education Office, seemed to be to keep it in a perpetual state of revolution. No man who had to deal with him knew what the next year might bring forth, what new principles would be started, and what new conditions would be thrust upon him for his acceptance of the grant. The right hon. Gentleman must see himself that nothing could be more fatal to the progress of education, or more weakening to the confidence which managers had in Parliament, than these perpetual alterations of principles. But it was not merely that of which the House of Commons had a right to complain. It is that from the very beginning of his tenure of office to the present time, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have thought that his mission was insidiously and clandestinely to thrust into the management of the affairs committed to his charge principles which he did not venture to avow when he stood on the floor of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was a bold and outspoken voluntary. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was something more

  1681
  than an outspoken voluntary; but though the right hon. Gentleman differed in language from his supporters, did he differ in conduct? The right hon. Gentleman lost no opportunity of striking at the basis of the system which he had been placed in his present office to administer. What the House had reason to complain of was, that the right hon. Gentleman did not come forward, when he moved the Estimates, and acquaint the House with the changes, and tell them the effect of his proposals. Instead of doing so, he wrapped his schemes up in those hieroglyphics which the permanent Secretary of the Treasury knew so well; and in these they remained till some hierophant of the Education Office unravelled them. Then the House found it was not some alteration in detail they had passed, but that some principle which they had cherished, and which was at the foundation of the whole system, had been secretly sapped and undermined. He thought such proceedings very objectionable on the part of a Minister in the House of Commons, but they seemed especially objectionable in the Education Department. There was no Department to which the House of Commons committed trusts so unlimited. Parliament committed to the right hon. Gentleman a fund of which it touched scarcely a single item; it handed over to him enormous sums—reaching nearly a million sterling—and left it almost entirely to the discretion of his office to dispense them. He thought that so much confidence deserved some confidence in return. What he was now about to refer to was not a subject before the House, but it bore on that subject. They had had many complaints from religious societies of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the religious aspect of the question. There was the case of what was generally known as "the conscience clause." This clause was not before them, and he did not mean to discuss it; but what he wished to bring before the House was this, that if those changes were made at all, they ought to be made openly, avowedly, and deliberately. [Mr. LOWE: Hear!] They ought not to be made by the Minister in the secresy of his office; they ought to be made avowedly in the face of the House of Commons. It was not fair that the right hon. Gentleman should go so far as to banish dogmatic teaching from the Church of England schools, without giving the body who fur-
  1682
  nishes the money an opportunity of passing judgment on such a proceeding. It appeared to him that the proposition which, they were discussing that night was only a part of the same system. No intimation had been given by the right hon. Gentleman of the bearing of that plan. The first intimation they had received of it was the complaint of those who felt that it was an injury, and apprehended the damage which it was likely to entail. Even if the House did not now differ from the right hon. Gentleman on the general principle on which the contributions to the rural schools are to be based, if they did not fear the utter ruin of the rural schools, and the entire extinction of the contributions on which for the future they ought to rely—even if there were not those objections to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman—they ought to reject it, because it had been introduced with a secresy and a silence which the House of Commons was bound not to tolerate.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, as representative of the city of Aberdeen he was an official trustee of the Milne Bequest to schools in Aberdeenshire, and in the name of the schooolmasters of that shire he protested against the scheme of his right hon. Friend as mischievous and impolitic. There were two bequests of an important character to schools in the North of Scotland, the Milne and Dick's Bequests. Taking the case of one of these bequests by way of example, he wished to observe, that it was not an endowment in the usual sense of a compulsory annual fixed allowance to particular schoolmasters, but an allowance at the discretion of the trustees to such schoolmasters as satisfied the requirements laid down by the trustees; and the trustees, acting on their powers, applied it for the purpose of securing schoolmasters of superior attainments. Accordingly, there were in some of the parochial schools in the North of Scotland schoolmasters who could teach Greek and Latin, and Mathematics; and many men whose names were an honour to their country, and who were enrolled upon its annals, had received their early education in those schools. Dr. Milne, in his deed, says—
  "So small is the pittance of salary which is in general bestowed upon the parish schoolmasters in Scotland, that little inducement exists for men of any talent or acquirements to engage in such an office; the sources of instruction are consequently proportionably defective, and the youth whose minds ought to he formed, find but a poor and ill adapted model for improvement. It is therefore

  1683
  highly important that the situations of the parish sohoolmasters should be improved, because it will induce men of abilities and of education to engage in such a task."
  And he expressly enjoins that his bequest shall not be applied in such a manner
  "As in any way to relieve the heritors or other persons from their legal obligations to support parochial schoolmasters, or to diminish the extent of such support.
  The bequest fund only permits of £20 being given annually to 70 out of 114 parochial schools in Aberdeenshire; the trustees therefore have an ample margin for new selections, whenever the grantees failed in their duties: in fact, those endowments were in the nature of voluntary grants in the first instance; and they ought not to come under the rule which his right hon. Friend sought to have adopted. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would unquestionably deter all benevolent persons from assisting, by bequests, in promoting the education of the people, and he, therefore, should give it all the opposition in his power.
  MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he quite agreed with those who believed that the effect of this measure would be to discourage endowments for the future, and it might almost be concluded that this was the object which his right hon. Friend had in view. He knew his right hon. Friend too well, however, to suppose that that was his object. No doubt the proposition had been made from the fear that the Educational Grant was attaining such formidable dimensions that Parliament would be deterred from continuing it. But ho thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely overshot the mark, and that the effect of his proposition would be to prevent the bequests which would otherwise be made for educational purposes. He was sure it would have that effect in Scotland. With regard to the Dick Bequest, which was a fund left for the purpose of improving the position and raising the qualifications of the parochial schoolmasters in the three northern counties, his right hon. Friend came under the description of the persons alluded to in the terms of the bequest, which said that the fund was not to be applied in such manner as to relieve the elders or other persons from their obligation, to support the parochial schoolmasters. Practically, his right hon. Friend proposed to confiscate for the use of the Treasury a bequest which was given for a different purpose—
  1684
  namely, to raise the standard of qualifications and the remuneration of the parochial schoolmasters. He also believed that the right hon. Gentleman would entirely fail in saving the public money. In the county of Banff there was a school with 272 scholars, and the grant to which they would be entitled would amount to £90, while at present the utmost extent of the grant given by the trustees in aid of any parochial schoolmaster was £40. The Minute had been received in Scotland with the greatest possible disapprobation; it would interfere materially with the efficiency of the schools there; and the people were therefore unanimous in thinking that every possible opposition ought to be given to it.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, the proposition before the House was how to educate the people of England. A grave question connected with it was now moving the world, the question of endowments and the voluntary principle—a living sentiment and the exercise of mental effort on the one side, and a dead lock, a body without a soul, on the other. It was a subject which interested all civilized society; the old and obsolete principle of endowments and establishments was dying away, and those highest in Christian principle and example would carry the day. It was the pivot on which humanity, on which the whole human race would turn. How had the competition between voluntaryism and endowments been carried on during late years? For years it had been the principle of the Nonconformists to abandon endowments and rely entirely upon voluntary effort and intellectual effort. And what had been the consequence? Had the Church competed with them in the moral and intellectual instruction of the people for the last fifty years? Certainly not. The Church had between 15,000 and 16,000 institutions in the country; the Nonconformists had 25,000, and yet did not seek a single shilling from the State. The only denomination of Protestant Nonconformists in the United Kingdom who asked for a single shilling of public money were the Presbyterians of Ireland, who pestered the Lord Lieutenant and hunted up the Prime Minister to secure and to increase their endowments, and the result had been the decrease of their body. The Voluntaries in this part of Britain—he meant England and Wales—had 3,000,000 children under the tuition of 350,000 voluntary and unpaid teachers. What was

  1685
  moving the Church of England at the present moment? Dissatisfaction with the subscription to the Doctrines and Articles. For two hundred years the Nonconformists had borne the persecution and obloquy of the hierarchy. And what said the Head of the Church now? Her Majesty, the Head on earth of the Church of England, had issued a Royal Commission to inquire whether this subscription, so long sought to be exacted from the Nonconformists, but never got from them, could not be changed. In other words, suggesting that the Nonconformists, who had protested against the subscription, were right, and the Church wrong; that those who for 300 years had borne a testimony against this subscription were right, and those who insisted upon the subscription—and insisted on it, too, on the principle that they were the predominant party—not the Christian party, but the dominant party— were wrong.
  MR. LOWE: Sir, before I address the House upon the subject immediately before it, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil). The noble Lord did me too much honour in attributing to me the undivided management and responsibility of what he calls the educational revolution which has taken place during the last three years. I am but the humble instrument of much higher authorities, and the whole of these changes have been submitted to the Educational Committee composed of the highest officers of the State, under whose directions I have to act. I should be tempted to take to myself—if I were worthy of it—all the responsibility and the blame for what has been done. The noble Lord, in the light and sportive manner in which he is in the habit of enlivening our debates, has said that I entertain insidiously and clandestinely certain sentiments which I dared not avow —one of those sentiments arising from the fact that I am a concealed follower of the hon. Member who has last addressed us. It matters very little to the House what my opinions upon this subject may be, but I can assure it that in what I have had to do with regard to education, I have looked upon it as a matter of business in a department which I have had to administer under principals. All my efforts have been directed to carrying out the directions I have received from my official superiors in the manner best
  1686
  calculated to attain the end they had in view. I have had no concealed opinions —no views kept back—no secret colloquies with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). If I had been an advocate of the voluntary principle I could have done no better than to have done nothing and to have left matters alone. By doing away with some of the charges to which allusion has been made, and by bringing the whole subject to the test of examination, the Privy Council system has secured a new lease. When I found the Vote increasing at the rate of £100,000 a year, if I had left that state of things to continue for five years I should now have to submit an estimate of £1,200,000, and I think then I should have pretty well played the game of the supporters of the voluntary principle. The thing would have become so inflated —so intolerable—that the country would have risen and the whole system would have been swept away.
  Coming now, Sir, to the immediate subject of discussion, I am accused of having acted stealthily, furtively, and secretly with regard to this Minute. Let the House look at the facts. The Minute was laid on the table on the 19th of May, last year. The noble Lord says the Minute is couched in such intolerable jargon that a hierophant is necessary to explain it. The Minute is, "Annual grants to endowed schools are reduced by the amounts of their income from endowment;" that is the whole of it. I am not acquainted with any hierophants, but I am sure he must be a clever expositor who can put that into plainer English. It was laid upon the table on the 19th of May. After that I was duly questioned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and others, and then came the Education Estimates, when the amplest opportunity for discussing the subject was afforded. The Minute was proposed to come into operation on the 30th of June of this year, thus giving fourteen months for consideration and discussion. There may be many faults about it, but it is impossible to take a course more calculated to insure publicity. Let hon. Gentlemen remember that it is not my fault if the Department must act by Minutes. It is the system we found in existence, and it is not possible, for a Department acting by Minutes to have that publicity and concert with the House of Commons which accompany the intro-

  1687
  duction of a Bill. There is one consolation which ought to redeem us from obloquy, and that is, that if we had been compelled to alter the old system by a Bill I could never have carried it through this House, and I should now be about at this moment to move for a Vote of £1,200,000. So, with all its faults, the present system has at least one advantage. With respect to this Minute, it obliges me to go to the fundamental principle of the grants of the Privy Council. In 1860 we reduced these Minutes to a Code, which, in 1861, we revised. In our Codes, we defined the means by which the Department acted, which were the aiding of voluntary local exertion for the maintenance of schools. Then comes the question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) raises —Do these endowments come under that head? That is what it really comes to. This new arrangement of the Department was not adopted without great consideration and good reason. We were about to trust to local bodies, of whom we knew little, a certain amount of public money to expend, and it was right that we should take all the guarantees in our power. These guarantees were of two kinds. The first was that these bodies should be expending their own money at the same time; and the second was that they should be resident on the spot, and have a personal interest in the expenditure being properly administered. It was for these reasons that the Department aided voluntary local expenditure. Before the Revised Code was adopted all the grants were appropriated, and it was quite clear that endowments were not considered to come under the head of voluntary contributions and local expenditure. That is quite clear from two Minutes—the one relative to the building of schools is Article 26 of the Revised Code of 1860, which declares that where the balance is not covered by the local contributions it may be made up from any other sources, such as the proceeds of endowments. So that these are spoken of as proceeds from other sources than voluntary local contributions. Secondly, in Article 62 of the old Code of 1860 it was said, that the minimum salary of the teacher must be wholly derived either from voluntary contributions or from them and the school fees. That showed that no funds derived from endowment would be considered as voluntary contributions, except during the
  1688
  life of the donor. That was the state in which we found the question. I will now proceed to tell the House the grounds on which we made this Minute. When the appropriated grants were done away we had to reconsider the whole question. The first point that naturally suggested itself after the Revised Code passed was, under what class we should rank endowments. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) said again and again that we ought to have ranked them under the head of local contributions. I have shown from previous Minutes that the authority of the office was opposed to this view, and it would have been an absolute bull to have done otherwise. An endowment is not in the least degree local in its nature. I may bestow a house in New South Wales on my right hon. Friend's school in Staffordshire, and that would be in every sense a good endowment, but not a local one. An endowment may be in Bank Stock or money in the funds. It is something bringing in income which the managers know they have to deal with. Then, again, in what sense can an endowment be called a subscription? The noble Lord the Member for Stamford said it made not the least difference whether a gentleman at his death or during his life settled a sum on a school, or whether that sum was contributed by his son. The same point has been put more forcibly by a periodical which is opposed to our policy on this question, and which asked, "What is the difference between a dead squire and a living squire?" We have high authority for saying that a living dog is better than a dead lion, and I should say the difference is as great between the living and a dead squire. The dead squire may leave his money to the school, but he cannot bequeath his active superintendence, his direction and authority — all which accompany the gift of the living squire. Such a bequest cannot be called a contribution; it cannot be called a subscription. It is the property of the school —that which it possesses—and it carries with it all the incidents of property. One of the incidents and luxuries of property is that a man may be thoroughly idle and yet not get into trouble by it. That is also the case with a school. A school enjoys the property, whether it is managed well or ill. But it does not follow necessarily that it should receive Government assistance. For the purposes of our grant, we had to determine whether we should

  1689
  base it on the principle of life superintendence and energy in the management of the school, or on that of taking money from a dead hand which gives us no guarantee for any effective superintendence. I think there is no doubt we must consider those endowments as not being local contributions. But then we have to consider not what they are not, but what they are. They are property in possession of the school. They have it independently of the Government or of any voluntary contributions. Well, then, we come to consider our new relations to schools. We have to pay money, not strictly appropriated as heretofore, but to the managers for the general purposes of the schools. We have to consider what every discerning person ought to consider in the distribution of charitable and eleemosynary funds—the means of the recipient. We have to examine whether we are giving to a rich or a poor school, to a school relying on the voluntary exertions of those living around it, or having property of its own. We have to do what every relieving officer does. If he has two applicants, and if one has 2s. a week from a friendly society or other source, and the other has none, he does not treat the two alike. He does not give the same allowance to both, but he deducts the 2s. from the first. That is just what the Government has done. Again, in the case of a debt, if a creditor receives a part of it from any other source the man who owes it does not pay it over again, but pays the difference, and allowance is made for that part which has been discharged. That is the simple, plain principle on which the deduction of the endowment is based. A great deal has been said this evening about the interests of schools; but we have to consider another interest besides that of the managers. The money that the Privy Council has to administer does not drop from the clouds, like the gold of Jupiter into Danae's lap. It is taken from the toil and sweat of the labouring millions of this country, and the Government owe a debt of justice to them, as well as to the managers of schools. Hon. Gentlemen talk as if I only took a pleasure in vexing or annoying people. But they who give must take, and when, we take from the working men we take from those who can worse afford to give than the managers can afford to do without it. We are a public department standing between the people and the administration of their funds. It has been predicted to-night that in dealing with this
  1690
  question I shall use violent and strong language. I feel no desire to take up that challenge; but I think it is melancholy to hear hon. Gentlemen contending that, merely because we, under the direction and control of Parliament and exercising the undoubted right of this House, dispense the taxes of the country in such a manner as we think proper—that, if we make deductions from these grants, we are to be told that we confiscate these endowments. What right had the persons who made these endowments to suppose that Parliament would frame its future policy according to their wish? Are we to allow the folly of one age to legislate for the wisdom of all succeeding ages? We tie up for limited periods the estates of our great families, in whom we all feel pride and interest. We allow the claim of these endowments to an eternity of existence and immunity of management. Is not that enough, but that in addition we are not to be allowed to regulate our grants in such a way as to give the Government any advantage from these endowments? Are we bound to ignore their existence? Are we to be compelled to pay to these institutions public money wrung from the people as if these schools possessed no funds at all? I have been asked a question to which I am not bound officially to give an answer, and indeed officially I have no answer to give. I am asked how I can answer to myself for being the means of discouraging the creation of charities for schools for the working classes? There was a time when it was a noble thing to found a school for the working classes. That was a time when the State left those matters to private benevolence entirely, and I think at that time there was no nobler or better occupation than to found a school for the education of the people. But as soon as Government undertook that duty, I cannot conceal from myself that it was better for a school that it should have no endowment at all. It has been insisted over and over again by hon. Gentlemen, that it is impossible to obtain voluntary subscriptions for a school with an endowment, whether large or small. How can we explain that? In this way — that the opinion of people, founded upon long and uniform experience, is that those endowments are ill administered, and that in proportion as their wealth is great their management is bad. Therefore it is—much as we are abused, greatly as our conduct has shaken the con-

  1691
  fidence of managers, as we are told—people are always ready to come forward and subscribe liberally to schools which receive the assistance of the Privy Council when a shilling cannot be had for schools which are endowed. Knowing, then, the great advantage that these grants should not go to the schools as an absolute certainty— the immense advantage of there being a power of withholding them—I must say, speaking boldly my own individual opinion, that I do not at all desire to see money, as long as things remain in their present state, devoted by will or by deed to the foundation of schools for the children of the working poor. I think the thing could be better done by the Government. I would put another point. Supposing those schools were supported by rates, and that every union was rated to maintain them, is there a union in the world that would act upon the policy which you urge upon the Government? Would it say, "Here are two schools, the one with an endowment of £50 a year, the other with none; let us treat them exactly in the same way?" Is such a thing conceivable? "Well, then, is it because we live in London, and deal with larger sums, that we are to be more prodigal? I admit that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) has touched upon some of our principal difficulties. The principle of this Minute is that you ought not to do again that which has been sufficiently done already, nor pay a sum which has been already sufficiently paid. I have heard no one contend that if the school is fully supported by endowments, it should also receive the grant of the Government. But if that be so, with what cogency can it be contended that it would be a proper object of relief when partially endowed, just as much as a school which had no endowment at all? Is not the right principle that, if the school is wholly supported, we should deduct the whole amount of the endowment from the grant; if only partially, that we should deduct the part? If it is urged that this will be hard upon schools with small endowments, the answer is, that if the endowment is small the deduction of the grant is also small; but if the deduction is large, then the endowment is also large, and I maintain that the endowment must go to the relief of the grant. There are three sources from which these schools are ordinarily maintained—first, by the school pence; second-
  1692
  ly, by voluntary contributions; and thirdly, by contributions from the Privy Council. If these endowments are not to be considered in the nature of grants already paid to the schools, they must be taken, on the other side, in ease of the contributors. Does anybody think that those who founded these schools meant that the money with which they were endowed should go to the ease of the gentlemen and ladies who charitably contribute to the schools, or to the relief of the general taxpayers of the country? No, they meant it for the benefit of the poor. The question is, who is to be relieved? Is it the body that represents the general taxpayers, or is it the local contributors? Surely the Education Department, which represents the general taxpayers, has as good a right to the easement as the local contributor. Take the case of a school which has no endowment. We are bound, for the purposes of this argument, to believe that what we give to our schools is sufficient. It has been considered sufficient, for it has received the sanction of this House. But if it be sufficient for a school which has not got an endowment, of course it is more sufficient for one that has. The sum given in aid to endowed schools must either displace voluntary contributions, instead of aiding them; or, if it does not, it must give the school a larger income than it ought to have, and encourage extravagance; and the amount of the endowment is the exact measure of the waste. Then there is the case of Scotland, which my right hon. Friend seemed to think showed conclusively that we were wrong, because this Minute does not reaily apply to Scotland; and, if true to our own principles, we must range the rates paid by the heritors in aid of the endowment. Well, Scotland receives about one-tenth of the educational grant, England about nine-tenths. Of course, therefore, our Minutes are originally framed with reference to the larger country and the larger expenditure, and then we endeavour, as well as we can, to adapt them to the state of society in Scotland. Therefore, if pressed by the argument of my right hon. Friend on this point, I should not feel very much distressed on that account. Scotland contributes to the grant as well as England, and has been always celebrated for her liberality in the cause of education, and, therefore, even if the cases were similar, we need not be ashamed of the way we act towards her.

  1693
  But the cases are not the same. The real meaning of the tax in. Scotland is that public opinion entirely sanctions the principle of the support of schools by the land of each parish, and the real effect of the rate is rather an apportionment than a compulsion; it is more to arrange the contribution to be made by the proprietors of a parish than by way of compulsory payment. It seems, therefore, to be much more analogous to a voluntary rate than to an endowment. But if it be not we cannot help it. We are obliged to have two institutions for the two countries, but we endeavour to make each answer the best we can. We may not be entirely logical, but we act, to the best of our judgment, as the circumstances require. Besides, the Scotch system differs from ordinary endowment in a very important particular; in Scotland there is no founder of parochial schools, except the public. There is a charity which has been referred to, and which seems a very excellent one, in which the founder left a sum of money to be distributed among the schoolmasters of two or three counties, trustees having the power of recalling the grant if they think proper. It is contended that that is not an endowment; but it has every feature of an endowment. There are the trustees and the property to pay the money. It is true the money may be recalled, but that does not alter the nature of the endowment. It is said it is a grant to the schoolmasters, and not to the school. But I cannot understand that distinction, because the grant must be either to carry out the intention of the Privy Council or not. If this grant be for the purpose, not of educating the poor, but of setting the schoolmasters to educate Indian generals or statesmen, that is not a grant in accordance with the views of the Privy Council. But if it be a grant to the school for the purpose of educating the poor, it is really doing the work which we have to do, and to pay the money over again would be to do that which has been donealready. These are the observations which I wish to address to the House in vindication of the course which we have taken. It is a matter of no importance to the working of the Education Minutes; but the course has been taken merely from a sense of justice to the taxpayer, that we might not undergo the reproach of paying over again a sum of money which has been already paid. The sum at issue amounts to about £30,000, and it is in the hands of the
  1694
  House to do what it will. It is an item hardly worth notice in our very large expenditure; but I think that hon. Gentlemen who press for a reduction of taxation should look to such matters as this. It is not by objecting to taxes, but by economizing the expenditure that relief may be obtained. The attempts to economize which have been intrusted to the care of the House, and of which the House has had instances to-night in the extracts quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) do not hold out any great expectations of accomplishing our wishes to diminish the burdens of the country.
  I come now to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forth Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). His first Motion (for my right hon. Friend has proposed two), I took up with a great wish, if possible, to agree with it, because if my right hon. Friend in his speech of to-night appears entirely to have forgotten the Revised Code and all about it, I have not forgotten the able, candid, and generous support which he gave me when that support was so much needed. Therefore, had it been in my power to accede to his first proposition, to the effect that no reduction should be made in grants to schools on account of endowments, I would have done so with the greatest satisfaction. That would have prevented the slightest change in this matter of endowments—a matter which no one has defended quite to the full extent; because if the managers of schools had a vested right to have the Minutes of Council continued exactly as they were, in order to have the enjoyment of the endowments assigned them by the founders, no doubt that argument would extend to the hundreds of wealthy schools we have heard of to-night. It therefore seemed to me that that argument proved too much, and it would be quite impossible for me to agree to such a Resolution. No doubt it would have been very agreeable for me to have done so, for I have been so fortunate hitherto as to carry these great changes through the House without a single division of any kind—a fact which, I think, gives them double value, as the expression not of my own opinion, but of the deliberate opinion of the House, formed after hearing argument and debate on the subject. This circumstance is, I think, considering the pressure exerted on all sides with respect to the Revised Code, highly creditable to the House. Therefore, I should have been very unwilling at the

  1695
  end of my task to be obliged to encounter a hostile division, but so long as the Motion remained in its original shape I could not help doing so. But my right hon. Friend has, since his Motion was originally framed, altered the words of the Motion, and it now stands "That grants made from the Treasury to schools for the working classes should not, in every case, be reduced by the whole amount of all endowments." Now, when I look at the terms of the Motion, I must confess, that though the penalty be that of being devoured by the Sphinx that has put the riddle to us, I must answer, Davus sum, non Œdipus. As far as I can make out the meaning it appears to me that my right hon. Friend has gone from one extreme to the other; for instead of a Resolution preventing the deduction of any endowment from the grant, he has now laid before the House another Resolution, the terms of which would be satisfied if I deducted all but a single shilling of the endowment. This seems like a Resolution framed in respect to financial matters for the purpose of including all possible things, and I confess I did hope that my right hon. Friend would in his speech have given some guidance as to the meaning of this most remarkable Motion. It seems to me much the same as if a man said to a little boy, "Here is some money for you; go and spend it, not every day nor in all pastry-cooks' shops," and I do not know what the little boy would think he was to do. I looked to the right hon. Gentleman's speech for an intimation of the interpretation he himself put upon his Resolution. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was not sparing in his language—he said, for instance, that the Minute was "a robbery;" but that was, of course, a conventional manner of speaking. I do not complain of it, except in so far as it affords me no information as to the meaning of the Resolution. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he wishes the grants to be confined to the working classes. Well, I entirely agree with him; but I believe that the Department has already done everything that human ingenuity could suggest for the purpose of confining their grants to the children of the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to admit, that he did not consider that people claiming under an endowment stand in exactly the same position as those who claim on account of voluntary contributions. It is true that
  1696
  in the greater part of his speech my right hon. Friend seemed to hold that they did; but towards the end of his observations he somewhat relaxed the severity of his argument. That is all the light which the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman have thrown upon his Motion. At the same time, I think I have gathered from the course of the debate to-night, that there is a strong feeling in the House that something ought to be done for the poorer classes of schools. In the way we have conducted this matter throughout we have been obliged to concoct our propositions in secret, as the noble Lord said, and then lay them before the House. We are quite aware of the disadvantage of this course of proceeding; but it is our duty not to dictate to the House, but to lay such propositions as we consider best before it, with the view of eliciting public discussion; and by that discussion we have endeavoured to guide ourselves. I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that if my right hon. Friend presses it I am willing to accept the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman has put on the paper. I cannot pretend to say that in accepting it I make any great sacrifice, so far as the words of the Motion are concerned, for I do not exactly know their point; but, at the same time, I do not mean to accept it in any illusory manner. I will endeavour to lay before the Committee of Council on Education some view which may be adopted without abandoning the essential principles of the Minute. I have not gathered from the debate that I am desired to treat these endowments exactly as local contributions. The chief complaint seemed to be that the Committee were dealing with endowments too exclusively as such, without taking collateral circumstances sufficiently into consideration. What it strikes me they should do is this:—I think they might add together the endowment and the grant, and apply to the sum the principle of a maximum. I think that is the principle which they may embody in the Minute, and although it may not satisfy all, it will prove the desire of the Government to meet all reasonable objections. There will be no delay on the subject, for in the course of next week I will lay the altered Minute on the table of the House, and then there will be an opportunity of discussing it, and of ascertaining whether it satisfies the expectations of the House.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he felt the most sincere pity for the two hon.

  1697
  Members for Leeds and Sheffield (Mr. Baines and Mr. Hadfield), who had addressed on the present occasion such strong language in denunciation of the principle of endowments. It now appeared that though the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was not a convert with respect to old endowments, he was a convert with respect to new ones; and the two hon. Members must have been much surprised at the facility with which the right hon. Gentleman had at last accepted the Resolution of the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire, having at first professed to find it so extremely unintelligible. It really was, however, so explicit, that it traversed in every form the Minute of Council. One thing was clear, that the right hon. Gentleman, in altering the Minute, must bring the change before the House in some shape in which it can be discussed, and that was one object which the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire had in view. The Revised Code was fixed on the principle of results, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had determined to reduce the grants to schools, the efficiency of which was improved by means of the grants added to small endowments, and thus to render them inefficient. The right hon. Gentleman, so far from being in the position of a relieving officer, as he called himself, dealing with destitution, had to deal with schools in which an expensive system had been introduced in compliance with the requirements of the Council. Not destitution, but expenditure was the ground of claim on the Committee of Council. He agreed with the Vice President that it was necessary to do justice to the taxpayers; but it should be remembered that the great body of the taxpayers, if not those who paid the largest amount of taxes, were directly interested in the education system on behalf of their children. The object of the interference of the State was not to assist schools generally, but efficient schools, and the organized inspection of schools was the root of the whole scheme of Government assistance. Without that supervision there would be waste and inefficiency. But by diminishing the grant to these schools by the amount of their endowments, the Vice President would reduce them to the level of the schools not under inspection. It seemed to be supposed by some Members that endowments were counted in the first instance as part of the subscriptions to the schools; but that was not the case. In
  1698
  illustration of the injustice of the deductions directed by the Council he put the case of two schools, one of which received a building grant from Government, say of £1,000, which was tantamount to an endowment of £50 a year, but on account of which no deduction was made; and the other received an endowment of £10 for the schoolmaster, on account of which the grant was diminished. When the House passed the Revised Code, it was on the principle that the grant was to be equalized to the school pence and subscriptions, and the question of endowments never entered the mind of hon. Members. As the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn the Minute, he would say no more then on that part of the subject. In regard to Minutes generally, however, he wished to point out that rules were issued by the Committee of Council which never came before the House at all, but which seemed to him materially to alter the effect of the regular Minutes. There were supplementary rules, for example, binding schools to comply with a particular standard of education, and thus imposing a condition not laid down in the Minute. Moreover, an explanatory circular had been published in reference to training colleges, which announced, in violation of the arrangement of last year, that no certificated teacher should earn a grant for his college unless he had passed a certain examination before his entrance, which the right hon. Gentleman called a matriculation examination. In that case, results were counted for nothing, and though the training college gave the education which fitted the person trained for his certificate, it received no reward for that expenditure of labour and money. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to lay his new Minute on the table in the course of this week. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be very careful in preparing that Minute. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had the authority of his superior officers. He trusted that he would frame that Minute with the full assent and approbation of his superior officers, and that when it was laid on the table of the House it would be the result of their deliberate judgment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That Grants made from the Treasury to Schools for the working classes should not, in every case, be reduced by the whole amount of all endowments.

  TURNPIKE TRUSTS.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. G. CLIVEmoved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency and practicability of abolishing turnpike trusts. He said that the present position of tolls was cumbersome, expensive, and inconvenient, and that it was very desirable to put an end to such a state of things.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he should be sorry if the hon. Member interfered with the turnpike trusts in South Wales, which were under a special Act of Parliament, which worked extremely well.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, he wished the inquiry to apply to such turnpike trusts in England and Wales as were not under special Act of Parliament.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsupposed that the remark of the hon. Member applied also to the Isle of Wight, where the turnpike trusts were under a special Act.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, he was aware of the special legislation on the subject, and he should be glad to have hon. Members representing those districts upon the Committee.
  Motion, agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the expediency and practicability of abolishing Turnpike Trusts."—(Mr. George Clive.)
  And on April 5, Select Committee nominated as follows:—
  Mr. BRUCE, Colonel HUSSEY PACKE, Mr. ALCOCK, Mr. FENWICK, Mr. MILDMAY, Mr. WRIGHTSON, Lord HENLEY, Mr. DODSON, Mr. CLIVE, Colonel PENNANT, Colonel BARITELOT, Colonel SMYTH, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Colonel STUART (Bedford), Sir JAMES FERQUSSON, Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE, Colonel GILPIN, Mr. WALTER, Colonel FRENCH, Mr. WILLIAM LEIGH, and Mr. WESTERN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Instruction to the Committee, That they do limit their inquiry to the Turnpike Trusts of England and Wales.

PROTOCOL OF WARSAW AND TREATY OF LONDON.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. KINGLAKEmoved for an Address for a Copy of Papers dated in the years 1850, 1851, 1852, or 1853, relating to the Protocol of Warsaw, or to the Treaty of London of the 8th day of May, 1852. The object of the Motion was for the production of certain papers relating
  1700
  to the Protocol of Warsaw and the Treaty of London. He was aware that the papers were very voluminous, and that a proper selection would to some extent be necessary, and that something like an understanding had been come to between the Foreign Secretary and the Earl of Malmesbury, with regard to the description of papers which were to be produced. He did not intend to make any complaint with regard to that arrangement, but he hoped it would not be considered altogether conclusive, nor that he was going beyond his province in suggesting to the House the class of papers requisite for its information. When the Treaty of London was disturbing the peace of Europe, it was surely of great importance that they should know, if they could, with whom that treaty originated, who it was that pressed that treaty on the consideration of this country, and above all what arrangements, if any, were made at the time the treaty was signed. Unless he was wrongly informed, he believed the measure which ultimately ripened into the Treaty of London, was brought before the attention of Europe in several Conferences which began in 1850; and it was his belief that when the particulars of those Conferences were produced, they would begin to understand what it was that had so painfully agitated the mind of Germany with reference to the Treaty of London. When they had the Protocol of the 4th of July, 1850, before them, they would see how it was the Germans persevered in rejecting the name of the Treaty of London, and in employing the phrase "to the Protocol of Warsaw." The truth was that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government in 1850 assembled the European Powers to consider the Danish succession, Prussia did not attend the first conference; and though Austria was present she declined for a time to take part in the sanctioning the arrangements then come to. The arrangement was explained in the annexe, but it was not mentioned in the Protocol, which mentioned those representatives who were present. The annexe described the arrangements which the Powers came to, but to that arrangement no German Power was a party; and that went much towards explaining how it was the Germans were discontented with the Treaty of London, because they found that the Powers of Europe in London assembled, had disposed of the succession of a German Duchy, without the assent, in the first instance, of

  1701
  any of the German Powers. He believed it would also appear from the correspondence what Power it was which, having then a great ascendancy in Europe, before the signature of the treaty forbade any appeal to the German Confederation. They would know how it was that deliberately and in cold blood an appeal to the German Confederation was forbidden by a Power then having a great ascendance in Europe. On a former occasion, when he asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question in reference to this matter, he mentioned that a Note had been addressed by Baron Brunnow on the 8th of May, 1852, to the Danish Government, and he asked whether that Note had received the acquiescence of the Government, and if not, whether it was the foundation of any correspondence which could be produced. In answer to that question the Under Secretary of State said that, by a reference to the library, it would be found that the Note and its inclosure were communicated to Lord Malmesbury, who was at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that he simply acknowledged its receipt—that no correspondence whatever took place, and that he had none to lay before the House beyond its simple acknowledgment. When the hon. Gentleman made that statement, he must have been entirely ignorant of the existence of the paper which he (Mr. Kinglake) should presently read. The object he had in view in asking the question was to show that, at the time the treaty was signed, a statement of the way in which Russia would understand the Note was addressed by Baron Brunnow to M. de Bille, and that statement was to the effect that the mere acquiescence of M. de Bille would amount to an authoritative acquiescence, and a reduction and cutting down of the treaty itself. What he now feared was, that the matter did not rest, as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs supposed, on mere acquiescence. He was enabled to say that there was a Note addressed by Baron Brunnow to M. de Bille, and replied to on the 24th May. M. de Bille, after speaking of Baron Brunnow's Note as one intended to recall the reserves contained in the Protocol of Warsaw of the 5th of June, 1851, the 73rd section of which he set out, continued—
  "The above-mentioned Note having in consequence been deposited in the archives of His Majesty the King of Denmark, the undersigned
  1702
  has received orders to apprize M. de Brunnow of that fact. For the rest, he is ordered to declare that it is equally understood on the part of his Government, that the stipulations of the treaty of the 8th of this month neither can nor shall change in anything the nature of the reserves in question, which accordingly will preserve, after the signature of this treaty, the same force and value which they had before the treaty was concluded."
  Therefore the House would see that by the force of these two Notes an engagement was entered into between Russia and Denmark cutting down the effect of the treaty. He believed it would also appear that the reply of the Danish Government was not communicated to the other Powers who were parties to the treaty. If that was so the matter would wear a somewhat graver aspect than when he first alluded to it, because in that case the change which was wrought in the treaty would be a change wrought without the cognizance of the other Powers who were parties to it. He argued before that, as a matter of inference, the House would have a right to draw its conclusion from the mere acquiescence of Denmark. That which he before called upon the House to infer he was now able to assert, and he had proved his assertion by reading the Note to the House. He now begged to move for the papers to which he had referred; and to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the Note which he had read was in fact addressed by M. de Bille to Baron Brunnow, and whether it was communicated to Her Majesty's Government?
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Papers dated in the years 1850, 1851,1852, or 1853, relating to the Protocol of Warsaw, or to the Treaty of London of the 8th day of May 18S2."—(Mr. Kinglake.)
  MR. LAYAEDsaid, that the papers for which his hon. Friend had moved would be produced. The correspondence upon Danish affairs during the four years mentioned was exceedingly voluminous, but he hoped that he should be able to lay upon the table of the House all that part which related to the transaction to which his hon. Friend had alluded. He must remind him that when, in speaking of the Treaty of London, he stated that the Germans had some right to call that treaty a protocol, he mixed together two different instruments. The Protocol of London was a distinct instrument from the treaty. The treaty was a solemn

  1703
  treaty entered into between the Great Powers of Europe, and afterwards communicated to the small German Powers, whose adhesion was invited to it. Some of them did accede; others did not. A list of those who did and those who did not had already been given to the House. Therefore, it was incorrect to call that which was a solemn treaty by any other name than that of a treaty. The reply of M. de Bille to Baron Brunnow was not in the official possession of Her Majesty's Government. When his hon. Friend asked him the other night if there was any correspondence upon the subject, he, of course, concluded that he meant any correspondence between Her Majesty's Government, the Russian Ambassador, and the Danish Minister. There was no correspondence except the simple acknowledgment of the Note of Baron Brunnow, which was communicated to Her Majesty's Government. The reply of the Danish Minister was never communicated. He found that that reply had been published in a collection of documents at Copenhagen. He had inquired whether the Note so published was an authentic document. He was assured that it was; and although it was somewhat irregular to lay upon the table a document not officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government, yet, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, with the sanction of the Danish Government, he had no objection to include that document among the papers which would be presented to the House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHOOLS OF ART.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the constitution and working, and into the success, of the Schools of Art wholly or partially supported by Government Grants, or otherwise assisted by the Government, and into the system upon which the sums granted by Parliament for the promotion of National Education in Art are distributed and administered."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  And on March 16, Committee nominated, as follows:—
  Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. LOWE, Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, Mr. THE, Mr. WILLIAM EWARI, Mr. BAZLET, Mr. TKEFUSIS, Mr. CATS, Mr. MAGDIRE, Mr. GREGSON, Mr. ABTHUR MILLS, Mr. CRHM EWING, and Mr. POTTER:— Power to send for persons, papers, and records; five to be the quorum.

  COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 31.]— COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir William Dunbar.)
  MR. W. LESLIEobjected to going into Committee upon the Bill in the absence of the Lord Advocate, and without any explanation of its objects.
  SIR WILLIAM DUNBARsaid, that the object of the Bill was to remove a doubt which existed as to the power to hold a circuit court for the trial of prisoners at Dundee.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYhoped that the hon. Gentleman would allow the House to go into Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 49: Majority 35.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  SIR JOHN HAYhoped that the hon. Member for the "Wigton Burghs would redeem his pledge not to go on with the Bill in the absence of the Lord Advocate. He moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Sir John Law-rence's Salary (No. 10), considered in Committee and reported,*

DENMARK AND GERMANY—INVASION OF DENMARK—THE CORRESPONDENCE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, as I do not intend to raise any discussion upon the Question of which I have given notice, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the table any further Papers relating to the Danish Invasion extending to a later period than those already published—perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs may think it convenient to answer it before we proceed to the ordinary business of the day. Upon the very voluminous and important papers which have been laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament I do not intend to offer any observations. Those papers certainly disclose a condition of our foreign relations which imperatively requires, and will doubtless receive at no distant day, the deliberate consideration of Parliament. But circumstances are changing so rapidly, events are succeeding each other so fast, and such a total change in the position of affairs has taken place since the date of the last paper laid upon the table of the House, that I am sure I shall be excused for pressing the noble Lord to give us the latest information in his power as to the progress of the conflict between Denmark and Germany. The papers which have been presented to Parliament close with the unsuccessful attempt on the part of the noble Earl to obtain from the German Powers a postponement of the military operations in the Duchies. Since then, the noble Earl, I believe, has proved unsuccessful in three several instances—first, in obtaining an armistice for the purpose of agreeing to a Conference, to effect, if possible, a settlement of the differences; secondly, in obtaining a Conference, even without an armistice; and thirdly, in preventing—what I cannot doubt his having remonstrated against—the further steps which have been taken by the Austrian and Prussian forces. At the date of the last papers, Prussia and Austria had refused any delay of their advance to occupy the Duchies; but that occupation, according to their own statements, was at the time confined to taking possession of them as a material guarantee for the subsequent fulfilment by Denmark of the engagements entered into by her in 1851. Since then the circumstances have entirely changed by the occupation of Schleswig in a totally different character.
1616
Schleswig is no longer held as a material guarantee; the invading forces have taken it on themselves to do acts entirely inconsistent with the mere holding of the Duchy as a pledge, to be subsequently restored to its rightful owners. They have, for example, determined to destroy the Dannewerk, an act which, I believe, to be totally inconsistent with the position they assume, although it is quite true that the Dannewerk is a great fortress, and in future times might be of the greatest importance to Denmark. They have also taken on themselves to dismiss the Danish authorities, and by their sole authority to introduce German as the judicial language, even in purely Danish districts. At present they hold, though certainly in the face of some resistance, the whole of Schleswig, excepting the island of Alsen; but they have gone much beyond—they have commenced operations in Jutland, and the important town of Fredericia, commanding the passage to the Island of Funen, is now the subject of attack. Under these circumstances, the war certainly assumes a very different character from that which it presented at the date of the last despatches of which we are in possession. I will not comment on any of these documents. I have no doubt the noble Earl has done his best to prevent these unfortunate occurrences. But I wish now to ask him, Whether, under these altered circumstances, and with matters becoming day by day more critical and dangerous to the peace of Europe, he will consent, without loss of time, to lay further papers before your Lordships, extending down to the latest period to which his information has reached?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the way in which the noble Earl has put his Question makes it necessary for me to state my views with regard to what has taken place. The noble Earl is aware that the German Powers—that is to say, Austria and Prussia—having declined to accede to the representations of Her Majesty's Government, and also to those of France and of Russia, entered on what I consider a most unjustifiable war. I say "a most unjustifiable war," because it has been generally laid down, with the consent of Europe, that, whatever cause of war may exist on the part of one State against another, that right of war must be postponed until reparation has been asked for and refused. Now, in the case of which we are speaking, though reparation was not given in the first

1617
instance, it was promised some time before the Austrians and Prussians could enter the Duchy of Schleswig, and therefore the allied troops—the troops of Austria and Prussia—entered the dominions of the King of Denmark, having before they occupied the Duchy of Holstein been aware that the King of Denmark was ready to consider their demands, and, I believe, had promised to take measures for the reparation of the wrong which had been done. I ought to mention, as there appears to have been an incompleteness in the statement made formerly, that the Danish Prime Minister alleged, that if the Constitution was to be repealed it would be necessary to re-organize the Danish monarchy, and that he was prepared, with the advice and consent of the non-German Powers, to do so. Having brought the question to this point, I consider that the Danish Government would have been fully justified in taking either of two courses. Had they thought proper, they might have treated the question merely as one of material guarantee, and have silently submitted to the occupation of portions of their territory for a temporary purpose; they would, on the other hand, have been fully justified in considering the invasion as an unjustifiable aggression, forming a ground for war, and in resisting it as such. The latter was the course which they took; they resisted the entry of the German troops, and although they abandoned the line of the Dannewerk they occupied the first strong position which they found in the rear of it. Then followed the decision that the Austrian and Prussian ships at sea should be captured. But beyond that, the Danish Government maintained that they had a cause of war against the other German Powers which, having ordered the Federal Execution in the Duchy of Holstein, had not confined their soldiers to the proper duties of troops of execution, but had permitted, had encouraged, had favoured the assumption of the sovereignty of that Duchy by a Pretender, who claimed it as against the King of Denmark, and thereby endeavoured to deprive that Monarch of part of his dominions. They therefore alleged, and I think justly, that they had a cause of war against the German Powers, and they ordered all the German ships that might be found at sea to be captured by Danish cruisers. My Lords, it is said that the beginning of strife is like the letting out of water, and certainly the conduct of Austria and Prussia affords an illustration of the truth of that maxim.
1618
They declared that this being war, they were no longer bound to consider it as a question of material guarantee, and that they would carry it on as a matter of war. They directed their troops, in the first instance, to take possession of a town in Jutland, and they have since declared that they mean to occupy the whole of that province. The noble Earl asks whether, in this condition of affairs, I shall not think fit to give further papers illustrating the course of these events and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. I should say—and I think the noble Earl will agree with me— that it is not for the advantage of the public, or of any negotiations, that papers should constantly be laid upon the table. Either at the close, or at a break in the course of events, papers may be given; but it certainly would not be advisable that each step in the negotiations and every despatch, to which in some instances an answer might not have been received, should be made matter of Parliamentary discussion. There is, however, approaching a period when there must be a break in the course of these events. The noble Earl has referred—not very accurately—to the steps which Her Majesty's Government have taken in order to restore peace. We first endeavoured to procure an armistice. That did not succeed, the German Powers declaring that they would not consent to it. We next proposed that the belligerents should meet in conference to endeavour to restore peace without any cessation of hostilities. Two of the Powers, Austria and Prussia, stated that they were quite ready to enter into a Conference for that purpose, and they have since declared that they are ready to agree to an armistice based either upon the maintenance of the military status quo or upon other conditions. Her Majesty's Government did not think it advisable to propose to the other Powers, who are not belligerents, to enter into that Conference until the decision of the belligerent Powers had been received. Therefore, these proposals were addressed only to Austria, to Prussia, and to Denmark. I have told your Lordships that Austria and Prussia were ready to agree to that Conference. The answer of Denmark has not yet been received. Her Majesty's Government said, that as it was reported that great excitement existed at Copenhagen upon this subject, they would not press for an immediate reply; but, at the end of this week, we expect that Denmark will answer either in

1619
the affirmative or negative the proposal that has been made. As soon as that answer has been received, there will obviously be a break in these affairs. Either the Powers will enter into Conference—I have no doubt from the intimations which I have received that France, Russia, and Sweden would be ready to go into these Conferences—and then negotiations will begin on a new footing, or the Conference will be refused by Denmark, and then again the war will take a new shape. I therefore consider that when we have received the answer which we are expecting from Denmark, and which cannot, I think, be received later than the beginning of next week, will be the proper time to prepare the papers for production. I trust that the noble Earl will feel that it is fitting that papers should not be given constantly; and that he will think that the publication of documents giving an account of what has happened from the 1st of February to nearly the middle of March will be a production of papers such as Parliament has a right to expect.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I hope that we shall receive the papers before the Easter recess. They must be in course of preparation, and it cannot be necessary that at the close of these negotiations any lengthened period should be occupied in preparing them. It would be convenient that they should be in the hands of noble Lords before we adjourn for the Easter recess.
EARL RUSSELL: They shall be prepared as soon as possible. I cannot pledge myself to produce them by a particular time, because every one at the Foreign Office is so busy with the papers which have been asked for relating to China and America, that it will be very difficult to get them ready immediately.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: My Lords, I do not rise with the intention of prolonging this conversation. The subject on which it turns is indeed most interesting and important. But I feel, in common with the noble Earl opposite, that the time is not yet come for going into its merits as fully and decidedly as a more complete knowledge of the correspondence would enable us to do. We have reason, I conceive, to thank my noble Friend on the Treasury bench for the additional information which he has now supplied. I confess that I came down to the House this evening with the intention of asking another and perhaps a more decisive Question than that which has been put
1620
by my noble Friend on the other side. I meant to ask, whether we might expect to hear from Her Majesty's Government, before the two Houses separated for the approaching holidays, some distinct announcement of the policy they are prepared to adopt on the close of that long series of endeavours for peace by which they have displayed their earnest anxiety to compose those unhappy differences which have converted the territory of Denmark into a theatre of war? Such a declaration we are entitled to expect, if the pledge already given, some little time ago in the other House of Parliament, is to be redeemed. I enter fully into all the difficulties of the question before us. I should be sorry to embarrass those who are responsible for our part in them; I would make full allowance for the complications which beset them on every side; but I cannot disguise my impression that any unnecessary delay in coming to a decision—any useless protraction of the present uncertainty—would be not only inconsistent with what is due to Parliament and the country, but highly prejudicial to the public tranquillity and to the interests of our immense and sensitive trade. Hesitation and an absence of all precipitancy in the earlier stages of a question involving such vast interests and perilous chances may be, and often is, a paramount duty; but such indecision ought to find limits in the probability of success and the requirements of national credit and the national prosperity. What I now understand from my noble Friend the Secretary of State is, that the line of negotiation has not been yet spun out to its extreme end, and that some few days must still elapse before a sufficient break in the course of proceedings can warrant the production of more papers, and also a decision between continuance in the same course, or the adoption of a new one. Of all the Members in your Lordships' House I should be the last to require any communication inconsistent with the interests of the State and a fair consideration for the Government; and therefore I am content to reserve the question which I had intended to put, and which, in my mind, would have been warranted by the increasing complication of events, by the apparent preparations in Sweden, by the undisguised concurrenc of Austria with the aggressive operation of Prussia and in general by the impending danger of a more extended war, at the eventual cost to Denmark of its strength and independence, and perhaps to all Europe

1621
of its best and dearest interests. I learn with pleasure that there is still a chance of settlement, though it be only a chance, and the more so, as that failing, nothing would seem to remain but the sad alternative of total inaction—if you please, a dignified abeyance—or an attitude of resolute interference in co-operation with such friendly Powers as have sincerely at heart the claims of justice and the welfare of Europe.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH:—Will the noble Earl the Secretary of State inform us what were the precise conditions as to the armistice which were proposed by Austria and Prussia?
EARL RUSSELL: It is impossible that I should state precisely the conditions of the armistice, because those received from Vienna and Berlin do not entirely agree. I would, therefore, rather not attempt to state precisely those conditions; but, as I understand, the Government of Berlin is quite ready, and probably that of Austria would not object, to conclude an armistice on the condition that each Power should maintain its present military position, or the position, whatever it may be, at the moment the armistice is made. There is another proposal, that the whole of Schleswig should be given up to the Austrian and Prussian troops which have invaded it, and that the whole of Jutland should be occupied by the Danes. I cannot say anything as to the acceptance of that proposal.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I hope the noble Earl will at once reject it.
EARL RUSSELL: It is not proposed to me. It will be for the Danes to consider what is for their own interests. My noble Friend asks a Question which it is difficult to answer. There is no sort of complication which seems to be left out in this case. We have not only the complications between Denmark and Austria and Prussia, relative to the understanding of the somewhat obscure conditions of 1851, but there is in addition the Question, how far Austria and Prussia on the one hand and Denmark on the other are ready to abide by those conditions? What we have stated, and what was stated on the 31st of January, before Parliament met, and again by Austria and Prussia within these few days, is that they abide by the condition that the integrity of Denmark should be preserved and respected. There is, however, no very definite statement made as to how far the conditions of 1851 are to be abided by. Austria and Prussia, it would seem,
1622
will not be content with the conditions then laid down, but require some further arrangement. Now, anybody who looks into these conditions must see that there might be variations made in them which would still leave Denmark free and independent, and others which would make the Government at Copenhagen dependent on foreign Powers. It would therefore be difficult to say what course the Government might, under these circumstances, feel called upon to take. But beyond what I have stated, there are complications existing in Germany itself. About one-third, or nearly the whole, of the Federation are in favour of the Pretender, who we thought had consented to renounce all claims, and never to disturb the King or the family of the late King of Denmark. Then, again, there were several Powers changing from time to time—at one time declaring for the Prince of Augustenburg and at another time for the King of Denmark. These things make it exceedingly difficult for the Government at this moment to announce its intentions. All I can say at present is that Austria and Prussia solemnly declare that they do not mean to go beyond the declaration of January, 1831, and are prepared to maintain the integrity of Denmark.

CURTIS'S STEERING SCREW—PROPELLING AND STEERING STEAM SHIPS.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE presented a Petition from Mr. W. J. Curtis, praying for a favourable consideration of his invention for propelling and steering steam ships. The noble Earl said, the inventor felt himself aggrieved by the policy and conduct of the Admiralty. This was a time of great change in the construction of ships, and among other matters of difficulty which had arisen was the difficulty of steering, and many attempts had been made to enable them to steer long ships in an easier way than the present mode. It was quite right that all inventions should be subjected to a thorough test before they were submitted to the Admiralty; but this was a peculiar case, as the rapid steering of the ships of the navy was more important to them than it was to merchant ships, which, when once out of port, went straight away on their voyage, whereas the power of a ship's armament depended very materially on the power of manœuvring her rapidly. Mr. Curtis suggested to the Admiralty that he

  1623
  should be allowed to make use of a gunboat, and he obtained one 160 feet long, and applied it to his steering apparatus, and a series of experiments was made, and he was to supply all the means of making these experiments at his own expense. The experiment appeared to be one of sufficient importance to induce the public journals to send their reporters to be present, with a view of giving an account—as they generally did with so much intelligence—of what was going on, and the statement made by the reporter of The Times with respect to the particular experiment of Mr. Curtis which had been tried on board the Charger gunboat, was of a most flattering character. There was, besides, a certificate, making satisfactory mention of it, from two marine surveyors, as well as a statement made by Sir Edmund Belcher, and another emanating from a Russian Rear Admiral, expressing their approval of the invention, the opinion of the latter being that by its means the vessel was enabled to manœuvre with a rapidity which would be impossible in the case of an ordinary screw. The pilot who went in the gunboat from the Thames to Portsmouth reported that the screw and steering apparatus acted admirably in a gale of wind, and allowed the vessel to turn round quicker than any other screw which he had seen. The assistant pilot confirmed that statement, and added that the vessel was easily brought head to wind and tacked in a manner to excite the admiration of all on board. Throughout the whole of a trying passage the screw, he said, worked satisfactorily without damage to the vessel or machinery. The petitioner had set out these statements in his petition to show their Lordships that the experiments had succeeded, and in carrying out these experiments he had incurred an expense of £2,000, and after that he was dropped by the Admiralty, and heard no more on the subject, nor could he learn in what he had failed, and therefore he came to their Lordships. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) thought this a case for investigation, as if the Admiralty availed themselves of the labour and of the minds of these gentlemen who made inventions, and then rejected them without giving any reason, it must have a discouraging effect on that very useful body of men.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he was glad the noble Earl had brought the subject forward, because it afforded a good illustration of there being two sides to a question. Their Lordships had heard the
  1624
  opinion of the inventor as to the value of his invention. He would state shortly the reports which he had received of the same invention. In November, 1862, Mr. Curtis proposed his invention to the Admiralty. It was sent to him (the Duke of Somerset), and, as he did not pretend to be a judge of a question which really involved a great deal of engineering skill, he sent it to the Controller's Department. The Engineer-in-Chief in London, who was a gentleman of great experience, after looking at it, said he had no confidence in it, and pointed out that whereas the chief difficulty as to steerage in all vessels was in the after part not being sufficiently strong, this plan tended to weaken the after part of the vessel, instead of strengthening it. He was anxious to get another opinion, and he sent the model down to the Engineer at Portsmouth, and, without telling him that he had received any report, asked for his candid opinion upon it. That opinion was against the invention as being of no practical value, and that it was not desirable that the Government should incur any expense in trying it. He then told Mr. Curtis that, in the face of those opinions, he did not feel authorized in putting the public to any expense in experiments. Mr. Curtis proposed to fit up a gunboat at his own expense if the Admiralty would lend him one; and, as he thought there was nothing like trying a thing practically, he assented. Accordingly, a gunboat was placed at the disposition of Mr. Curtis, who went to Portsmouth and had it fitted up under his superintendence and to his perfect satisfaction. Mr. Curtis then begged leave to be allowed to bring the gunboat round to the river Thames; and as it was said the invention added to the speed of the vessel, and therefore was of equal value in merchant ships as in Her Majesty's ships of war, he thought those connected with the private trade would, at all events, have an opportunity of seeing the experiment in the river. The vessel was not finished until August, 1863. The moment it was ready for trial he sent directions to an officer of the steam reserve at Sheerness to make the trial, in order to see how the steering apparatus answered in comparison with the ordinary mode of steering, and whether it affected injuriously the machinery of the vessel. Another gunboat of about the same size was taken out, and the report was that in turning she did it in ten seconds less time than the gunboat with the improved rud-

  1625
  der. The officers who made the trial also reported that when the engines stopped, from the peculiar mode in which the rudder and screw were connected, the vessel was totally unmanageable, and that there was a very objectionable rattling of the screw, which would certainly increase with the working of the vessel. Another trial was made, and afterwards a letter was sent to Mr. Curtis, telling him that it was of no use trying it any further, and that the vessel might go back to Portsmouth. He might also mention that when in the river, in the course of one manœuvre, the gunboat ran over an oyster vessel. When she got back to Portsmouth, with the consent of Mr. Curtis, Captain Cochrane, of the Warrior, tried her, but it did not lead to any more favourable report. He then received from Mr. Curtis a letter attacking all the persons who had been concerned, saying that every one had been most dishonest, and had conspired and leagued together against him. The newspaper at Portsmouth did not think the trial successful, and immediately Mr. Curtis wrote to Captain Cochrane accusing him of having written the article. Captain Cochrane, however, replied that he had neither written the article nor given any suggestions for it. Mr. Curtis further attributed all that had happened to the fault of the Admiralty, notwithstanding that they had incurred some expense in trying the invention. The Admiralty had, from the first, been informed by all practical men, that the invention would not succeed, and the trial by officers who had not been previously consulted confirmed their opinion. This showed the state of mind at which the inventor arrived—declaring that he had been ill-treated from beginning to end, and laying all the blame of his failure at the door of the Admiralty. The last letter which he had received from Mr. Curtis was to the effect that he should petition Her Majesty, and should lay the whole case before both Houses of Parliament. The noble Earl was the first person who had brought it before Parliament, and he hoped he had given him a satisfactory answer. At the trial there certainly was an advantage on the side of Mr. Curtis's invention in the matter of speed; but the trial was not for speed. The gunboat which was taken out to try against her had her boilers leaky and her bottom foul, and there was very little difficulty in beating her. The trial had been very fairly conducted, and he could only point out to the inventor that if his invention were as valu-
  1626
  able as he maintained, the whole shipbuilding and commercial interests of the country would be certain to take it up.
  Petition ordered to lie on the table.

RESIGNATION OF SIR ROWLAND HILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROrose to ask Her Majesty's Postmaster General, Whether the Rumour of Sir Rowland Hill's Resignation is well founded; and, if so, whether he has any Objection to state the Circumstances under which that Resignation has taken place? The noble Lord said he put the Question to satisfy the strongly expressed desire of the public to know the truth of the rumour to this effect which had got abroad. He was sure that it would cause general regret to hear of the existence of any cause for the retirement of a man who had conferred such an immeasurable benefit upon the country, and, indeed, upon the whole civilized world?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, it was true that Sir Rowland had recently resigned his position in the Post Office in consequence of the state of his health. Six months ago he applied for six months' leave of absence, in the hope that he might then be enabled to resume his duties; but at the end of that period—the beginning of this month—he forwarded his resignation, saying that the six months' leave of absence had not restored his health, and accompanying it with a medical certificate stating that it would not be safe for him to resume his duties in the Post Office. Those were the whole circumstances connected with Sir Rowland Hill's resignation, as far as he was acquainted with them. He was sure that he should meet with their Lordships' concurrence in expressing the deepest regret at the retirement of this able public servant. The name of Sir Rowland Hill would be inseparably connected with the establishment of the penny post system—one of the greatest improvements of the present age—and which had, perhaps, conferred more benefit on mankind than any other recent reform. Those who recollected the state of things before the penny post would know that to the poorer classes correspondence by letter was at that time almost practically interdicted, that to the class above them the cost of a letter was a very serious matter, and that in the commercial and mercantile world intercourse was injuriously

  1627
  restricted by the expense of correspondence. Since its first introduction the penny post system had been greatly extended; facilities of all sorts were given; money orders and savings banks had been connected with it, and in every way it had been largely developed. It had become popular all over the civilized world, and with it the name of Hill would be for ever connected. Their Lordships would confirm him in expressing the general regret which would be felt by the public at his retirement, and the universal acknowledgment of the value of his services would, no doubt, be a great satisfaction to Sir Rowland Hill.

THE AUSTRIAN FLEET IN THE BALTIC.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give to the House any Information respecting the Movements of the Austrian Fleet towards the Baltic? My reason in putting this Question will be obvious. Never have I known the people of this country more profoundly stirred than at present, never have I known greater anxiety displayed than in the contemplation of the struggle between the little and gallant kingdom of Denmark and the two great overgrown German Powers—50,000,000 against 3,000,000. It is very strange that this country should find itself now in opposition to Austria and Prussia, the two great Conservative monarchies from whom we looked for nothing but peace and order, and from whom we now expect nothing but conflagration. But, my Lords, so it is. We cannot look without dismay—and I am sure the whole country feels what I say—at these two great Powers resuming their old career of insult and spoliation. Now, I must say the feelings of the country have been very much touched by the conduct of the King of Denmark. The concessions the King of Denmark has promised to make must be considered as a sufficient reparation for any wrongs which may have been committed. It is not necessary to argue here whether the Danes were in the right or not with regard to the Patent of Holstein and the Constitution of Schleswig. They have agreed to recall those Constitutions and to make the utmost concessions which were originally asked. This little kingdom comes before its mighty oppressors, saying, "Have patience with me, and I
  1628
  will pay you all;" but the oppressors seize her by the throat, invade her territory, have inflicted on her unutterable calamities, and have instituted a, war which for wantonness and needlessness is one of the most disgraceful to be found in any page of ancient or modern history. It is an ominous feature of that war that the Austrian fleet is said to be making its way towards the Baltic. Perhaps it is singular that one should hear at all of an Austrian fleet; certainly it is singular to hear of it with any misgivings; and I therefore ask my noble Friend, whether he can furnish us with any information on the subject. Upon this point I will make but one remark. We may receive a reply to the effect that the Austrian fleet is making its way in great force to the Baltic. If that be so, we can have no doubt as to its destination or its purpose. Or, we may be told that there are only one or two vessels. That will be most unsatisfactory, for we shall regard them as precursors of a larger force. I do not hesitate to say—and I am sure I do not stand alone in the country of England in saying it—that whether the force of Austria be great or small, I trust it will be met at the entrance of the Baltic by a British fleet, and that this British fleet will have the instructions of Her Majesty to watch its movements, to restrict its operations, and, if necessary, to defend by force of arms the integrity, and, I will say, the sanctity of the Kingdom of Denmark?
  EARL RUSSELL: I will only answer my noble Friend as to the facts which have come to my knowledge with respect to the intention of the Austrian Government. When we first heard that ships of war were to be sent from the Adriatic, I wrote to our Minister at Vienna, and I inquired of the Austrian Minister in London as to the intentions of the Austrian Government. We were told that there were many Austrian ships in danger in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic from Danish ships, and that it was necessary to protect them; and we were told also that there were about 140 ships bearing the Austrian flag coming from America about this time, and bound to English ports, and that it was the intention of the Austrian Government to send two or three vessels of war to the mouth of the Channel in order to save those ships from any Danish cruisers that might be on the look-out for them. But within the last few days another rumour has been circulated, and I have received further information. It is said, in the first

  1629
  place, that there is no intention whatever of sending any Austrian ships into the Baltic; that neither to the Cattegat nor further through the Baltic is it intended to send any Austrian ships. That is the statement of the Austrian Government. But they say that if the blockade of the Elbe is instituted there is danger that a great deal of German commerce may fall into the hands of the Danes, and that they think it necessary to contribute an Austrian squadron in order to protect that commerce. Now, my Lords, without stating at all what course should be pursued, or what may hereafter be found to be the actual course which the Austrian Government will pursue, I must say that, considering what the Austrian fleet is, and considering what the Danes are, it seems to me that Austria sending a fleet into the North Sea to protect nationalities oppressed by a foreign race, is a course which every true friend of Austria must deplore.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish I could hear declarations made by the Austrian Government with the same feeling with which I should have heard them two or three months ago; but when I look at the conduct of Austria, in not only giving her sanction to the invasion of Jutland, but in sending troops there, and to assist in the siege of Fredericia, after we had heard that her efforts were to be confined to the occupation of Schleswig, for a special purpose, I confess I feel bound to look to inferences and probabilities rather than to her representations; and I must think that the Austrian fleet in its whole force is destined for the Baltic, there, in conjunction with Prussia, to establish a maritime superiority, in addition to the military superiority which Austria and Prussia have already established. If the statements made as to the respective strength of these fleets be correct, there can be no doubt that would be the result of the arrival of the Austrian fleet in the Baltic. Nothing could affect their maritime superiority there; and I cannot but believe that such a superiority is their object. We are told—and I suppose there is no doubt of it—that Duppel, the important position which protects the Island of Alsen, is now flanked right and left by Danish vessels of war. If Austrian and Prussian ships of war should occupy the place now filled by Danish ships, such a movement will make the protection of Alsen impracticable. Besides, Duppel is united to Alsen by two bridges, and if these were under the fire
  1630
  of an hostile fleet it would be impossible to hold the fortifications. No doubt shortly after the arrival of this fleet the fort and the Island of Alsen will fall; so also must Fredericia; and, practically, this will be the fall of Funen, the second important island. In point of fact, to allow the Austrians and Prussians to have the maritime as well as the military superiority is to sacrifice the independence—nay, the very existence—of the Danish monarchy. I therefore ask the noble Earl—though he is unwilling to say what he will do—whether he will stand by and see that atrocity perpetrated on a weak Power. It is only because she is weak that such a proceeding is attempted. This is a war against Denmark in the spirit of the Partition of Poland, in the spirit of the League of Cambrai. This is a union of great Powers to dismember and destroy a small one. And, my Lords, what is done to-day with respect to Denmark will be done to-morrow with respect to Holland—will you permit that also?—and the next day with respect to Belgium. I ask the noble Earl will it be permitted? Is there no point at which it is considered the honour and the interest of England to protect the weak against the strong? My Lords, I am informed that in the course of eight or ten days we are no longer to be sitting. We are to be adjourned for three weeks. During the whole of that time Government is to be deprived of the support of Parliament. They may require the support of Parliament at any moment. In war, time is of all things the most essential. The danger may arise when you will not have the power of meeting it. I confess I do not think it right that Parliament should separate without having assured the Crown that, having considered the correspondence laid before us by the command of the Queen, we will support Her Majesty in any measures which may become necessary for the maintenance of the independence of Denmark. Without that declaration the Government are powerless. Four weeks may elapse before they can lay any further despatches before us to enable us to pronounce an opinion on their conduct; and during the interval that may be done which never can be undone. We may witness the degradation and ruin of a brave people, who might have been saved by a strong and friendly hand, when weak and pusillanimous motives withheld it.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, there is hardly a word that has fallen from the noble Earl

  1631
  in which I do not concur. I do think it a most objectionable thing that Parliament should separate for a considerable time without our knowing what is to take place in the interim. I make this remark because, never since I entered Parliament, have I read any correspondence with such deep-felt humiliation for this country as I hare read the papers now on the table. I will not enter into the subject at present; but I do feel, with the noble Earl who has just sat down, that this affair of Denmark has advanced step by step without our having the opportunity of expressing our opinion or of doing anything to check the danger, and that we are taking a course which involves the surrender of a weak Power to the unprincipled violence of stronger Powers. This is a state of things full of danger and disgrace. I venture to express the feeling I entertain on the subject of a separation of Parliament under such circumstances; and I trust some opportunity will be given for a full consideration of this grave question even now before Parliament separates for the Easter recess.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I cannot bat think it of the highest importance to Her Majesty's Government to have some expression of the opinion of Parliament on this question. It appears to me that, after the unsuccessful interference of last year, and after the passive attitude we have since assumed, Her Majesty's Government cannot go properly into negotiations at the present moment without being supported by an expression of the feeling of the people of England. It is most important to them that they should have ascertained that feeling before conferring with other Powers, in order that they may be able to say to those Powers, "This is a point beyond which the feelings of the people of England cannot be trifled with." I have no wish to express a doubt even of the virtue of Austria. I cannot but hope that her intentions are better than her actions; but I think it would be a great support to the failing virtue of Austria if the were able to point to an English fleet in the Baltic.
  EARL RUSSELL: I will say but one word on this subject. I am sure there is no noble Lord who would imagine that, having received this information in the course of to-day, I could come down to this House, and on my own responsibility make a declaration that would bind this country, or would be likely to lead this
  1632
  country into war. Anything to be done must be maturely considered. What Her Majesty's Government have done is to negotiate, but also to maintain themselves at liberty to act, with other Powers, or if it should be thought necessary, to act alone, in case the honour and paramount interests of England should require it. My noble Friend who sits near me on the cross benches (Earl Grey) said he had read these papers with "humiliation." I believe these papers agree, in spirit, with the general opinion of the country. If my noble Friend thinks that the Government ought to have acted in a different manner, he can at once move a vote of censure. If he thinks that we should act differently, and, without negotiation, and, without examining what those Powers propose, resort to extremities, he has only to move a Resolution to that effect. All I can say is, that the Government will best consult, according to their own opinion, the honour and the interests of this country; they will not make war when the safety and the interests, the integrity and the independence, of Denmark can be secured otherwise; and they will not neglect any means by which that safety and independence can be secured. With regard to the fleet, some ten days or a fortnight ago, with a view to have that fleet at command, it was directed to rendezvous at one of the home ports, so that orders might be at once conveyed to it. If it were thought necessary to give any orders to that fleet, it would be at once within our reach; and, certainly, I could not expect that any fleet of Austria or of Prussia would venture to encounter the squadron of Her Majesty.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.