Sitting of 12 May 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Education (Inspectors' Reports) appointed. (List of Committee.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Beer Houses (Ireland)*; Vacating of Seats (House of Commons)*: Servants Hiring (Scotland)*.
First Reading—Vacating of Seats (House of Commons)* [Bill 107]; Servants Hiring (Scotland)* [Bill 108]; Beer Houses (Ireland)* [Bill 109].
Second Reading—Railway Companies Powers* [Bill 30]; Railways Construction Facilities* [Bill 29].
Considered as amended — Summary Procedure (Scotland)* [Bill 76]; Admiralty Lands and Works* [Bill 88],
Third Reading—Naval Prize* [Bill 65], and passed.

POLICE RATE (EDINBURGH)—CLERGY STIPENDS.—QUESTION.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the riotous proceedings lately enacted in Edinburgh, arising out of the seizure and sale of the furniture of certain citizens who refuse to pay that portion of the local rates which, under the name of Police Rate, is (under an Act passed in 1860) levied to pay the stipends of the city clergy; whether it is true that several thousand ratepayers have resolutely refused to pay that portion of the rate, and that the arrears of the several local rates collected along with this rate are accumulating so rapidly as to have reached nearly £20,000; and, whether it is the intention of Government to propose any alteration in the Law?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that it was certainly not a fact that there existed any local rate under the name of Police Rate, or any other name, levied for the payment of the stipends of the clergy of the city of Edinburgh, Such a rate had been levied until the year 1860, under the name of the Annuity Tax, but an Act passed in that year provided that the, ministers of Edinburgh, being reduced in number, should be paid not by a local rate at all, but by a general charge made upon the revenue of the city. That arrangement was made at the desire of the opponents of the Annuity Tax, for the express purpose of avoiding the imposition of an Ecclesiastical Tax. At the same time,
362
the magistrates were empowered, by the Act of 1860, to levy an additional Police Rate for the supply of any deficiency which was, or might be, occasioned by the charge thus made upon the funds of the city, and the additional rate was, in all respects, a municipal charge for municipal purposes. No doubt some of the ratepayers, but not, he was glad to say, a large number, thought that, notwithstanding the municipal character of this additional rate, its payment was still open to conscientious objections. There was little doubt that on three or four occasions there had been some tumult occasioned by the sale of goods which had been seized for non-payment of the rate; but he had no official information excepting what had been communicated to him in a letter which he had received that day, from which he learnt that those proceedings had been very greatly exaggerated. The most conspicuous case was one in which the public were invited a few days before the event took place by means of handbills to attend and witness the sale of some furniture which had been seized. Under those circumstances, it was not at all extraordinary that a large rabble assembled, and that those engaged in carrying out the law were subject to much annoyance. After they had left, the rabble burnt one of the articles of furniture; but the inhabitants of the city themselves attached no importance to this incident. According to the information which he had received, the arrears consequent upon the refusal to pay the rate, amounted to about 3½ or 4 per cent upon the whole of the assessment. Usually 5 per cent was allowed as the amount which would cover the non-payments; so that in this instance the percentage would be increased to 8½ per cent, which, upon a sum of £50,000, was hardly a matter worthy of much consideration. He could not tell the exact number of those who had refused to pay, hut the average for the four years previous to 1860 had numbered 3,269, while the average of the four years since that date was 4,976, a difference of no great importance. In answer to the third part of the Question, he begged to say it was not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the law.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the date of the letter from which he derived his information, because he (Mr. Bright) had seen in the papers of that

363
morning a statement to the effect that no less than 10,000 persons assembled on one of the occasions referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had received his letter that day. There was no allusion in it to the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and the only information which he had received upon the subject was what had that morning been published in the newspapers.

METROPOLIS—SOUTH ENTRANCE TO PARK LANE.—QUESTION.
GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether some plan cannot be adopted to prevent the dangerous traffic that exists at Park Lane into Piccadilly, either by widening the street or causing some other way that the traffic may be diverted. He put the question to the right hon. Gentleman in consequence of an accident which occurred last Saturday when a cab was overturned by an omnibus. He believed Park Lane to be the most dangerous corner in London, and from inquiries which he had made of the inhabitants he had ascertained that an accident occurred there nearly every day. He wished to add to his Question an inquiry as to whether some of the Police could not be placed at the spot in order to assist in the regulation of the traffic?
MR. COWPER: Sir, the narrowness of Park Lane is manifestly and obviously the cause of great inconvenience and occasional danger. Whatever can be done by regulation of traffic is already accomplished by the presence of two policemen who are generally employed in preventing any obstruction.
GENERAL BUCKLEY: One of them told me that he had no orders.
MR. COWPER: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend must have fallen in with a policeman who was not on duty, as I am assured by the Commissioners of Police that one policeman is employed in preventing obstructions, while the other was at no great distance, who might be available if any particular obstruction arose. The real remedy is to be found either in widening Park Lane, or in having a new street through Hamilton Place. One thing I cannot admit is, that my hon. and gallant Friend has any right to address this question to me. Park Lane is not Crown property; therefore I would
364
request my hon. and gallant Friend to address his Question to those who represent the Metropolitan Board of Works, whoever they may be, because Parliament having constituted a body who have special care over the streets and ways of the metropolis, I think it most proper that the representatives of that body should take this matter into their serious consideration, as the powers of taxation of that body enable them to widen the streets or make a new one, so as to enable the traffic to have a larger and wider outlet. There have been suggestions made that Hyde Park should be used for public vehicles instead of Park Lane. Now, to that I entirely demur, because, instead of getting rid of the inconvenience of the obstruction, it would simply divert it from one place to another. I think, indeed, that the inconvenience would be more severely felt at Hyde Park Corner, just where the carriages leave the Park, than at present. Having consulted the Commissioners of Police on the subject, they are of opinion, that such a change would by no means either remove the danger or the inconvenience and obstruction; therefore to that alternative I must put a decided negative.
GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he could interfere in the matter?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I am not the representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I would suggest that the hon. and gallant Member put his Question to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite).
MR. TITE: I have no right to answer for the Metropolitan Board of Works, or to speak authoritatively; but I am a member of the Board, and I can say that the matter has been under consideration. A good many local difficulties exist, but I hope in a short time we shall be able to overcome them. All I can say is that it is a subject of grave consideration, and we will do our best to remove the obstructions complained of.

THE KERTCH PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Paymaster General, When the distribution of the Parliamentary Grant to the Troops concerned in the Kertch Expedition will take place?
  MR. HUTTsaid, in reply, that in a few days the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospi-

  365
  tal would be able to proceed with the distribution of the Prize Money. He could promise that the distribution should take place on or before the 1st of June next.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether any instructions have been issued by the Committee demanding sixty attendances from night scholars before examination for Capitation Grant, instead of twenty-four attendances, the number fixed in Article 40 of the Revised Code?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that no such instructions had been issued. The state of the case was this:—Under the Code of 1860 no Grant was payable to a night school unless it had been held on sixty occasions during the year, nor was any Grant payable in respect of the children unless they had attended fifty times. By the Revised Code two payments were made —2s. 6d. on attendance, and 5s. on examination—provided the scholars had attended twenty-four times. The 5s. was now paid for the examination of every scholar who attended twenty-four times, but the payment on attendance was not made unless the school had been open at least forty days—an arrangement the reasonableness of which he was sure his hon. Friend would be the first to admit.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to know at what date the alteration was made?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that no Minute on the subject had been laid on the table, but it was necessary that some amount of discretion should be left to the heads of the Department. It surely never could have been intended that a school should be open for twenty-four nights only. That would obviously be most improper, and a recurrence in this respect to the practice under the original Code was thought to be justifiable without placing a Minute upon so trifling a subject on the table.

EDUCATION — MINUTES OF MAY 19 AND MARCH 11.—QUESTION.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) would render the first part of his (Mr. Adderley's) question unnecessary; but he wished to ask, Whether
366
the Government will be prepared on the Monday after Whitsuntide to fix the day for discussing the Motion for the withdrawal of the Minutes of May 19 and March 11?
MR. H. A. BRUCEreplied, that he would not be prepared, on the Monday after Whitsuntide, to fix the day for discussing the Motion in reference to the Committee of Council on Education. It would be obviously inconvenient to fix a day, but one would be fixed as soon as possible.

NAVY—THE IRON PLATE COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Iron Plate Committee are about to terminate their labours; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will have any objection to lay the Report of their proceedings on the table of the House?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the Iron Plate Committee, as soon as they had terminated certain inquiries now being made, would cease to exist. With regard to their Report, there would be no objection whatever to its being furnished for the information of the House; but, inasmuch as it would consist of four bulky volumes, in which there were many hundreds of woodcuts, showing the results of the firing upon the plates, the shape of the shot, and various other particulars, he thought it would be hardly wise to go to the expense of printing them. What he proposed to do, therefore, was to lay six copies of the Report, which were now printed for the Committee, in the Library for reference by hon. Gentlemen; and if afterwards it was thought desirable, he should have no objection to print it for general use.

PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE PARKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Instructions to the Police as to Public Meetings in the Parks, Whether he considers such Instructions justify the suppression of Public Meetings other than such as may be held on a Sunday?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not think, Sir, that the letter of the Instructions issued to the Police authorizes them, I without having recourse to the Commis-

  367
  sioner or an Assistant Commissioner, in dispersing public meetings in the Parks, other than such as may be held on a Sunday. These Instructions had reference to an evil which had arisen, and which the public generally felt—that of meetings held in the Parks on Sundays, attended by large numbers of people, and followed by considerable tumult and disorder. But the public notice which was issued distinctly pointed to such meetings being held in the Parks on any day, and it is obvious that meetings of a political character, where different opinions are expressed, and where great disorder may arise, are equally objectionable on any day, interfering as they must with the object for which the Parks were designed —namely, the enjoyment and recreation of all classes of people.

BRAZIL—CASE OF MR. REEVES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the mediation with Brazil, care will be taken to secure some redress for Mr. Reeves, a British subject, who has been deprived of a large sum of money in a lawsuit with a Brazilian; whether Her Majesty's Government have received information from the British Consul of Rio of the recent dismissal of seven of the Judges of the same tribunals for corruption, not connected with Mr. Reeves's case; and whether any step has yet been taken to punish the Under Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, who wrote letters to the Judges asking them to vote against the Englishman, Mr. Reeves, and of whose conduct complaints were made by the British Minister, by order of Earl Russell?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that within the last two or three days, the Government had been officially informed that the Emperor of Brazil had accepted the mediation of the King of Portugal. It would be improper, and indeed, impossible, for him (Mr. Layard) to say what the exact terms of the mediation were, or how the relations between the two countries were to be restored; therefore he could not answer the first part of the Question. As all communication between the two Governments had for some time past been suspended, the Government had received no official account of the occurrence to which the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question alluded.

UNITED STATES—MURDER OF THE MATE OF THE "SAXON."

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of;" State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received the Report of the Court of Inquiry held on Acting Master Danenhowen or Donovan of the United States ship Vanderbilt, for the murder of Mr. James Gray, mate of the ship Saxon, at Angra Peguina, held at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, with the finding thereof; also the proceedings of the Court Martial subsequently held upon him, with the remarks of the Secretary to the Navy of the United States, and the Correspondence of Lord Lyons on the subject; and, if so, whether he will lay the Papers upon the table of the House?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that an inquiry had taken place, and this was followed by a court-martial. The inquiry was a private one, and the proceedings had not been published, nor had the result been communicated to the Government. With regard to the court-martial the Foreign Office had received from time to time a report of the proceedings, but they had not yet received any official account of the verdict. Of course the Consul at New York would have to communicate with Lord Lyons, but he presumed that the Government would shortly receive official records of the whole trial. He should then be able to inform the hon. Gentleman whether the papers were such as could be laid upon the table.

EDUCATION (INSPECTORS' REPORTS).

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he regretted to inform the House that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was unable to attend that evening to make the Motion of which he had given notice on the subject of the Inspectors' Reports. In his absence he would, with the permission of the House, move that the Orders of the day be postponed till after the notice of Motion relative to the Inspectors' Reports.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relative to Education (Inspectors' Reports). —(Sir George Grey.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYmoved that the Resolution passed by the House on the

  369
  12th of April last, with reference to the Reports of the School Inspectors, should be read at the table.
  Resolution [12th April] read—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the mutilation of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and the exclusion from them of statements and opinions adverse to the educational views entertained by the Committee of Council, while matter favourable to them is admitted, are violations of the understanding under which the appointment of the Inspectors was originally sanctioned by Parliament, and tend entirely to destroy the value of their Reports."
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I moved that the Resolution of the 12th of April, adopted by this House, be read, in order that it may appear on our records that the Motion which I am now about to make has a direct and an immediate reference to that Resolution. That Resolution asserts, or rather assumes, as a matter of fact, that the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have been mutilated, and that they have been mutilated with the distinct object of withholding from the House the opinions of those Inspectors when they were adverse to the views entertained by the Committee of Council on Education, and of presenting them to the House when they were favourable to those views. A graver charge than that could hardly be made against any Department of a Government. It is true that, at the time, that charge was met by a clear and emphatic denial on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe); but the House, acting, as we believe, under a misapprehension of the real facts of the case, and influenced to a certain extent by information which was in the possession of some hon. Members of the House, though not in the possession of the House itself, nor in the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, adopted the condemnatory Resolution. We further believe that if the information to which I allude had been in the hands of my right hon. Friend at the time, it was capable of and would have received a satisfactory explanation that would have deprived it of the weight which, without that explanation, was attached to it. My right hon. Friend subsequently made a statement to this House which I believe was entirely satisfactory. As for his personal honour, no one can doubt that it has been fully vindicated; but the matter rests in this position. There remains on our records, and there will be inserted on the Journals
  370
  of this House, and remain on those Journals a Resolution, adopted by this House without any qualification — a Resolution conveying a grave and serious censure on a Department of the Government which we hold to be unmerited; while the subsequent statement of my right hon. Friend, and the manner in which it was received by the House, will be only found in. those daily records which have not a permanent existence, and which after a time will be forgotten. My noble Friend the President I of the Council, taking upon himself that full share of the responsibility which belongs to him as head of the Department, the proceedings of which have been impugned by the Resolution, and his Colleagues in the Government, think it due to the Department that those charges which have been brought against it, and which were assumed to have been established, should be subjected to the rigid inquiry of a Committee of this House, in order that it may be ascertained by means of that inquiry whether those charges have any foundation. I am not going to allude to what is the practice of the Department. I am not going to defend it by any considerations of public policy or by reference to the practice of other Departments; these are matters which will be inquired into by the Committee; but I may express my conviction that if the result of the inquiry I ask for should be to show that the practice of the Committee of Council on Education with reference to the Reports of these Inspectors may be justified, and is not in any way open to the construction, put upon it by the Resolution of the House, in such case the House will agree to record the opinion so expressed by its Committee. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pa-kington) has given notice of an Amendment to my Motion, by way of adding to it certain words which would greatly enlarge the scope of the inquiry. If this Amendment be adopted the inquiry, instead of being confined to the topics to which I propose to direct it, would comprise within its range matters altogether foreign to the specific and limited objects I have in view. The right hon. Gentleman proposes an inquiry into the constitution of the Committee of Council, and into the question how far their mode of conducting the business of the Department is consistent with the due control of Parliament over the annual education grants. That is a proposition which might very

  371
  fairly be submitted to this House, and to which, if brought forward as a substantive Motion, the House might, if it thought fit, very fairly give its sanction. I am far from expressing an opinion on the question whether such a wide inquiry might or might not be made; but this I cannot help feeling—that such an inquiry ought to be proposed by means of a substantive and distinct Motion. The proposal ought to be brought before the House on its own merits, and considered separately and distinctly from the subject of the inquiry which is proposed by the Motion which I am about to submit to the House. Those intrusted with the conduct of the Education Department have a right to the calm and deliberate judgment of the House as to whether these charges can be substantiated or not; and what I ask the House to do is to inquire into that matter without at all prejudging the inquiry proposed to be brought forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. I therefore hope the House will not allow the inquiry I ask for to be swamped and overlaid by this new inquiry, which will prevent an early expression of opinion on the question we propose to have tried— namely, Whether the charges and imputations of the Resolutions of the 12th of April are well founded? I hope the House will limit the present inquiry to that object, and will not allow it to be mixed up with a vague and general inquiry which probably would last through the Session, and render it impossible to obtain an early expression of opinion on the definite issue now in hand.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to in-quire into the practice of the Committee of Council on Education with respect to the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools." — (Sir George Grey.)
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, before I proceed to offer an explanation of the reasons which induce me to move for a very considerable extension of the limits of the inquiry which has just been moved for by the right hon. Baronet, there are one or two points to which I am desirous of being allowed to refer, in order to prevent any misunderstanding of my Motion. In the first place, I wish to state that I have no intention in the Motion I am about to make to embarrass or impede the inquiry for which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. There are many Members in this House, and I am one of them, who
  372
  are desirous for this inquiry, and, as has been justly stated by the right hon. Baronet, the tenour of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), when he explained the reasons of his resignation, was such as to deserve, as it received, the sympathy and good feeling of the House; and I really do not believe, referring to what has been said by the right hon. Baronet, there was a man in this House— I am quite sure I may say this for my noble Friend the Member for Stamford— who, in supporting the Resolution of the 12th of April, had the slightest idea that he was calling in question the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne. I am bound in truth, however, to say that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the interference with Inspectors' Reports in the Education Office, was not satisfactory to my mind, or removed from it the desire for an inquiry, because the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech mentioned to the House, for the first time, that which we had no previous knowledge nor idea of—namely, that in the month of January, 1861, a Minute was passed by the Office, in which he was Vice President, restricting in the most material degree the Reports of those Inspectors. If there were no other reason on my part for desiring this inquiry, I should desire that the Minute passed three years ago, but of which this House never heard a word till they were told of it in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and the policy of that Minute, should be the subject of investigation. There are many hon. Gentlemen in this House—hon. Gentlemen who have given great attention to the education of the people—who will agree with me that there is no information on this subject so valuable, none given with so much ability, and for the most part with such impartiality, as the information contained in those Reports of the Inspectors. I should view with extreme disinclination and jealousy any change of policy on the part of the Education Office which would limit, as curtailment would limit, the information which those Inspectors have been accustomed to give the House and the country. And let me say that, should the House think fit to adopt the Amendment which I am about to move, it would be my proposal that the first subject to be considered by the Committee should be that of the Inspectors' Reports, and I would Suggest to the right hon. Gentleman

  373
  that the difficulty which he suggests may be entirely removed before the Committee proceeds to consider the larger question which I propose for its consideration — it should present its views to this House on the Reports of the Education Inspectors. There is another point on which I wish to avoid any misunderstanding. In bringing' forward this Amendment, I am acting without any discourtesy towards, or any want of confidence in, the right hon. Gentleman who has lately assumed and now fills the office of Vice President. On the contrary, I beg to say, with the utmost sincerity, that within the range of the Gentleman opposite to me I doubt if the noble Viscount the Prime Minister could have made a choice which I could have thought more satisfactory or more hopeful; and if there is a man in the House who, more than another, ought to support me, and who ought to feel grateful for what I suggest, it is the right hon. Gentleman. Neither is it my desire to cast any censure on the late Vice President. If I had brought forward the subject a few weeks ago, there are matters on which I should have questioned his conduct and administration; but the fact is, the explanations and disclosure which have been made in this House within the last few weeks have made me entirely doubtful as to the quarter on which the blame of those transactions rests. There is no doubt that a deep feeling of dissatisfaction and distrust of the administration of the Educational Department prevails throughout the country. Whether the fault be with the President or the Vice President, or with the President and the Vice President together, or with that mysterious body who are spoken of in every letter as "my Lords," or with the Secretary who signs my Lords' letters, or writes their letters for them, I am at a loss to determine; and it is one of those questions as to which I ask the House to institute an inquiry. I approach the subject solely with a view to promote the interests of education in this country. I ask the Government and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether they can say that the present mode of administering the annual grant is exactly what they would wish it to be? Can any reasonable cause be assigned why the Department should be constituted on principles which differ from those of every other Department of the State, and which in every other Department have been long exploded and abandoned. Under our Par-
  374
  liamentary system, it is the object and desire of the country that at the head of each Department there should be a man whose time, attention, and mind are concentrated on it, and who has full control over it, subject only to the general check of the Cabinet and of the responsibility I which he owes to Parliament. That is the system under which the great Departments of State are administered; but what is the state of affairs in the Education Office? In the Education Department; there are eight or ten Ministers instead of one, and as to responsibility, there is none. The Board is composed of the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Earl Russell, the Premier, the President of the Poor Law Board, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Vice President. Nothing could illustrate more completely the confusion of management than the fact that the right hon. Member for Calne, in the course of three or four sentences of his speech the other evening, spoke first of Earl Granville as the head of the Office, then of himself, and a little while after he spoke of the Committee of "My Lords," as they are called, as being the heads. The Board is a very hydra, in fact.
  Now as to the circumstances under which this body exists. In the year 1855, when the subject of education was very much discussed, I and other Members as well suggested to Earl Russell that there should be a responsible Minister of Education in this House. Earl Russell, in withdrawing his Bill on the subject of education, intimated that the Government were willing to accede to that suggestion. On that occasion he used these words—
  "When that Committee (of Education) was appointed he did not think that any better means could be adopted for managing the Educational Votes than by intrusting the control of them to a council of several Ministers; but circumstances had since changed, and he thought it would be for the benefit of the public service if the President of the Committee of Council were to be acknowledged as the Minister of Education, and that the Department of Education should be represented in that House by a person who might, perhaps, hold the rank of a Privy Councillor, and who might be able to defend any measure that might be adopted." [3 Hansard, cxxxix. 388.]
  I did not infer from those words that it was the noble Earl's intention that the action of the Committee of Council should be carried on simultaneously with that of the new Minister. At the commencement of 1856 a Bill was introduced by Earl Granville in the House of Lords; and in

  375
  the debate upon it some of the most distinguished statesmen of the country—the Earl of Derby, Earl Grey, the Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Monteagle, and the Marquess of Lansdowne — took part. They were unanimous in their approval of the appointment of an Education Minister, but the Marquess of Lansdowne was the only one who expressed any approbation—and that very faint—of the mode in which it was proposed to constitute the office. The Earl of Derby said—
  "But if the time had arrived for charging a responsible Minister with the duties of instruction, it appeared to him well worthy of consideration whether it would not be well to supersede the Privy Council altogether in this matter, and to have a Minister at the head of a Department, who should have no other duties to perform, and who should be, in fact, responsible for the education of the people." [3 Hansard, cxl. 815.]
  Those are the views which I myself entertain. The Earl of Ellenborough said—
  "If they wished to have a department well conducted, they should rather place it in the hands of one than of two Ministers, however able; and he certainly did hope that this Bill was intended to delegate all the duties connected with education substantially to the one officer who was to represent the Board in the House of Commons. It was quite enough work for one man, and that work never would be well done till it was confided to one man only." [Ibid. 819.]
  Earl Grey said—
  "He concurred in the opinion, that it would be better to dissociate the Presidency of Council from the superintendence of the Educational Department." [Ibid. 821.]
  And Lord Monteagle said—
  "He rejoiced that Government had at last dealt with this important question; he could not, however, approve of the proposed plan. A Board or Committee of Education, as appointed under the old system, was in principle and constitution one of the worst modes of administration." [Ibid. 816.]
  After condemning the Board of Trade and Board of Control as precedents, he went on—
  "As far as he could discover, these Boards were liable to be really represented by subordinate persons, all true responsibility being lost; and, however desirous the Board might be of discharging its duty, wrong measures would be adopted and carried into effect, from the nature of which it would be apparent that the Board was not represented by the nominal head of the Department, but by its subordinate officers." [Ibid. 817.]
  I will call also another witness — the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not then in office, but who sat on one of those elevated seats which are sometimes resorted to by servants out of place. The
  376
  right hon. Gentleman, however, at that time felt it his business to criticize somewhat severely all the measures that proceeded from the Government of that day, of which the noble Viscount now at the head of the Administration was also Premier. On the third reading of the Bill the present Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked the measure in its entirety, and took grave objections to the appointment of the Education Minister. I am thankful that the right hon. Gentleman did not then succeed in his objections, but there was one point urged by the right hon. Gentleman in which I entirely concurred. The language of the right hon. Gentleman then was to this effect—
  "They had some analogous institutions to which they might refer. The Board of Trade was one of them. He did not, however, hesitate to say that the constitution of that Department was a bad constitution. Instead of being a Department with a regular organization and one responsible head, and the other members bearing a defined relation in subordination to him, they had two parties, cheek by jowl—a President and a Vice President, of equal official rank, the Vice President being, in fact, the more important man of the two, especially if he happened to sit in that House while the President sat in the House of Lords." [3 Hansard, cxl. 1212.]
  The authority of the right hon. Gentleman is high, and I think that the objection which he made to the President and Vice President sitting "cheek by jowl," so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, applies exactly, or with still greater force, to the constitution of the Education Department. Having quoted the opinions of the most eminent and distinguished men on the subject, I would further ask the House whether their prophecies have not to a great extent been realized by the result. I now wish to call the attention of hon. Members to the language which was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne a short time since. In reply to some observations of my noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Eobert Cecil), the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The noble Lord did me too much honour in attributing to me the undivided management and responsibility of what he calls the Educational revolution that has taken place during the last three years. I am but the humble instrument of much higher authorities, and all 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…It matters very little to the House what my opinions on this subject may be, but I can assure it that in what I have had to do with regard to education I have

  377
  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 most calculated to attain the end they had in view." [3 Hansard, clxxiii. 1685.]
  I think the spirit which induced the right hon. Gentleman to take upon his own shoulders blame in the matter is a spirit worthy of a British Minister, and if I find fault with him it is for having condescended to accept—and the same observation applies to his successor — office on conditions so humiliating. But the right hon. Gentleman having expressed these very strong views was shortly after assailed by a Motion questioning the conduct of the Education Department with regard to the Reports of the Inspectors, and the result of such Motion was that he resigned. Now, holding the opinions which he did, and seeing that he was simply acting as a subordinate, I do not think it was he who ought to have resigned, but rather Earl Granville, the head of the Department. This brings me to what occurred on Saturday last, when, as we are informed by the newspapers, there was a gathering of those great officers who compose the Committee of Council. I find there were then in attendance the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Poor Law Board, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Vice President of the Department. In addition to all these was the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. Now the name of the right hon. Baronet had not appeared in the list of the members of the Educational Department which I have read to the House. But in these days of volunteer movement I suppose we must look upon the right hon. Gentleman as a volunteer in aid of the Educational Department of the Government. In my humble judgment, however, the duties of this Department would be far more efficiently discharged by the President and Vice President of the Board of Education than they are at all likely to be under the authority or guidance of so large a number of men, however eminent or distinguished they may be in the government of the country. But, be that as it may, these dignitaries it may be supposed held a sort of coroner's inquest over the dead body of the Endowment Minute, and, if they did, it may very well be imagined that the verdict given by the Vice President would be, "Found drowned." Then comes the
  378
  question, "What were the circumstances under which these distinguished persons met? Saturday was a day on which a critical meeting of the Conference was approaching. A general belief existed that the question of peace or war was hanging in the balance. We may well imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering how the expenses of that war were to be defrayed, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty was counting up his iron ships. ["Question, question!"] I venture to tell those hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me that I am speaking to the question in adverting to the arrangement by which these great officers of State are brought together to attend to the details of the Education Question, and I would confidently ask what business had they, whose minds must be occupied by the gravest subjects, to assemble to decide upon points with regard to an endowment scheme which it is pretty well known the country will not stand? I may add that I am not altogether without personal experience in these matters. I had the honour myself in a former Government of being a member of this Committee of Council, and that Government acted, I think, more wisely and more prudently than the present Government appear to have done. [A laugh,] Hon. Gentlemen will admit that it is only natural I should hold that opinion, and I feel they will concur with me, at all events, so far as relates to the point we are now discussing, when I tell them that I can remember only one occasion on which we met together as members of the Council, and that the impression then, created was that we were interfering with the business of other men who could do it better. The experiment was not accordingly repeated, and it was left to my right hon. Friend near me and the President of the Council to discharge the whole duties of the Office. I would further remind the House that the Board of Trade is far better constituted, in two important respects, than the Education Department, one being that the President of the former can devote the whole of his time to the business of his office, whereas the President of the Committee of Council has other important duties to perform. I concur, I may add, with Earl Grey that, for the most obvious reasons, it is unwise that the Lord President of the Council should, in conjunction with his other offices, hold that of head of the Education Department. What is more important is that, although there is a long

  379
  list of high officers of State who form what is called the Committee of Council on Trade, they have long ceased to act, and the business of the Board is left entirely in the hands of the President and Vice President. The Board of Control has also been mentioned as a precedent; but I submit that it is no precedent whatever. There were certain high officers who were said to form the Board of Control; the fact, however, is, that they never meet now, nor have they ever met for the last thirty or forty years. Perhaps some hon. Members may quote the Board of Admiralty as an example. The constitution of that Board, though much disapproved of, has this advantage. There is a responsible Minister at the head of it, and the Board does not consist of a number of persons with other avocations or duties to attend to. I think I have now shown the House that there are grave theoretical objections to this Education Department as it stands. Let me now ask whether its working has been such as to reconcile us to the existence of these theoretical objections. I will not enter into any argument upon those questions which have lately been the subject of debate in this House, but will only advert to such points as illustrate the working of the Department. And, first, let me refer to the Revised Code which occupied so much of our attention two years ago. Whatever were the merits or demerits of that Code, the House and the country had a right to regard that Code as expressing the deliberate opinion of the Education Office upon the subjects to which it refers, and as, so far as the Government is concerned, a final settlement of the questions with which it deals. It was so accepted by the House. Under these circumstances it is a remarkable evidence of how this Department works that, within a year from that settlement, a Minute was laid upon the table which entirely departed from the principles on which the Revised Code was founded. That Code proposed to settle the question of endowments; but within twelve months of its adoption a Minute was laid upon the table which reversed all that the Code had said upon the subject, and was of such a character as to agitate the country from one end to the other. If the Education Department had been under the guidance of a single man, acting under a full sense of responsibility, that subject would never have been treated with the carelessness and levity which led to such a result. The next proof of the unsatisfactory working
  380
  of this Department is the course taken last year as to supplementary rules. In September, 1863, a series of supplementary rules were published, of which this House, in its Parliamentary capacity, knows nothing, but which were entirely at variance not only with the Revised Code, but with the Report of the President and Vice President of the Committee of Council presented to the Queen in 1862. In that Report it was intimated that the children would be presented for examination "according to standards selected for them in the first instance by those interested in their success," while, by the ninth of the supplementary rules, it is announced that "a deduction of at least one-tenth will be made from the grant to a school, unless one class be presented above standard 3." And another rule goes so far as to enact that no grant will be paid unless one class be presented as high as standard 3. I listened with great interest to hear the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the question this evening of the hon. Member for Bradford, in regard to the statement current throughout the country in reference to the night schools. I was, however, very glad to learn that, although a considerable change has been made with respect to night schools, it is not so extensive and objectionable as the public has been led to suppose. These changes have produced in the country an impression, that the present Administration is indifferent to the promotion of the education of the people. I have no right to make such a charge, but the effect of each of these vexatious charges has been to diminish the amount of the grant, and the impression unhappily does prevail that the present Government care much more about the reduction of the grant than about the promotion of education. The grant this year will be very much less than it was last year; but while the grant has been reduced, and there has been a moderate increase in the number of schools and scholars, the expenses of the office have greatly increased. Since 1860 the schools have advanced from 7,272 to 7,739, and the children from 996,832 to 1,107,354; but in the same time the number of Inspectors has increased from 62 to 84, and their salaries from £24,075 to £32,650. I know no more valuable service that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President could render in the new office which he has undertaken than that of

  381
  advising the adoption of some mode by which the central action of the Department should be supported by local action in the various provinces of the country. There is only one other subject to which I desire to refer, but it is one to which I wish to draw the serious attention of the House. It is a point in respect to which I think an absolute necessity exists for some alteration. I refer to the system according to which the Education Minutes are now laid upon the table of this House, and the sanction of Parliament is asked to the various changes which take place in this Department. The House will remember the feeling which was excited by the manner in which the Revised Code was laid upon the table, on, I think, the very last day of the Session of 1861. In the following Session that Code was discussed, and certain articles were agreed to, with the sole view of guarding the House against sudden surprise in future. One of those articles is to the effect that, before any change can be acted upon, full particulars respecting it shall be laid before the House at least one month. I must candidly say that, after consulting with several of my friends who are competent to give an opinion upon the construction of Minutes of this kind, there is a difference in their views as to the precise meaning of those two articles, but I think it is a great evil that articles intended for the security of the House should have been worded in such a manner as to create difference of opinion as to their construction. My own view of these articles is, that it was intended that no Minute should be submitted to Parliament during the Session, but at the commencement of each year: whatever change it might have been thought necessary to introduce, should be embodied in the new Code, and be laid upon the table for the sanction of Parliament. Of course it cannot be expected that we are to have an education debate every month, but if the course which it appears to me was intended to be taken is adopted, the House will be made aware of all the changes that have been made, and will be called upon to sanction or reject them after due consideration. I am sorry to have detained the House so long upon what I know must be to many a very dry and unattractive question, but still it is a question of very great importance. I think experience has shown us that the present constitution of that office is at variance with the precedents of
  382
  other Departments, and is objectionable as raising doubts whether blame should be cast upon this man or upon that man. You cannot expect a Department consisting of eight or ten different statesmen, and so arranged that it is impossible to say to whom responsibility attaches, you cannot expect that such a Department will satisfactorily conduct the affairs of an office having to deal with a subject so complicated. Wherever the fault may lie it cannot be denied that a feeling of irritation and annoyance has been created throughout the country. That is an evil, but by changing the constitution of the office I think much may be done to counteract that evil. I have now to move the addition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman of the words of which I have given notice, and it is in no spirit of personal attack or censure that I propose this Amendment, but with a view of doing what I have ever desired, contributing to the improvement and extension of education among the people.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and further to inquire into the constitution of that Committee, and how far their mode of conducting the business of the department is consistent with the due control of Parliament over the annual Education Grants."—(Sir John Pakington.)
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman had in his remarks disarmed his proposition of its most objectionable feature — that of causing delay in the proposed inquiry, yet he thought he should be able to show sufficient reasons why the Amendment should not be adopted by the House. At the very threshold lay the question of the constitution of the Committee. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the practice of the Committee of Council as to Reports. That was a definite subject of inquiry, and in the selection of a Committee to consider it, men conversant with official business would be chosen, with special reference to their capability of giving an opinion on the subject of inquiry. But the subject that would be submitted to the Committee, if the Amendment were adopted, would be much wider and larger than an inquiry into the practice of the Privy Council, with reference to the Reports of Inspectors; and to deal with it properly, men must be selected to represent various

  383
  opinions and various interests. An inquiry based upon the proposition of the right hon. Baronet would, in fact, be an inquiry into the constitution of the Education Department affecting different religious bodies, and a variety of interests, and would raise questions of great delicacy and difficulty. The Committee, therefore, must be constituted on an entirely different principle. That objection alone proved the extreme inconvenience which would follow the adoption of the Amendment. But, apart from that, he ventured to say that the right hon. Baronet had misapprehended, and therefore had misrepresented the actual state of the case as regarded the Education Department. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the government of that Department rested with the Committee of Council. From that proposition he (Mr. H. A. Bruce) entirely dissented. The Committee of Council was first appointed in 1839, and superintended the application of the insignificant sum then voted by Parliament to promote public education in Great Britain. The members of that Committee were appointed individually, and at every change of Government by Order in Council. From 1839 to 1856 the affairs of the office were administered by the Committee, and then, indeed, the Department was open to the objection urged by the right hon. Baronet against the existing state of things, of a want of distinct responsibility. The dissatisfaction which prevailed led to an alteration, and an Order in Council was made in February, 1856, which was as follows:—
  "The Lords of your Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council beg leave humbly to recommend to your Majesty that the education establishments now attached to different departments be united under one direction, and be represented in both Houses of Parliament; and for this purpose their Lordships beg leave humbly to recommend to your Majesty that, for the future, the establishment to be called the Education Department be placed under the Lord President of the Council, assisted by a member of the Privy Council, who shall be called the Vice President of the Committee of the said Privy Council on Education, and shall act under the direction of the Lord President, and shall act for him in his absence."
  From that time till the discussion of the Revised Code, a Committee of Council had rarely sat, and none had sat that had not been summoned by the Lord President, and he would undertake to say that there had been no binding necessity for any Committee to be summoned. In
  384
  1857 the first Vice President was appointed, but the Act did not define his powers, and the question was in what light was that appointment viewed at the time it was first made. The Vice President was intended at that time to be a responsible officer, and the House practically regarded him as such. In moving the Education Estimates for the last time in 1856, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary said—
  "The responsibility of individual members of the Committee of Privy Council I fully admit; hut then that Committee is only summoned occasionally, and then to discuss questions of principle and not of detail. If, however, there were a department in which responsibility should be concentrated, represented by a Minister in this House, who would necessarily be acquainted with all the details of the subject, I think we should derive the same advantage as followed, in regard to the administration of the Poor Law, by having the President of the Poor Law Board in this House; and I believe that there will be a similar advantage in regard to education by the alteration proposed by the measure I refer to."
  In consequence of the Act of 1856, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was appointed Vice President of the Council, and upon the occasion of the Education Estimates being moved in 1857, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) stated that—
  "He must also state that he derived great pleasure from the fact that the Vote for educational purposes had been submitted to the notice of the Committee by a Minister directly connected with the Department of Education in this country, and who must be held responsible for the various items which the Vote contained."
  No alteration had since that period been made either as regarded the law or the practice, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) at what period the alteration of which he complained had taken place, and when the Vice President had ceased to be responsible? The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was succeeded in office by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), whose energy and ability in the conduct of his office were admitted on all sides. He would ask any hon. Member who remembered the right hon. Gentleman in office, whether the slightest doubt ever presented itself to his mind as to the responsibility incurred by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the measures which he submitted to the House? He was in turn succeeded in office by his right

  385
  hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and it seemed almost absurd for him to ask the House whether or not his right hon. Friend was held responsible during his five years of office for the conduct of his Department. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had quoted words made use of by his right hon. Friend, and, taken apart from the circumstances under which they were uttered, the inference which he drew from them might be correct. But it should be remembered that the policy which had been pursued by the Education Office had long been attributed to the idiosyneracy and to the political proclivities of his right hon. Friend; and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) had told them on a recent occasion, that his measures betrayed his adhesion to the principles of the hon. Members for Leeds and Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire said, during the same debate, that he perceived in the measures of the late Vice President indications of; a mind dissatisfied with its employment —in fact, the restless turnings of au ambitious and discontented spirit. His right hon. Friend, while admitting that he was responsible for the measures which he submitted, reminded the House that those measures had received the consideration of others besides himself, and that they would not have been submitted to the House if they had not received the approval of experienced statesmen, who were not only Members of the Committee of Council, but were also Members of the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of speaking for himself; but considering that it was he who practically administered the funds voted by that House for education, and that it was through his hands the whole business of the office passed, he (Mr, Bruce) was sure he need not appeal to him to say whether he did not consider himself responsible.
  There was, doubtless, much advantage in bringing under the consideration of statesmen of experience the new and delicate subjects connected with the administration of the Education Department, There was an advantage in consulting many minds, which could be done without eluding, or seeking to elude, the responsibility which attached to the Ministers presiding over the Department. The right hon. Baronet was far too experienced a
  386
  statesman to object to the constitution of the Board, unless he could point out some practical evil arising from that constitution. Many changes had been effected during the last few years, which had been received with censure or approbation; but who had ever imputed their origin to the want of a responsible Minister? The first great labour was the compilation of the Code which contained the Minutes of previous years, in a short and intelligible form. Soon after the publication of the Government Code, the Commission on Education was appointed. The Report of that Commission pointed out many defects in the existing system, and it became the imperative duty of the Department to consider them. The changes were subsequently brought before the House in the Revised Code, which undoubtedly affected the interests of great numbers, including managers of schools, schoolmasters, &c.; and a great clamour was raised throughout the country. The subject was fully discussed, and the system as now in operation adopted. He would be glad to know what evidence of weakness or defective responsibility was exhibited in carrying these changes into effect? One of the arguments used by the right hon. Baronet was, that there was not sufficient financial control. Had the expenditure been found to increase, and the education given should be of an inferior character, the House might resolve that the Department had been a failure. Considering, however, that during the past five years the average number of scholars attending the national schools had increased from 748,000 to 969,000, and that the expenditure had not only not increased but had decreased by about £100,000, it was fair to assume that the reverse was the fact. The former imperfect and unsatisfactory inspections had been replaced under the present system by examinations, which tested the character of education and apportioned the amount of the grant according to the progress made. He asked again, then, in which of these important respects had the Department failed to discharge the duties imposed upon it? The grant itself was now more immediately under the control of the House than before. It was previously spread over fifteen subjects of a complicated and difficult nature. The number of subjects was now reduced to six, and the House had not the slightest difficulty in rectifying any error. Every year the

  387
  Estimates were laid before the House by a responsible Minister, and he wanted to know in what respect the financial control was less over that sum than over any other sum voted by the House. The point which the right hon. Gentleman adduced as being the gravest blot in the system of the Educational Department was the conduct of that Department with respect to the Minutes affecting endowments. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal to change the practice with, reference to endowment would never have been made if there had been a responsible Minister. He, on the other hand, believed that any responsible Minister, on ascertaining the results of that practice, would have done as the late Vice President had done, and hastened to lay those results before the House, and have asked them to join with him in procuring the alteration of the system. What was the practice with respect to endowments before the introduction of the Revised Code? It was the custom to withhold the grant in all cases where the endowment amounted to 30 s. If, however, it fell short of that amount, even by one shilling, and the ordinary conditions of the grant were fulfilled, the grant of 9s. would be paid by the Privy Council Office, making the entire receipts of the school at least 47 s. per head—a sum far in excess of the amount required for the purposes of education. Within the last few days a case had been brought to the knowledge of the Government, showing that the late Minute had tended to encourage lavish expenditure. In Hereford there had been two schools, possessing endowments respectively of £120 and £130, which received grants from the State of £102 in one case, and £130 in the other. The first impulse of the managers was to petition against the Minute of May last; but, subsequently, they thought better of it, and applied themselves to make good the requisite amount from fees and subscriptions, and with such success that they absolutely secured more than they previously acquired from the State. Here was an instance in a small cathedral town of two schools upon which there had been a useless waste of nearly £250. Was it possible for any Minister, especially one personally responsible for the administration of funds, to refrain from bringing such facts under the notice of the House? The right hon. Gentleman complained of the mode in which the Minutes and supplementary rules were published. But how did he connect that circumstance with the
  388
  non-existence of the single responsible Minister whom he desired to, see? The supplementary rules were, in fact, a number of complicated regulations made at the request and for the assistance of managers and schoolmasters throughout the country. If those rules were not in accordance with the language and spirit of the Minute, let it be shown, and let the earliest opportunity be taken of eliciting the sense of the House. But, in his opinion, no instructions to Inspectors or supplemental rules had ever been prepared without an honest desire on the part of the Department to conform in every way to that Minute. It would be highly inconvenient to include in the Code the immense number of administrative rules and instructions necessary to carry on the complicated work intrusted to the Department; at least, if that were done, the Code, instead of being tolerably short and intelligible, would very soon be thrown back into that state of confusion from which it emerged some four or five years ago. He felt bound to deprecate the spirit of suspicion with which every act of the Department was viewed, and he begged the House to believe that the Department was administered by men of honour and integrity, who had no pleasure in annoying managers by petty economies and vexatious regulations, and no desire to break faith with the House by travelling out of the regulations laid down for their guidance. It was sometimes hard to define the exact distinction between a Minute and a regulation; but if it were shown that the Committee of Council had violated the article which proscribed that new Minutes making material alterations in the Code should be laid on the table of the House, care should be taken to rectify an involuntary error. Having thus noticed the principal points brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, he had only to say that he objected to his Amendment—first, because it implied a censure upon the constitution of the Committee of Council; and next, because the right hon. Gentleman had failed to show any ground for the large inquiry he proposed. He had further failed to show that there was any want of responsibility on the part of the Minister representing the Department in the House, or that any good would arise from the more direct responsibility which he wished to establish. And the House, he was sure, was too practical to direct an inquiry without some evil was first pointed out, and

  389
  some remedy for that evil suggested. The Department was still carrying out large changes, necessarily exciting uneasiness and jealousy in many quarters; and if at such a time an inquiry were made into the constitution of the Department, expectations as to changes would be excited, which must interfere with the efficient management of schools throughout the country.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that thinking it exceedingly desirable that the House should dispose of that little matter before dinner, he would not enter into any of the questions connected with the Revised Code or the supplementary rules which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Privy Council had discussed. All he desired to do was to state the reasons why he preferred the words of his right hon, Friend to those of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Department, in effect, said, "After three or four discussions we have been brought before the House of Commons and condemned. From that condemnation we appeal to the more formal, more exact, and more laborious tribunal of a Committee of the House of Commons." No proposal could be fairer; and so desirous was he to aid their appeal, that he wished the inquiry to be full, free, and untrammelled. But the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down commenced his speech with the startling announcement that the Committee was to be composed of officials. The question being one between the House of Commons and the Department charged with official misconduct in having tried to carry on its functions without giving to the House that information which it had a right to expect, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to try the guilt or innocence of the Department by a Committee of the nature referred to. He could imagine nothing more pleasant than a coterie of officials, assembled for the purpose of inquiring whether officials were to be blamed. The terms of reference, however, were even more important than the constitution of the Committee. If it tinned out that no offence had been committed, the terms the Government proposed were ample. But suppose the Committee found that an offence had been committed, they would want to know, not merely the crime, but the culprit, and thus it would become necessary to inquire into the constitution of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) gave an explanation of his conduct the other night which, as far as he was
  390
  personally concerned, in the opinion of every one who heard him, must have entirely cleared his honour. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain marks, on which great stress was laid, and by which t was proved, or thought to be proved, hat the Department ordered the Inspectors to mutilate their own Reports, had been affixed without his knowledge; and, for reasons peculiar to himself, the fact of their having been affixed remained unknown to him. But the Lord President Earl Granville must have read the Reports and seen the marks; and the same observation applied to Mr. Lingen, the permanent secretary. They must both have known perfectly well that the Reports were sent back to Inspectors to expurgate those marked passages to which the Committee of Council objected. If the blame did not fall properly upon the Vice President, he (Lord Robert Cecil) wanted to know whether it fell on the Lord President or the permanent secretary of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman told them that since 1862 Inspectors had never been ordered to expurgate passages which were indicated to them from their Reports. But he held in his hand evidence that exactly the contrary had taken place. As recently as last November a Report was sent back to an Inspector with special passages marked out, and he was ordered to expurgate his Report in that respect. On a former occasion he had been unable to quote the evidence which he relied upon, because he felt afraid of exposing particular Inspectors to the vengeance of the Department; but now he had a pamphlet from an Inspector upon whom the Department had done its worst. Mr. Morell had been dismissed, and had naturally betrayed the secrets of the prison-house. I find that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the other night, although in intention absolutely true, was still in fact absolutely false. Mr. Morell last autumn gave in a Report respecting a school in the country, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "The premises and fittings are good; but an infants' school-room would be a great improvement. The discipline is good, and the instruction, though not very forward, is accurate and appropriate, as tar as it goes, and as advanced as can be expected, considering how recently the present teachers have been in charge."
  Now, that remark drew attention to the recent appointment of the teacher, which was a sore subject with the Committee of Privy Council, because they had issued

  391
  supplementary rules by which they confined to a particular branch every school the scholars of which had not reached the third standard of the Revised Code. That rule might be just with regard to the old schools, but to the new schools it was most unjust, and they therefore refused to allow any allusion in the Reports to the circumstances that stamped it as unjust. These words, "considering how recently the present teachers have been in charge'' were struck out by Mr. Lingen, and sent back to Mr. Morrell. That fact was directly and positively at variance with the statement made the other night in that House by the right hon. Gentleman. He repeated that all in that House gave absolute credence to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but it raised the question how it was that the right hon. Gentleman was in ignorance of what was going on in his own Department. How was it that the permanent secretary of the Department allowed the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement in that House without bringing the facts under his notice? How was it that, whenever there was to be any inquiry, there was always that double shuffle? They never knew who was responsible— whether the Lord President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Council; and the so-called system of Government became a mere system of scapegoats. They could not get to the bottom of the matter. The House passed a Resolution condemning the Government The Government said, "Oh no! it is the Privy Council." The Privy Council was represented by the Lord President, but the Lord President said it was the Vice President. The Vice President resigned and, proved that he was innocent, and they inquire further, and find out that it was the secretary. They cannot get at the bottom of the matter unless they had full liberty to inquire. Why was it that they were wholly unable to arrive at the real culprit, or to ascertain by whose orders and on whose responsibility these alterations were made? He wished to go into the inquiry untrammelled by the terms of reference, and therefore it was that he should record his Vote for the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: There is some danger of our losing sight of the real question before us. However I might be inclined to agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Droitwich—and assuredly a system that in the year 1839 cost £30,000, and in 1864 has
  392
  mounted up to the enormous expenditure of £705,000, is in itself an argument in favour of inquiry — yet I cannot agree with the right ton. Gentleman that this is either the time or place for proposing the Motion that he has brought forward. If he had proposed it in a substantive form and had given his reasons, I should have felt inclined to support him on the present occasion; but I venture to think that his Motion is at present unnecessary, and if I may take the liberty of saying so, ill-timed, and that mischief may arise from its being added as a rider to the Motion. But if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is ill-timed, the course of the Government on this occasion is still more ill-timed and unfortunate. I think so, because, in the face of the explanations which we have heard in this House, it is ill-timed by the Government, unjust to my right hon. Friend the late Vice President, and uncalled for by this House. I was in hopes that when the Clerk at the table read the Resolution — which was carried in a moment of surprise by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), when he was endeavouring to close that little account before dinner on the 13th of April —it would have been read for the purpose of being rescinded; for if ever there was a Resolution which ought to have been taken up by Her Majesty's Government, it was this Resolution, carried by the noble Lord in a moment of surprise. But the course which the Government have pursued is framed on the system of justice that formerly prevailed in the Border counties, where the criminal was hanged first and tried afterwards. This is the system you are pursuing towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne. Can anything be more unjust or more unfair than the treatment to which he has been subjected, not only by the House but by Her Majesty's Government? At this present moment there is the fact of the censure directed against the right hon. Gentleman by the noble Lord, who takes pains to tell us that he entirely acquits him of dishonourable conduct—that he gives credence to his word, and has faith in his honour. Yet, in the teeth of those admissions, that Resolution is allowed to remain on the records of this House. He has been censured without inquiry, and sacrificed, as I think, without a cause. On the 13th of April, some four weeks ago, one or more officials under the Privy Council, who, I will take the liberty of

  393
  saying, in spite of what has been stated both here and elsewhere, were equally discontented and disloyal servants of the Department, took the opportunity of dropping accusations into the lion's mouth, then represented by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, who appeared to be neither an unwilling nor an unconscious recipient of those false and calumnious charges. [Cries of "Order!"]
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move I that the words of the hon. Gentleman be taken down.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I repeat—false and calumnious charges. The noble Lord has retracted those charges to-night.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I have not retracted them.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Then you ought to have retracted them. If I have understood the noble Lord, lie has retracted them to-night, for he said he had every confidence in the honour of my right hon. Friend.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: The statement of the hon. Gentleman is so strong that I may be permitted to explain. My Motion was couched against the Committee of Privy Council. As regards the; Committee of Privy Council, I retract not I one syllable, but as regards the right hon. I Gentleman, I believe the account he gives, and therefore the terms of the censure do not apply personally to him.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: O yes, it is all very well for the noble Lord to say that now; but I am sure the House will agree with me that, although his Resolution was pointed against the Committee of Privy Council, the speech was expressly directed against the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LONGFIELD: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman is alluding to a speech made in a former debate, which is highly irregular.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for throwing his shield over the noble Lord; but the House will remember that the attack was made personally against the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council. What happened? Why, these precious charges by these disloyal servants—and I suppose I cannot be called to order for that—these charges, by disloyal, discontented Inspectors, were embodied in a Resolution, and were carried through this House, and the little account was closed before dinner. The Motion was carried to a division at the unpropitious hour when the propen-
  394
  sities of the hyena were developed in the representatives of the people—when an attempt was made to suppress all debate by the hungry howls of those who wished to divide in time and close the little account before dinner. There was a majority of 101 to 93, and the right hon. Gentleman was censured, no defence being made for him, and no word having been spoken for him; he was censured, as I think, most unjustly and unfairly. What is the course taken by Her Majesty's Ministers on this occasion? They come down four weeks afterwards to say that their honour is impugned, and they move for a Committee of Inquiry. I must be permitted to say that their honour cannot be very sensitive, when it takes four weeks to look into their wounds and move for a Committee. What followed? On the 19th of April my right hon. Friend came down here, and gave such an explanation that, in the opinion even of the opponents of the right hon. Gentleman, if the First Minister of the Crown had risen in his place, and moved the rescinding of the Resolution, it would have been carried unanimously by this House. Is it not too much at this time of day to come down and ask, after more than four weeks have elapsed, for a Committee to whitewash the Office at the expense of the subordinate? I think that in the history of Parliamentary conflicts such a thing has never occurred as that when a Department is attacked the whole onus should be thrown upon the subordinate, while the President still retains his office. If there is to be an inquiry, let us have an inquiry into the whole Vote for Education. Believing that the Resolution of the noble Lord ought to be rescinded, I cannot give my support to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), though I concur in his motive. Nor can I give my support to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey); but if an opportunity does occur, at the least I will test the sincerity and strength of will of the House by moving that the Resolution passed on the 13th of April last be rescinded by this House.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he did not understand that the debate in progress had any personal reference, and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government had only seen the question in its true light, he would not have objected to the Amendment. If the previous debate was a per-

  395
  sonal one he could understand that the object of the Motion then made would be to cover the reputation of the Minister, and the Government might legitimately oppose any such addition to the reference as would divert the inquiry from that object. As far, however, as the debate was meant to cast no reflection upon the Minister, but referred to the general constitution and conduct of the Office, he would ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would not agree to the Amendment and allow the inquiry to take place into the constitution and general conduct of the Office as connected with the practices which had been complained of. If the late Vice President of the Council was wrongly accused, he had been amply justified by what had passed since. The only thing which surprised him, and which he regretted, was that his resignation was the consequence of the vote come to by the House; but the fact of that resignation was an argument for making the inquiry general into the constitution of the Office. He had taken no part in the debate because he considered it to be a discussion on the practice of the Office in the matter of these Reports, a point on which he had never flinched from expressing his opinion plainly; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) to say whether, when the question was raised in the previous year, he did not frankly defend a practice which he had begun in the Office, and which he was always ready to maintain was necessary there. When he went to the Privy Council Office he found that the Inspectors had in more than one instance got into the habit of exceeding their proper and legitimate functions. For example, he found that once a year they met in a sort of Parliament in the Office to discuss not only abstract questions relating to education, but the conduct of the Office specifically; and they adopted Resolutions upon a division which might or might not be consistent with the administration of the Department in pursuance of the Votes of the House. In his opinion the Inspectors not only exceeded their functions in doing so, but they established a dangerous practice. He therefore took upon himself to put a stop to it, stating that though very likely it might be for the public interest that the Inspectors should meet to discuss educational questions, he must demur to their adoption of Resolutions which, as he had said, might be inconsistent with the ad-
  396
  ministration of the Department, by responsible Ministers, in pursuance of the votes of the House. Again, in some of their Reports he found that the Inspectors went far beyond all reasonable and proper limits, entering into philosophical disquisitions upon educational theories, writing essays rather than Reports, and thereby destroying much of their value as Reports. He was the first to restrain that practice. From time to time he sent back the Reports in draught to the Inspectors, pointing out the passages he objected to, and requesting them to alter their Reports accordingly. It was after a debate in this House upon the subject that he had laid down the rule that the Reports should be made under five different heads; and he took upon himself to say that any Report which travelled beyond these heads—four of which related to schools, teachers, discipline, and so an, the fifth consisting of general practical suggestions—could not be considered in the nature of a Report or be printed by the House as an official Report on schools. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had modified that practice, and began the system which he had described as making the Inspectors their own censors. For himself, he confessed his fear that the result of the late division would be that no subsequent Vice President would venture to curtail these Reports in any respect, but would be obliged to give an unlimited licence to the Inspectors to write pamphlets, sermons, disquisitions, and reviews, at the public expense. He did not in the slightest degree question the right of the House, if they chose, to order the printing of thirty or forty educational treatises every year. From time to time the House ordered certain sermons which were preached before it to be printed; but he would never omit an opportunity of expressing his opinion against the practice in the case before the House of allowing sermons to be printed as Reports, and would always maintain that every Department should exercise some control over the Reports issued by it and were bound to prevent any such abuse. He did not take part in the late debate, because it did not seem to him that the debate turned upon that point. It rather seemed to involve a specific charge that in certain Reports passages were omitted which the Department wished to be omitted, while other passages which accorded with their policy were retained. That was a charge as to the grounds of

  397
  which he had no knowledge whatever, I and he therefore took no part in the debate. With regard to the Amendment before the House, he regarded it as most essential. Even if the question were a personal question a preliminary Report might be made on that special point before the Committee dealt with the general question, and the objection on the ground of delay in deciding on a personal charge would be thus met. He was strongly convinced of the necessity of a general investigation into the constitution and conduct of the Department; for he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that an Executive office with two Ministers, a President who had other business, and a Vice President who did the work, but whose responsibility was limited by the existence of a President—this was a constitution unparalleled in any other Department in the State. The system of Minutes of Council was highly unconstitutional, and, if necessary in this particular instance, highly dangerous unless f under the strictest control. By these Minutes the Crown was able to tax the country without due control of Parliament, and possibly even without the cognizance of Parliament. The constitutional theory was that the Crown asked for money, that the House of Commons granted it, and that the Lords assented to the grant. But by those Minutes, the country might be taxed before it had any public requisition, notice, or discussion, and the House might be involved in engagements from which it could not honourably extricate itself, and which added largely to the public expenditure, without the knowledge, and in many cases against the will of the House. The sooner such a system was brought under revision the better. In no other Department was there such discretion vested as that which gave the Committee of Council in possible cases unlimited powers of increasing and appropriating the public expenditure. It was true that at present any Minute of the Committee must lie upon the table for one month before it could have the force of a law;, but that was an insufficient provision. He was for having a better notice given to the House of any new Minute, and an entire stoppage of the practice of altering Minutes by mere circular letters; but he could not agree with his right hon. Friend that Minutes of Council should only come into operation at one period of the year. Such a restriction would interfere with the ordinary admi-
  398
  nistration of the Office. He would conclude by asking the Home Secretary whether, after what had passed, he still thought it necessary to oppose the Amendment?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I still think the subjects of inquiry proposed by the Motion and the Amendment respectively aught to be kept wholly separate and distinct. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich said he was quite ready to agree that the Committee should in the first instance, and before entering on the general inquiry, report on the specific charges, the subject of the inquiry which the Government propose; but the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) repudiates any such proceeding, and says the specific is mixed up with the general inquiry, and it would be impossible to come to a conclusion on the former without going into the latter. On that point I entirely differ from the noble Lord. I think that the specific is quite distinct from the general inquiry, and that the two ought not to be mixed up together. They ought to be kept altogether distinct, and to be referred—if they are to be made the subjects of inquiry—to distinct Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) seems to think that we are acting unfairly towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne. Nothing would grieve me more than to think so. My right hon. Friend thought that the Resolution of the 12th April made personal allusion to him; he has since perfectly exonerated himself from every personal charge; and certainly I was under the impression that in taking the course we have taken we were acting with the consent and approval of my right hon. Friend.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 142: Majority 49.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the practice of the Committee of Council on Education with respect to the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools.
  And, on Tuesday, June 7, Committee nominated as follows:—
  JOHN GEORGE DODSON, esq., Sir PHILIP DEMALPAS GRET EOERTON, bart., Lord HOTHAM, the Hon. CHARLES HOWARD, EDWARD HOWES, esq.;
  Also the LORD ADVOCATE, and Lord ROBERT CECIL, but without the power of voting.

SUPPLY —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would, on the Motion for going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates, have condescended to make some statement to the House with reference to the large amount of those Estimates, explaining why some of them had increased and why others had not been greatly diminished. Those Estimates amounted to near £8,000,000. Complaints had constantly been made that they were brought before the House without being fully considered by the Government. He had placed upon the paper a notice for a Committee of Inquiry into the whole subject, but it was not until Tuesday that this Motion obtained such a position as gave it a chance of coming on, and then for some reason or other the House was counted out. It pleased the hon. Knight who represents Coventry to work out the purpose of the Government in getting rid of his Motion on that occasion. Now, considering the hon. Member represented a constituency in which there was a greater number of the working classes included than in any other in the kingdom, he was the more surprised at such a course, and it was a proof that the fear of such bodies of electors were not likely, more than others, in influencing their representatives to do their duty as a check on extravagant expenditure. He wished to draw attention to the great increase that had taken place in those Estimates during the ten years from 1854 to 1864. During that time they had increased nearly £3,000,000, or more exactly £2,702,000. No doubt it was said that that increase was more apparent than real, because a variety of charges had been transferred to them which were formerly paid direct from the Consolidated Fund, but, taking both payments made from the Consolidated Fund and through Estimates, the actual increase was as he had stated. Taking first the payments which were made direct from the Consolidated Fund, the accounts stood thus:—

Payments direct from Consolidated Fund as given in the Financial Accounts No. 1 to 7.

1854.

1864.

1. Civil List

£399,822

£405,843

2. Annuities and Pensions

351,699

312,066

3. Salaries & Allowances

275,684

185,718

4. Diplomatic

148,918

169,777

6. Justice

1,097,205

685,334

6. Misc. Charges

226,065

213,440

Carry forward

£2,500,529

£1,972,181

400

Brought forward

£2,500,629

£1,972,181

Civil Services voted by Estimates

£4,471,559

7,702,627

£6,972,088

£9,674,808

£6,972,088

Actual Increase in Ten Tears

£2,702,720

Consolidated Fund Charges in 1854

£2,500,529

Do. in 1864.

£1,972,181

Difference

£ 528,348

Transferred from Consolidated Fund to Estimates above

£1,100,100

The total under the six heads was £2,500,000 in 1854, and £1,965,000, in 1864, so that there was a diminution, not of the £1,100,100 transferred to the annual Votes, but of little more than £500,000. The total amount of the Estimates for 1854 was £4,471,500, while this year it was £7,702,000, and adding these figures to the Consolidated Fund charges, they had a total Civil Service expenditure of £6,972,088 in 1854, against £9,674,808, or an increase of £2,702,720 this year. The manner in which the Civil Service accounts were kept was most unsatisfactory. There was no regular debtor and creditor account which would show the expenditure in any one Department. And yet we maintained a most expensive staff to look after our expenditure. He was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, but probably the public expenditure was nothing to him, though he was always scolding the House for its extravagance. The right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion had admitted clearly and distinctly that the Treasury had no proper control over the different Departments of the Government, and it was that want of control which lay at the root of our large expenditure. Though the admission was important, the grievance was an old one. So long ago as 1810, a Committee upon Public Accounts was nominated, in whose report the evil was pointed out, notwithstanding it had never been thoroughly corrected yet. Now let the House consider the cost of the Executive, established for the purpose of looking after the public expenditure. At the Treasury we had, besides the First Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, two Secretaries, and three Junior Lords to look after the expenditure, whose salaries amounted to £17,000 a year. As to the Junior Lords, if they were altogether discontinued it would be a great saving to the country. They were generally selected one from each of the

401
three kingdoms; and their chief function was to get what they could for their respective countries, and to assist in any jobs which might be going on. With their clerks and assistants the whole expense of the Treasury machinery was £60,000 a year. Then there was the Controller of the Exchequer, at £2,000, with his clerks, amounting altogether to £10,000; the Paymaster's Office, £25,000; the Audit Office, £40,000; making, in all, £135,000 for machinery for looking after our expenditure. Not only did the representatives of Departments neglect to exercise control over the public expenditure, but they neutralized the efforts of independent Members to obtain even an inquiry into the manner in which the public money was expended. Another subject of complaint which he urged was the haphazard character of the accounts and the incongruous items of which they were composed. The Board of Works sometimes determined on carrying out important works without any authority from the Treasury or from Parliament. The proposed School for Naval Architects would cost a large sum, and it had been settled that it should be situated at Kensington. He should like to know whether the Treasury had examined that plan and approved it. Another head of increased expenditure was salaries and pensions. It appeared from a Beturn moved for by Mr. Hume in 1849 that there were 8,000 persons receiving out of the public purse in the shape of salaries or pensions, ranging down to £50, and in 1862 a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Brighton showed that the number of persons in receipt of pensions had risen to 10,000, though the limit of such was confined to those who received sums exceeding £150 out of the public purse, so that from 1849 to 1862 the number of persons receiving salaries and pensions had increased by no less a number than 2,000. Another cause of their lavish expenditure was that they were apt to multiply offices and institutions designed for the same purpose. They had at the British Museum, at Jermyn Street, and at Kensington, collections of nearly the same nature, which often carried on a rivalry in the purchase of specimens, and actually bade against each other. The control of the Treasury ought to check that source of extravagance. Then they had other picture collections at Kensington, the National Gallery, and the Portrait Gallery, each of which entailed its
402
separate expenditure for maintenance and establishment. Again, at Greenwich they had an establishment of high scientific importance, which was very economically conducted; but then, again, they had a sort of duplicate to that in the Weather Department attached to the Board of Trade, which cost a very large sum. Anything more absurd than the system by which they attempted from day to day to prophesy the weather it was hardly possible to conceive. Fortune-telling was punished by law, but here they had a department of the Board of Trade which professed to foretell what the weather would be two days hence. He had tested a number of these weather prophecies by the result, and found that they were about once right and twice wrong. There was an institution at Paris of a much higher scientific order than that under the Board of Trade. He did not see why such meteorological observations as were necessary or valuable to us should not be taken at Greenwich, instead of our having two establishments or rather three, as there was another on a small scale at Kew, connected with the same subjects. The Board of Trade was a Department which had greatly expanded, and in reference to railways, it affected the powers of Pluto, and that of Neptune as respects the mercantile marine; but he did not think it should undertake the functions of Æolus. The principal departments in which the increased expenditure to which he referred had taken place were the Office of Works, the Office of Woods, the Office of Education and of Science and Art, the Irish Education Office, the Board of Trade, and then Law and Justice. That, however, to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House was the expenditure in connection with superannuations. The sums paid under that head were astounding. The total amount of the pensions connected with the Civil Service was, he found, £1,262,000, while those for the non-effective portions of the army and navy, including what used to be called the dead weight, amounted to £4,200,000; so that we actually paid over £5,400,000 in the shape of superannuation allowances for past services, being one-thirteenth part of our total expenditure, including the debt, and actually one-eighth excluding the debt. The Board of Trade affords us a notable instance this year of the carelessness with which superannuations are granted by the Treasury in the cases of Lord Hobart and Mr. Edgar Bowring, the first of

403
whom is but forty-two years of age and the second but thirty-eight. The plea is abolition of office, which is a mere fiction in regard to both, as the actual official staff of the Board of Trade has been very largely extended. But there are an infinite number of ingenuous devices by which these jobs are perpetrated under the several terms of abolition of office—reduction—revision — regulation — re-arrangement — and re-organization. As regards Mr. Edgar Bowring, who held two offices there as Registrar and Librarian, and is pensioned off at the salary which he received for both, that of Librarian has been filled up at a salary, which, with that gentleman's pension, actually saddles the public with a heavier charge than was before incurred. If these parties are entitled to superannuations, there is not a clerk in any similar office of the same age who is not entitled to be as favourably dealt with. Then there were the Departments of Works and of Woods and Forests, the expenditure for which had greatly increased since their separation, as would be seen from the fact that while that expenditure for the ten years up to 1852 was only £364,627, it reached in the next ten years £686,456, or a total increase on ten years of £321,829, or £32,000 per annum. The receipts from Forests during the previous year amounted to £49,000, while the expenses were £32,000, so that the clear income derived by the country from what are called the Royal Forests did not amount to more than £17,000. It would be far better to sell them and apply the proceeds to the purchase of lands which the country wanted for a variety of other purposes. He also objected to the payment of large sums for pieces of ground which from time immemorial had been in the possession of the public. The site of the new Foreign Office was called Crown property, and many thousands had been paid for it to the Office of Works out of the monies voted by Parliament for purchasing the site necessary for those buildings, though, in the calculations given on which those votes were asked for, ground already belonging to the Crown was not included, or had Parliament the slightest notion that they were voting money to pay for what already belonged to the country. They pulled down the State Paper Office for some reason or other, which a few years ago cost £40,000 to erect, and then they paid £7,000 for the site which had been used
404
as Crown property for a very long time. Nothing was more likely than that the site of the present National Gallery would be claimed by the Office of Woods and Forests as Crown property, and that a large sum would be required to purchase it on the removal of the collection to Burlington Gardens. Enormous sums had already been expended in this way, and he trusted a stop would be put to so needless a waste of public money. It likewise occurred to him that a considerable saving might be effected in connection with the system of what may be called the clerkdom in public offices, and the mode of their selection by competitive examinations. That system, though useful in some respects, tended, as at present conducted, to great expenditure and also to extreme dissatisfaction. It encouraged persons of superior attainments to seek employment in the public service, and those persons, being above their work, were naturally dissatisfied with the existing scale of salaries, and adopted every means to raise it. What the country wanted, particularly in the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, were mere clerks, able to read, write, and calculate, and not fine scholars. Recently all the employés in the Post Office wanted an increase of their salaries, though sufficiently well paid already, and he believed the same thing was going on in the Customs. He agreed with the views expressed by the late Sir Henry Parnell in his work On Financial Reform, that high salaries not only imposed a great burden upon the public, but also made clerks less efficient, and that there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that fitness would follow in proportion as the amount of salary was higher. Sir Henry's words are remarkable, and he was sure the House would pardon him for quoting them. He writes, p. 206—
"The clerks in the commissariat are real clerks, not the sons of persons of the higher ranks, but of a humbler description. They are perfectly satisfied with what they receive, and do their work remarkably well…Those persons who are willing to work for a small remuneration have the greatest relish for work; and, therefore, giving low salaries will secure the filling of the low offices with the most efficient clerks."
In their last Report, the Commissioners said that no person had been rejected except for want of efficiency in writing, spelling, and arithmetic; but the fact was that in the competitive examinations success depended in great measure upon the possession of qualifications which were

405
quite unnecessary for the work intrusted to public clerks, as anybody will discover who examines the candidate tables given in the Report, where those who are first in the above acquirements often do not succeed, inferior penmen excluding them by marks for geography, history, or other branches of a liberal education. The time had come for Parliament to look into the subject. It was one of the first duties of Parliament to check expenditure, and he was persuaded that if that duty were longer neglected the cry for Parliamentary reform would get louder and louder every year. They had frequently been told that, the voting of supplies was a mere matter of course, and that the Estimates must be taken upon the responsibility of Ministers. How was that official responsibility to be tested? What official victim could be sacrificed upon the altar of economy? By what means was the House to bring the guilt home to the real offender? If the Treasury would only apply themselves earnestly to the study of economy, and Parliament would back them, he was satisfied they might reduce the Civil Service Estimates by at least a million, that is one penny income tax, without impairing in the least degree the efficiency of the public service.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had alluded to him personally, as he happened to be the unfortunate wight who had interposed between him and the House on the previous Tuesday. The hon. Member had intended to deliver then the speech he had addressed to the House that night, but as on Tuesday there were only thirteen Members present, and he thought the hon. Gentleman's observations could be made with more effect and propriety on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, he had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the state of the House. That evening the hon. Gentleman had spoken for an hour and a half, but he had not been able to secure a much larger audience, for during the greater part of his speech not more than twenty Members were in the House. As, however, the Estimates were before the House, he did not venture what he would have otherwise been inclined to do—to try a count. He would not anticipate the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, but the field over which the hon. Gentleman had travelled was so large, and his opinions so decided, that one could not help suspecting he deemed himself quite
406
capable of carrying on the whole Government of the country, with the aid of two or three clerks.
SIR. HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that at present only a few branches of the Civil Service expenditure were subject to the appropriation audit; but it was very desirable that the same check should be extended to the whole Estimates. He wished to know whether the Treasury had taken any steps with that object? The measure had been strongly urged by the Public Monies Committee. He did not quite agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Truro, as to the existing machinery being imperfect. In his opinion, however, the Audit Board and some other Departments had a tendency to fail for want of a clear and definite system of action; and the House would do well to give them more power and support. Even as it was, the Audit Board did good service. He believed, also, that the Office of Woods and Forests might be rendered more useful if it had fair play. That Department, and also the Ordnance, ought to be properly represented in the House. Hon. Members ought to try to improve the machinery now in operation, and not to discredit it. He would refrain from touching on the various questions raised by his hon. Friend, as they would be more properly discussed in Committee.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the hon. Member for Truro deserved credit for the great trouble he had taken in examining an important subject, and in calling attention to the continual progressive increase of expenditure year alter year. That was a most melancholy fact and deserved consideration. As long as the Estimates remained at their present excessive figure, the country must be content to bear the heavy burdens now imposed. The first step to a reduction of taxation was, of course, a reduction of expenditure.
MR. PEELsaid, that the House would fall into a serious error if it was led to suppose that the Civil Service expenditure was not audited. On the contrary, the bulk of the Civil Service Estimates were audited with great minuteness. Only a few of the Votes, however, were subjected to the appropriation audit for the purpose of making a comparison between the actual expenditure of the year and the grants of money. He admitted that it was desirable that that audit should be extended so as to embrace all the services comprised in the Estimates, more especially as the Ap-

407
propriation Act now limited the grants made to the payments falling due within the year. The matter was under the consideration of the Government, with a view to seeing what could be done. The House, he was sure, would hardly desire him to follow the hon. Member for Truro through all the details of his speech. Indeed, he doubted whether he had it in his power to do so, as he had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was going to make so lengthened a statement, and to take so comprehensive and minute a survey, charging the Treasury with abusing and mismanaging every trust confided to them. As to the Lords of the Treasury availing themselves of appointments as a means of obtaining undue advantages for their constituencies, he could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman made that charge seriously. It was certainly altogether an unfounded suggestion. Then, again, instead of the Treasury comprising sinecure appointments, there was really no branch of the public service to which that remark less applied; and he believed the officers were generally fully employed. There was not a single instance in which the Secretary to the Treasury had prefaced the introduction of the Civil Service Estimates by a long speech. The fact was that these Estimates were quite different from those for the army and navy, which each referred to a single service. The Miscellaneous Estimates included such a variety of services, from national education to public works, which had no relation to each other, that they could not be explained in a single speech. At the same time, he would take that opportunity of calling attention to the generally satisfactory state of the Civil Service Estimates. They showed a reduction upon almost every branch. Although on particular items there had been some increase as compared with last year, more particularly with respect to the Votes for law and justice and prisons. But notwithstanding that the Civil Service Estimates, on the whole, showed a reduction of £180,000 as compared with last year, which also showed a considerable reduction as compared with the previous year, there was a reduction in the revenue Vote, although the number of persons employed and the salaries paid had a tendency to increase. With respect to the Packet Service Estimate there was a reduction of £80,000. After making due allowance for the increase in the Votes for public education, and the additions which
408
had been made to the Civil Service Estimates by transferring to them services which used formerly to be paid by other funds, it would be found that the increase in the Estimates was not three millions, as stated by the hon. Member for Truro, but merely some hundreds of thousands, which it would not be difficult to account for under all the circumstances of the case. With regard to the charges on the Consolidated Fund and the payments out of income of Woods and Forests, on which the hon. Member had asked for information, he would observe that an increase had taken place in two branches of the Consolidated Fund charges. There was an increase of about £40,000 in the miscellaneous advances, and that was to be accounted for in the following manner:—By the Act abolishing passing tolls the principal and interest of the debts due in respect to Whitby Harbour were charged on the Consolidated Fund. The interest on the debt was 4 per cent, and a saving of £300 a year was effected by paying off the principal. The amount paid for the extinguishment of that debt was the cause of the increase in the miscellaneous payments out of the Consolidated Fund. Under the Customs Consolidated Act of 1854 the whole of the customs revenue of the Isle of Man, amounting to £27,000, was annually paid into the Exchequer. The Treasury was bound to pay the ordinary civil expenses of the island, and to give one-ninth of the customs revenue of the island for the construction of new harbours, and for purposes connected with public works. The public works were not undertaken until last year, and for the purpose of carrying them on, the whole of the accumulated charge on account of the one-ninth of the customs revenue of the island, amounting to £27,000 in all, was required. The sum was paid, and that explained how that particular increase had taken place. The payments out of the income of the Department of Woods and Forests were strictly in accordance with the Act of Parliament, which was based upon a sort of compact by which the Crown, in return for a Civil List, surrendered its land revenues during the lifetime of the Sovereign; and he did not think that, consistently with the observance of that compact, any fundamental change could be introduced into the mode in which those revenues were administered. The payments might appear to be large, but they went towards the improvement of the

409
estates, and in most instances interest was charged upon the tenants of the properties where the improvements took place, and the consequence was that the income from the land revenues was continually increasing. The other questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for Truro referred to the details of the Votes, and he should therefore reserve any explanations which might be needed until the House had gone into Committee of Supply.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be a great convenience as well as a source of important information to the House if a Return were presented to the House, showing the amount of the Votes which remained unexpended at the end of every year.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Truro had hardly been fairly treated. He had done good service by calling the attention of the House to these details, and if it had not been for him the House would have been dispersed. At one time there were only twenty Members in the House, there were six in the lobbies, six in the tea-room, six in the library, and thirty-nine in the dining-room, He did not blame those hon. Members for being out of the House, because they knew that if they had been present they could have done no good, that all the nibbling and cheeseparing in the world would never reduce the Estimates below the amount at which the Government chose to fix them. The late hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Lambeth, who at one time was called a "continuation of Hume," had gone through the same process that the hon. Member for Truro was now being subjected to, and the experience of that hon. Member had led him to confine his speech that evening to a period of only about two minutes. The people of Ireland were more interested in the matter than were those of England, because of all the taxation which was taken from Ireland none flowed back to that country, except the small amounts expended for English purposes, such as the payment of an English Lord Lieutenant, who could be made of no use here, and a Chief Secretary, who was the most mischievous man in the country. The only Irish purpose for which money was expended was the payment of the Judges. The stream of taxation was poured out to enrich England alone, and that was the reason why English Members were so indifferent to the enormous
410
taxation imposed on other parts of the kingdom.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member for Lambeth, he had to state that it would not be possible for him to undertake to present on an early day in each Session an account of the state of the unexpended balances in the Civil Service Estimates.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY.
SUPPLY considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £40,258, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had no desire to make any observations in reference to palaces occupied by the Royal family; but he believed that no member of; the Royal family resided in Kensington Palace, and that the only person there was a very old lady, and he, therefore, wished to know how the £1,237 set down for it was expended. For Bushey Park House the sum of £1,319 was asked, and he, wished to ask who it was who occupied: that building. There was also an item for; repairing and cleansing the fittings in the Chapel Royal, St. James's, but he believed that Her Majesty never attended that chapel.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, that there had been a general and silent increase in these Estimates from year to year. He wished to have some explanation of an apparent excess of £12,696 spent beyond the sum voted for 1862–3
MR. COWPERsaid, that the expenditure on Kensington Palace and Bushey House was solely for the purpose of keeping them in ordinary repair and preventing them going to decay. The Chapel Royal, St. James's, was attended every Sunday by a considerable congregation, and it was necessary to maintain the building in a proper state of repair, Though Her Majesty had a chapel at Buckingham Palace, still many members of the Royal family attended the Chapel

411
Royal, St. James's. In reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Evesham, he had to observe that the excess referred to was paid out of the balances of previous years. The old system was to pay money for the purpose for which it was originally voted, without reference to the year in which the payment was made; but a different plan was now adopted, and at the end of the year the balance was paid over to the Exchequer.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, it appeared that a private road, by which the public had been admitted to Richmond Park through Roehampton Gate, had recently been purchased by a gentleman named Prescott, and closed by him against the public, so that Roehampton Gate was only of use to that gentleman, his family, and friends. He did not see that the public should be put to the expense of keeping up the gate solely for the use of that gentleman, who would not give the public in return the use of the road, and he moved that the Vote be reduced by £50, which would be about the expenditure connected with the gate.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £40,208 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces." — (Mr. Peacocke.)
MR. COWPERsaid, the case was rather peculiar. The gate was, of course, open to the public, as all the other gates of Richmond Park were, but the road that led to the gate was private property. That property had lately come into the possession of Mr. Prescott, and he allowed all the residents in Richmond Park to pass along the road, but not the general public. If Mr. Prescott were more: liberally disposed he might have opened it to the public, but it ought to be remembered that the expense of repairing the road fell upon the owner, and if he were to allow the public to use it the increased expense of the repairs would be thrown upon himself. He had suggested to Mr. Prescott that he might, without incurring additional expense, allow al persons on horseback to make use o the road, but he did not know whether that suggestion would be adopted. If the extreme rights of the Crown were enforced the gate might be shut up al together, which might not be a very agreeable thing to Mr. Prescott and other
412
persons living on the road. However, he annual expense of repairing the gate pas only about £5, and if any reduction was to be moved it ought to be £5, and not £50. He hoped, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend would content himself with having expressed a wish upon the matter, and would not divide the Committee.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he would not press his Motion provided the right hon. Gentleman would see the suggestion carried out—that all persons on horseback and in private carriages should be allowed to pass through the gate in return for the use of it by Mr. Prescott.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had no power to coerce Mr. Prescott.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might shut up the gate. If be would engage to shut up the gate, unless Mr. Prescott opened the road, he would not divide the Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not be asked to enter into a specific engagement. Mr. Prescott was, no doubt, a gentleman of intelligence and sagacity, and would understand what the feeling of Parliament was upon the subject. The existing state of things was certainly one which ought not to continue.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £77,531, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to a sum of £9,933 for repairs of ecclesiastical and collegiate buildings, &c., in Scotland. There were sums set down for maintenance and repairs of the old Scotch cathedrals, which were no longer of any use.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had extended his economical views beyond their legitimate bounds. No one had seen the Scotch cathedrals without feeling that they contained some of the most beautiful specimens of architecture, not only that the three kingdoms, but that the world possessed, while the sums asked for their preservation were but small. He was sure the Committee would not agree with the paring-down spirit of the hon. Gentleman. He was happy to see that something was going to be done at last about that very valuable possession of the Crown — Burlington House. Some twelve years

413
ago when he first had the honour of a seat in that House, there was talk of doing something, but nothing had been done, When the immense value of a spot of ground in that part of London was taken into consideration, some explanation of the delay was due. How was it that successive Governments, during a period of so many years, had made no use of the spot. As he understood the plan that was in contemplation, a building was to be erected at the rear in order to receive the: national pictures. But to place our National Gallery — a building which, no doubt, would be of some architectural merit — in the background, required explanation. It appeared there was to be an approach to the Gallery, through the centre of Burlington House; but he could not make out how that was to be managed. He could not help thinking that something ought to be done to give; the public an opportunity of seeing Burlington House. For one hundred years that building had been admired by architectural critics, and yet it was kept from the view of the public. He supposed at; some time it was intended to carry a street from Piccadilly to the north, through Cork Street, or thereabouts, for the purpose of relieving Bond Street and Regent Street; but if those buildings were erected there, all hopes of that kind would be put an end to.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the people of Scotland took a different course; with respect to their cathedrals from the people of England. Here the people defaced the cathedrals, but kept them in their own hands; but in Scotland they respected them, but handed them over to the Crown. And now a sum of £9,000 was asked for those beautiful buildings, simply because they were Crown property. With respect to a different question, when the time came for deciding whether a new National Gallery which would cost £150,000, ought to be placed on the ground behind Burlington House, he hoped that matter would be discussed by a more numerous Committee. He hoped at that time, also, they would have a satisfactory solution of that really difficult question, His hon. Friend could not understand how it was that two successive Governments had failed to settle the question about Burlington House; but that there had been two successive Governments explained that unfortunate fact. Had there been only one Government, the
414
matter would have been decided long ago.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONScomplained that while £11,000 was asked for rates and taxes for public buildings in Westminster and London, the Government refused to pay not only poor rates, but rates for drainage and sewerage for their large establishments at Deptford. In some places Government paid those rates, in others they rejected all claims for them. The practice showed such a want of principle as to require some explanation.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he took objection to the item for rents paid for public offices erected upon land belonging to the public. He might instance the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, as an example, where a large amount of money had been expended in building upon land belonging to the public.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the complaint of the hon. Member for Truro really was, that a better system of accounts was now adopted than had been in use in former times. Now that the department of Public Works was separated from the Woods and Forests, it was right that rent should be paid for Crown land, whether let for public or private purposes. With respect to the item for repairs of ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland, they were about twenty-four in number, and among them were the palaces of Holyrood and Linlithgow, the Register Office in Edinburgh, and some ruined cathedrals upon which a small expenditure was necessary to prevent them from absolutely disappearing. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir William Fraser) into a discussion of a Vote that would come on for consideration at a future time, but when that time did arrive, he would be prepared to give the fullest explanation, and hoped to persuade the House that the course proposed by the Government was a wise one to pursue. With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) it was quite true that a different practice had been adopted with regard to public buildings in the metropolis to that which prevailed in respect of public buildings outside the metropolis. The distinction, however, had been made for many years, and had invariably been observed. The subject adverted to by the hon. Member for Greenwich was under the consideration of the Government and would receive their earnest attention.
COLONEL W. STUARTasked for an. explanation of an item of £42 on account of the formation of a road near Holyhead.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the explanation of the First Commissioner of Works only led to the question of why rent was not paid for the Treasury or for the parks.
MR. COWPERsaid, he must admit that perhaps rent ought to be paid for the Treasury, but the parks were in a different category, as they were placed by Act of Parliament under the management of the Office of Works. The small item for the road at Holyhead was a mere re-Vote of a sum formerly voted, which had lapsed on account of not having been claimed.
Vote agreed, to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £12,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he could not understand why a large sum was asked for the furniture of the Kensington Museum. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £3,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £9,300, be grantee to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course o payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Supply and Repair o Furniture in the various Public Departments." —(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
MR. COWPERsaid, the furniture was no more than was required for the School of Art and the buildings attached to it. He admitted that in the first instance the item might have been placed in a different class in the Science and Art Department. It had, however, appeared in these Estimates in former years, and it was not desirable to shift it now, as that would alter the headings and prevent an accurate comparison between one year and another.
MR. GREGORYcomplained of the manner in which the Estimates were compiled with reference to the Votes for furniture. It was the practice with regard to the Irish Industrial Museum, because it was out of favour with the Government ant very popular with the people of Ireland,
416
to make the expenses for fittings, furniture, &c., as large as possible, thereby creating a false impression with regard to he cost of that establishment. It was very strange that the cost of these articles or the British Museum should be included in its own Estimate, and the South Kensington excluded from its own Estimate.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was never satisfied with the mode of arriving at the Estimates of fittings, furniture, &c., required by the various Departments. The officer who was really responsible for the Vote was the Vice President of the Committee on Education, and not the Chief Commissioner of Works; and he regretted that the former right hon. Gentleman was not present to explain it. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works exercised a supervision over the general Votes for furniture; but with regard to the fittings at South Kensington he was in the hands of the officers of the Department, and was as powerless as a child. On the first blush of it the cost appeared to be great, as it amounted to about one-third of the whole sum required, but he had no doubt it was susceptible of explanation. The item, however, ought to be transferred to the Vote for Education.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he thought it better to make the alteration at once than to wait for another year, when, the matter might be forgotten.
MR. F. S. POWELLasked, whether the Vote for furniture at South Kensington was to be regarded as an annually recurring charge, or one of an exceptional nature consequent on the extensive alterations which had been recently sanctioned by Parliament?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had only named £3,000 in his Amendment as a round sum. He found by reference to the Estimates that the exact amount asked for fittings and furniture for the Department of Science and Art was £4,300, and he accordingly begged to substitute that amount in his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. COWPERsaid, that about one-half of the expenditure was for special purposes, which it was hoped would not occur again. It was required for the completion of very extensive galleries and rooms which had only recently been

417
finished, and which would require special furnishing and fittings. The ordinary repairs in future years would probably not he more than £2,300 instead of £4,300. He agreed with the noble Lord that this was a duty he would rather not have placed on his Department, but that it should be transferred to the responsible person. The control had, however, remained with the Office of Works because it was considered more economical for his office, which was continually making contracts for these things, to supply all articles of this kind that were required for South Kensington. On the score of economy, it was better to leave the supplying of these articles to his Department.
MR. SCULLYsaid, there was a positive increase of £3,800 on the Vote for the present year, and asked for an explanation.
MR. COWPERsaid, that if the hon. Member would compare the sum proposed that year of £17,300 with £19,611 last year, he would find there was a decrease on the total, and if he compared the particular item under discussion with that of last year he would find a saving of £311.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he must press the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the classification of expenditure which had been suggested.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would express a hope that the hon. Member for Truro would not divide the Committee upon the Vote. The principle of his Motion would go much further than the Motion itself. No doubt it was desirable, and it would be very convenient, that the figures should be so arranged as that they might see at a glance the expense of each public Department with regard to furniture, fittings, &c.; but to do that they must depart from the principle which they had very largely adopted, and which they regarded as a general rule in the arrangement of the Estimates, namely: —That every article required by a Department should be furnished in the most economical manner possible. They could not recognize the two principles together. To get the articles at the cheapest rate it was desirable that they should be furnished by the Board of Works, because they had dealings with the tradesmen who had to supply them, and were accustomed to make the necessary contracts. It would be far less economical than at present were the dif-
418
ferent Departments to send out a messenger or housekeeper all round London for the purpose of ordering each for itself what was required. Although his right hon. Friend had not so much control over this Vote as, he would over the supply of chairs, tables, and carpets, with which he was so familiar, for the other Departments, yet he was essentially a manufacturer, and could obtain what was required at a much less cost than the Vice President of the Council on Education.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHadmitted the soundness of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was not carried out in all the Departments.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought it was not worth while to divide on the Vote. He thought the Vote was in its proper place.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of.£4,300, for Fittings and Articles of Furniture for the Department of Science and Art, be omitted from the proposed Vote,''—(Mr. Augustus Smith,)
—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £72,944, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds.
MR. COXsaid, that the Vote contained items of £6,846 for Battersea Park, £1,584 for Kennington Park, £9,964 for Regent's Park, and £5,934 for Victoria Park. A petition had been lately presented complaining that a certain portion of Battersea Park had been handed over to the Civil Service Cricket Club for their exclusive use. He was informed that the club consisted of 230 members, and that 19,000 square yards of ground had been set apart for them. Another portion of ground of about 18,000 square yards was allotted to 14 other clubs, consisting of 600 or 700 members. A third portion, which was of no use whatever, was given to the general public for cricket. He wished to ask whether similar arrangements had been made for playing at cricket in Regent's Park and Victoria Park, and whether the First Commissioner of Works had selected any portion of those parks for the exclusive use of any other servants of the Crown. He had another question to ask in regard to Kennington Park. It was an inclosure not much larger than Lincoln's Inn Fields, comprising about 15 or 16 acres of ground. Every year between £1,500 and £1,600

419
was laid out, not for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, but to furnish grazing for sheep. He himself lately saw the poor children of the locality, who used freely to play on the grass when the place was called Kennington Common, excluded from the grass of the park and compelled to play on the gravel, while the sheep were enjoying the turf. He thought it too much to maintain a spot of ground at a cost of £100 per acre for the exclusive benefit of a few sheep.
MR. CARNEGIEsaid, that the Civil Service Cricket Club had expended a great deal of money on their cricket ground in Battersea Park, and had made it worth something, whereas the space occupied by the general public being constantly knocked about was in very bad condition. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the space allotted to the public was worth nothing, but if the general public were admitted to play on the Civil Service ground that would soon be worth very little as a cricket ground.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to know whether the ground rents of Regent's Park were reckoned in the item relating to that Park, or carried to the public account?
SIR EDWAED DERINGsaid, the public in general owed great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner for the improvements which he had made in the parks. There was, however, a class of persons whose good opinion no doubt he would wish to conciliate, and whose requirements had been overlooked, and who had a paramount claim upon his attention—he meant the ladies who rode in Rotten Row, and who had at present not the slightest shelter or protection from the inclemency of the weather. After a smart shower the ride had to be given up, or the unfortunate individuals were obliged to ride in their wet clothes, which no doubt caused much discomfort and inconvenience. The question was whether it would not be very easy to adopt a remedy for all this inconvenience. If the right hon. Gentleman would only adopt the precedent in the Bois de Boulogne, in various parts of which were scattered about shelter sheds, simple in construction and inexpensive, he would afford shelter both for riders and pedestrians, and at the same time not encroach on the rights of the people. There was, he believed, a central and convenient spot where these shelter sheds might be placed. The House should
420
remember, too, that the ladies were never insensible to benefits conferred upon them.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he wished to know, from either the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth, whether Battersea Park had made the Return for the expenditure devoted to it which was so confidently anticipated some years ago. He regarded the case of Battersea Park as an example of the principle which lad been adopted of levying taxes throughout the United Kingdom for the benefit of London alone. The amount spent upon Ireland or the provinces was very small indeed. The most serious complaint that had been made that evening was that made by an hon. Member with reference to Rotten Row, where it was said that no defence or shelter was provided for those anonymous individuals. He did not know that there was any necessity for spending more money upon conveniences for pretty horsebreakers, as he believed we were going quite fast enough without that.
SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, the hon. Member was misrepresenting what he had said.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he would apologize if he had misrepresented the hon. Baronet, but he believed he had literally interpreted what had fallen from him. The hon. Baronet did not name the unfortunate individuals, and he therefore concluded that they were anonymous. There was an Estimate of £594 for extending the horse ride in Battersea Park, and a little further down the hon. Baronet would find an item of £62 for public conveniences. He saw that there was included among the accounts an estimated expenditure of £1,051 upon Longford River. He did not know where Longford River was, nor had he been able to discover its locality. He knew a county of that name, however, in Ireland, but he did not believe that the sum was intended for the benefit of any place in that neighbourhood. They would see that the income they derived from the parks and pleasure gardens amounted to £3,527, while the expenditure upon them was £97,952, so that they were really in receipt of about 3½ per cent for their money. He could not understand how so much as £20,000 could be expended on Kew Gardens. But it was of no use to move a reduction, and, therefore, he would not attempt to obtain any. He despaired of having these enormous Votes for parks and horse rides and such trumpery cut

421
down or rejected until some Member of position, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the matter up.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to object to an item of £25 for the construction of a plantation upon Primrose Hill. At present there was a very good view of Highgate from one side, and of Hampstead from the other, and he believed that the only result of the plantation would be to obstruct this view.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he desired to remind the Committee that Battersea Park was purchased with the public money, and that it was, therefore, the property of the public. If any portion of it had been devoted to the exclusive use of the Civil Service, such appropriation was, on that account, clearly unwarrantable. The expenditure on the parks was much heavier than it ought to be. It was an annual burden, and he believed that it would be difficult to show how so large a sum could be profitably expended.
MR. COXmaintained that Kennington Common was not appropriated to the purpose for which it was intended—the recreation of the people and the benefit of the neighbourhood in which it was situated. Formerly, hundreds of children might be seen playing there and rejoicing in the fresh air. But now, if the hon. Member for Lambeth went to Kennington Park some hot day in July, he would see poor children running about on the hot gravel while the sheep engrossed the green grass.
MR. SCULLYsaid, that Battersea Park was of no more use to the constituents of the hon. Member for Lambeth than it was to the inhabitants of the County Cork, and if so it had better be shut up altogether. He thought that £1,600 was a large sum to pay for keeping up a park and for shutting out the children and giving playgrounds to the sheep there; and he had little doubt that if the hon. Member (Mr. W. Williams) were made head ranger he would keep the park in good order and save £1,400 a year.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that in laying out Battersea Park it could never have been contemplated that a toll bridge should be erected between it and the public; and if the building ground around it was to be let to advantage Battersea Bridge must be thrown open. He must say that the expenditure on the parks was rather extravagant. Ten years ago the Vote asked for was about £60,000, and now it was very nearly £100,000. He thought too much
422
money was being spent in what he might term gardenizing these parks. In his opinion, it was not right to place beds of flowers in all sorts of incongruous places there. As to Primrose Hill, it would be much better to leave it in its present open condition.
LORD ELCHOasked what proportion of the total expenditure was caused by the wages and superannuation allowances of the park keepers. They were in many instances too old and infirm properly to maintain order, and, moreover, were not in the parks at night time. He would suggest that a considerable saving would be effected, and that the parks would be better kept, if they were handed over to the police.
MR. COWPERsaid, he could not admit that there was any undue expenditure whatever upon the Parks. The sum of £25,500 upon Hyde Park, St. James's, and the Green Park might seem a large one; but when hon. Members came to think of all that was necessary to be done they would find the expenditure exceedingly moderate. Out of the total he had just mentioned, £10,000 was appropriated to roads, for there were eight miles of roads in these parks, and thirty-five miles of walks. Another item was for repairs of lodges and railings, &c., £5,000. The constables cost £3,500 including everything, and they were less expensive than policemen who were employed at Kennington Park. These constables were always selected from men who had served in the army, a preference being given to those who had distinguished themselves and had obtained medals; but before their admission into the force a medical certificate was required of their being able-bodied men. The parochial rates amounted to £1,100, so that the money actually spent upon the grass lands and plantations was only £3,410 out of the £25,000. That was not a large sum, he thought, considering the necessity of keeping the grass and plantations in the order that was necessary. It seemed to be the impression that large sums were spent in cultivating flowers, but the recent creation of flower beds had given immense gratification at a small cost, and flowers were now necessary for the embellishment of the parks and for the enjoyment of the public. Last year the flowers in Hyde Park cost £600, including fuel, labour, and every expense; and he did not think that that was a large sum. With

423
regard to Battersea Park he anticipated that their views as to future remuneration would be realized. Recently he had an advantageous offer for a considerable portion of the land adjoining Battersea Park, but he did not feel himself justified in accepting it without competition. At present a main sewer was being constructed there, which when completed would enhance the value of the land, and he intended to call for proposals for the letting. He could assure the Committee that all the regulations in the parks were made for the benefit of the public at large, and if at any time it could be shown that they operated injuriously towards the public he would be quite ready to re-consider them. As to the objection about the sheep, if none of those animals were put to graze in the parks, and the public were allowed always to walk on every part of the grass, the result would be that after a short time there would be no grass in those places of recreation. In Kennington Park he had set apart a portion of it exclusively for children to play in at all seasons. Of course they would destroy all the grass in that separate portion, but he supposed that sacrifice would be cheerfully submitted to in order to secure a play ground for children. In Battersea Park he had thought he had gone as far as he was justified in doing towards providing a cricket ground by making a portion of the park smooth and level, leaving it to clubs who wished to improve the ground to mow it, and otherwise keep it in good order for the game. Originally the exclusive use of a portion of it had been allowed to the Battersea Institution Club on those terms, and last year he had complied with an application from the Civil Service Cricket Club for the exclusive use of another portion of it on similar terms. He did not think that any wrong was done to the public by those arrangements, but if it could be shown that the privilege granted to these clubs was unfair towards other persons, he would be ready to re-consider the matter. He had been asked whether in the Regent's Park there was any payment for Crown rents. He had to answer that no part which paid Crown rents was included in the Estimates. The plantation which he proposed for Primrose Hill would be on the level ground and not on the height, and would relieve the monotony of the place. He agreed with the noble Lord that it would not be desirable
424
to interfere with the hill itself. As to the arrangement proposed by the hon. Baronet for ladies who required shelter in rain, he would take the matter into consideration; but while anxious to contribute to the comfort of those who frequent the parks he must take care not to do anything to disfigure those places of public recreation, and there might be some question whether rustic roofs and iron sheds might not prove to be a disfigurement.
MR. MALINSsaid, he had been requested to call attention to the inconvenience caused in these days of late dinners by the closing so early as ten o'clock of the communication between the north and south sides of Hyde Park, which obliged persons wishing to go from Westbournia to Kensington to drive round by Park Lane.
MR. COXobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given an explanation about the arrangements in the Regent's and Victoria Parks.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, it would conduce to the comfort of many persons if more seats were placed in the parks, and if the seats had backs. [An hon. MEMBER: Bath chairs.] No, not Bath chairs; but chairs with backs.
MR. BUCHANANasked whether there was any intention of finishing the portion of Hew Gardens nearest to Richmond?
MR. LYGONcomplained that too many of the park gates were closed and left without rangers to let visitors out immediately after the hour arrived for excluding the public from the enclosure in St. James's Park.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was very sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had been interfered with in returning from his dinner party. [Mr. MALINS: Not myself, but friends of mine.] He wished he could remedy the grievance complained of, but there was this difficulty—the park required to be opened at five o'clock in the morning to enable workmen going to work to pass across the park, and if the gatekeepers had to be up at that early hour it would be hard to ask them to remain up later than ten. Still it was a matter for consideration, and he should be very glad if the difficulty could be got over. The gatekeepers in St. James's Park were required to remain at the gates till ten minutes after they were shut, so that parties who had entered at one gate might be allowed to get out at another. In the

425
case referred to, he supposed the constable had been negligent of his duty. He would make inquiry into the facts. The Estimates of the year would contain provision necessary for adding to the seats in; the parks. A certain number were added every year; but he entirely disclaimed having placed seats there without backs, There might he a certain number of uncomfortable seats, but these were of an; old construction, and the last pattern was a very easy one. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he might add that in Victoria Park one part was set apart for cricket matches and another for practice. In Regent's Park cricket was not allowed after eight o'clock in the morning. The suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would receive attention.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman not to carry out his design with regard to the plantation on Primrose Hill, The space was too contracted.
MR. COWPERsaid, the word "plantation" did not express his intention. He contemplated a group of trees which after a little time, when thinned, would stand; out singly, and not interrupt people walking, but would contribute a little to break ' the dreary waste.
Vote agreed to,
(5.) £22,144, to complete the sum for; the Houses of Parliament.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished the Vote had come on at an early sitting, that he might have asked hon. Members to pay a visit to the Peers' robing-room, in order to examine and judge for themselves of: what he might call one of the most noble specimens of modern art, and when he told them on their return that the painter; of that great picture had been employed on it for six years and eight months at a remuneration not exceeding £500 a year he would have asked them had he been adequately remunerated? It was said i that Mr. Herbert, having entered into a contract, must be bound by it; but what were the facts of this case? According to the original estimate the work was to be done in fresco, which being rapidly executed Mr. Herbert calculated he would be adequately remunerated by the payment of £2,000 for each picture, because it would not occupy him more than twenty months. But the state of the frescoes. in that House had attracted the atten-
426
tion of Parliament, and the Prince Consort, being struck with the superiority of the glass water process, requested Mr. Maclise to go to Berlin and inquire into the process. Mr. Maclise did so, and, having made himself practically and theoretically acquainted with it, came back to England and employed it in the prosecution of his own works. The Prince Consort was so satisfied with it and the report of Mr. Maclise, that he sent a jar of silicate of potash to Mr. Herbert, and requested him to make some experiments and satisfy himself. He did make those experiments, and so satisfied was he of the superiority of the new system over the old fresco, that he destroyed the whole of the work he had previously been engaged on, and commenced his new work on a totally different system. [The hon. Gentleman read a letter from Mr. Herbert to that effect.] Under these circumstances he thought that Mr. Herbert, having altogether changed his process at the request of the Prince Consort and adopted the new mode, the argument as to contract fell to the ground. The new process was very different from fresco. It admitted of every variety of detail, and Mr. Herbert had employed on his work an amount of time and labour which only those who saw it could adequately realize. He was authorized to say on the part of Mr. Herbert, and every man would believe the word of a great artist, that he had been conscientiously employed upon, the work, not exclusively in painting, but in preparing the cartoon and studies from it, during the whole period he had mentioned. The frescoes in that House and at Munich, although only executed a few years, were decaying; and, taking into consideration the atmosphere of London, its damp and smuts, it was a point of economy to employ a different process, whereby the works produced would be as durable as the structure on which they were painted. Like most other Members, he must abnegate all notion of taste, but he would say that every person going into the room where Mr. Herbert's painting was exhibited felt himself in the presence of a great work. He read the opinion of a foreign artist on this subject, M. Carl Haag, who pronounced the picture, in composition, expression, drawing, colouring, keeping, and execution, worthy to be ranked with the works of any artist in history. Mr. Herbert for several years before he began that great work was making on an average about £1,850 per an-

427
num, and, being a man with a large family, if it had not been for his previous accumulations he would have found it difficult to get on. For the reproduction of one figure alone in this great picture he had been offered £1,000. For his picture of the "Railway Station" Mr. Frith had got £8,700, Mr. Holman Hunt had received £5,500 for his "Christ in the Temple," and, after the great success he had achieved, Mr. Herbert might reasonably expect to make large sums if he gave up working for the country. Mr. Herbert, however, was not the least influenced by money, but was devoted to his art, and most anxious to continue his work, though the country ought not to take advantage of that. He had already finished two other sketches to adorn those walls, and if the justice of Parliament should allow the room to be finished, it would be an honour to the nation and a delight to those who saw it. He was told that there was some difficulty, inasmuch as other gentlemen might have a claim for additional remuneration if Mr. Herbert's claim were allowed. No doubt Mr. Maclise had a strong claim. Before he undertook to work for the nation, he was making £2,000 a year, and at one time as much as £4,000. He had been working now conscientiously, and he (Mr. Gregory) might add incessantly, for the public for eight years, and the whole sum which he would receive would be £7,000. True he had made no application for a further payment—and such was the generous, almost chivalrous character of Mr. Maclise, that he would work for nothing rather than apply. But Mr. Maclise had not a young family to support, and Mr. Herbert had. If Mr. Maclise, owing to his peculiar circumstances, had not made any application for additional remuneration, it was hard that Mr. Herbert should be debarred therefore from receiving that to which he had a strong claim. We had now got at length a great man; and they should keep him and attach him to the nation. Cheap art was the worst of all art, and if they aimed at obtaining productions of art they should be worthy of the country. He entreated the Committee not to ask sacrifices from an artist, such as they ought not to accept, even if they were offered; and, above all, he entreated them not, for the sake of a miserable economy, to allow it to be said, that the nation which professed to reward art was not sufficiently rich to reward an artist for a great work, but turned him over to the picture dealers, who could
428
adequately reward him. He (Mr. Gregory) could not, in accordance with the forms of the House, move an addition to the Vote, or even its postponement, but he was convinced that the tone of the discussion would be such as to convince the Government that Parliament was ready to behave with justice and liberality in the matter.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that the case was not in his opinion one to be brought forward in formâ pauperis; it was not a question of charity; it was not because Mr. Herbert had a large family that he should receive additional remuneration. It was a simple question of justice. His hon. Friend had understated rather than overstated the case; for Mr. Herbert had been at work for six years, and taking into account the cost of materials and incidental expenses he had scarcely realized £350 a year, and yet nearly the whole of his time had been devoted to that work, which was a most magnificent specimen of art. Were they to allow a gentleman, who had been previously realizing £2,000 or £3,000 a year, to receive such a miserable pittance? The House must remember that this was a great experiment, and that independently of the work itself another one had been destroyed in order to carry out the experiment which had been approved by the Prince Consort. The whole payment for the picture would be £3,500; and he thought that if the amount were doubled they would have a magnificent work at a very reasonable figure. The question was, whether they would pay fairly and justly for the most perfect work which adorned the walls of Parliament.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the discussion had proceeded as if some blame ought to be cast upon the Government in the matter, but he suspected that the right hon. Gentleman below (Mr. Gladstone) and his Colleagues agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Galway. Evidently his views as to the justice of the case met with the approval of the Committee. With respect to the measure of that justice, he (Mr. Bright) did not pretend to know a great deal about art; but when he went into the room containing that great picture he felt that he had not known until then that there was a painter in this country who could execute a work of art such as that. That, he believed, was the impression produced by it on the minds of a large number more competent than himself to judge. He was not in favour

429
of a costly decoration of the Houses of Parliament, for he thought the purpose a mistaken one. Moreover, he was not sure. that the picture under discussion was in I a room sufficiently large to do it justice, while the cost of a room fitted in a creditable manner would be large, and; he would have preferred that so much had not been spent in decorating the building. The expenditure, however, was of a kind the most harmless, and to many perhaps the most gratifying, to which a portion of the public money could be devoted; and he would, therefore, make no complaint on that point. If, however, the walls of the Houses of Parliament were to be decorated, they ought to be decorated: in the best and most lasting manner. It might matter little to those then sitting in that House whether the picture lasted a few years or a hundred; but there would come a time, if it were done in a manner that was not durable, when everybody would regret that the Parliament of this day was not more attentive to the proper expenditure of its money, and did not take care to have these costly works executed in a way that was more likely to endure than ordinary frescoes appeared to do. Then if this picture, so great as it was acknowledged to be, was executed in a manner that would give it what was meant by the word eternity in relation to any work of art, should not the House behave honourably, generously, and justly to a man who had so much distinguished himself, and done that which in all probability would attract thousands in times to come to visit that building Having known Mr. Herbert more or less intimately for years, he believed that he had always exhibited a devotion to his art amounting to perfect enthusiasm, and that if he only got a crust he must paint by the very nature of his constitution and mind. That was, however, no reason why, having been drawn from his private practice to paint for the public, the public should not fairly, honestly, and generously pay him. Therefore, although no member of the Committee could move a larger Vote, it was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration in that spirit. He was afraid to name the sum to which the Vote ought to be made up, but he thought the House would consider it no extravagance or waste of public money, but a just and moderate consideration of Mr. Herbert's claims, if that gentleman
430
were to receive not less than £5,000 for that picture.
MAJOR GUMMING BRUCEsaid, that having seen many famous fresco paintings, he wished to express his belief that a more magnificent work of art than that of Mr. Herbert existed nowhere in the world. He could not quite agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) that they were not to consider the claims which Mr. Herbert's family had upon him, because it was their duty to encourage a great artist, and relieve his mind from those pecuniary anxieties with respect to those dependent on him, which had depressed the genius of many a great painter. The amount named by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last would be a very moderate sum to pay for a work that would shed the greatest honour on the country which possessed it.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he believed, from the experience he had had in these matters, that the sum which had been named was not one half of the price which that painting would fetch to-morrow if taken to Christie's for sale. Mr. Herbert had refused many commissions simply on account of his devotion to that picture, and he considered that both Mr. Herbert and Mr. Maclise were entitled to the greatest consideration on the part of the Committee.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he believed that the work of Mr. Herbert embraced in itself all that there was in ancient art of grandeur, dignity, and elevation of conception, with a delicacy of detail, and a precision and accuracy of execution which could not be surpassed by the most distinguished modern painter. He therefore cordially concurred in the suggestion which had been thrown out for an increased remuneration. The country had at length obtained a picture which would hand down to posterity a noble monument of what it could achieve in the way of art; let it not become evidence against it of shabbiness and parsimony.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were a number of considerations connected with the matter which placed Her Majesty's Government in a position of considerable difficulty. He entirely shared in the feelings which hon. Gentlemen had expressed—as far as he might presume to have an opinion on the subject—with regard both to the character of the particular work of art under discussion and to the character of Mr.

431
Herbert. The atmosphere of a deliberative assembly was not, perhaps, the most favourable one for the practical decision of these questions. It was much more common within those walls to hear the professors of art criticized with extreme severity than eulogized in terms of warmth and enthusiasm. He did not grudge one word that had been said about Mr. Herbert. On the contrary, not a syllable could be spoken in praise of his genius and devotion to his work which he was not ready to echo. He could wish that as generous feelings had been evinced to every other artist on every occasion. But there were some — some, perhaps, then alive, and others dead—who had not always been equally fortunate in the treatment they had received in that House. He thought a very wise course was pursued by the Government of the day when it first approached the subject of the decoration of the Houses of Parliament with great paintings and statues. He might, in passing, observe that it could have been wished that the same spirit of wisdom and prudence had characterized all the proceedings taken in connection with the erection of the buildings themselves. Experience had proved the wisdom of both the executive Government and the House of Commons, divesting themselves of the responsibility of a task which he did not think either very well fitted to perform— namely, to carry through in detail the business of choosing artists, of choosing subjects, of appreciating the execution of their work, and estimating the remuneration which should be awarded for it. The House would recollect that the whole of those duties were delegated to a Commission, by whom arrangements were carried out in a manner much more satisfactorily than would have been the case if they had been content to trust these matters to the ordinary machinery of the Government acting under its responsibility to Parliament. The result of considering that question in the department, and the effect also of listening to its discussion that evening, convinced him that the subject lay beyond them for its satisfactory settlement. There was no difficulty at all, if they were dealing with an isolated case, in giving way for once to the feelings they entertained. But he must observe that if they were to compete with the picture dealer they must restrict the scale of their enterprizes of that description. If they were to compete with the picture
432
dealer they must not attempt to cover thousands and thousands of feet with works of art to be paid for at the picture dealer's rate. The House would observe that very extensive commissions had been given, and that very large works had been executed, some of which were on their walls. It was not, he might add, one case with which they had to deal, but a great number of cases. Mr. Herbert himself, if he were not mistaken, had informed him that Mr. Dyce had left on their walls works, on which animadversions had been made, two or three times the value of the money which he had received. In one respect he must object to what had been said in reference to the devotion of Mr. Herbert to his art. Devotion to art was, he was happy to say, no uncommon sentiment among the artists of this country, and the delicacy of feeling which accompanied that devotion, and which was to artists like the air which they breathed, very much complicated the difficulties of dealing with the question. What the Government proposed to do under the circumstances was that the sum of £1,500 should be paid to Mr. Herbert, in addition to the sum of £2,000 which he had received, but that that £1,500 should not be regarded as a final settlement of the matter, but should be paid rather as an instalment in regard to the number of pictures painted than those about to be painted. He might further observe that it was the wish of the Government to form a small Commission of persons judiciously selected for the purpose, who would go carefully into the whole question in reference to contracts on the one hand and performance on the other, and who would endeavour to advise the Government impartially on a view of the whole case as to the course which ought to be adopted. Of course, some delay must occur before such an adjustment could take place as would bring about a fair and just award; but that delay would be as nothing to the difficulties into which the House might rush if under the influence of feeling they were to proceed to a decision which would be taken, not on the whole, but on a single portion of the case.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he conceived that the hon. Member for Gal way had done but a simple act of justice to Mr. Herbert in bringing before the House the claims of Mr. Herbert, and he thanked him for having afforded the Government and the House an opportunity of doing that artist

433
justice. But there were other cases in f which justice ought to be done, as for instance in the case of Mr. Maclise, He thought the question of remuneration having arisen, the time had come for taking stock, as it were, of the works of art executed for the Houses of Parliament, and that larger powers should be given to the; proposed Commission than the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the case of Mr. Herbert did not stand upon the same grounds as those of the other artists.: Finding that the process which he had at first adopted was not calculated to preserve the pictures, he had destroyed 400 feet of; painting in order to adopt another and a better process. There was this peculiar circumstance with reference to Mr. Herbert—that his work was to be regarded as hors de lyne. It was a work of super-eminent merit, that it went beyond anything; we had seen in this country, and therefore he thought it stood apart from the cases; that had been mentioned in connection; with it. He did not think the proposed; Commission would meet the merits of the ease. The country ought to deal generously with Mr. Herbert, who had thrown Ms whole soul into the subject, and had produced a really great and truly sublime work, one about which there could not be two opinions.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he must protest against the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that certain hon. Members had treated the late Mr. Dyce with unfairness. He had no wish: to cast a slur upon the memory of Mr. Dyce, but he could not forget that fourteen years ago Mr. Dyce undertook to paint certain frescoes, and that in 1857, though he had received the whole amount, the frescoes were not done. On more than one occasion the First Commissioner had admitted that Mr. Dyce was in the wrong, and though no one would propose that any money should be claimed from the representatives of Mr. Dyce, hon. Members were not to be blamed for calling attention to the fact that a certain contract had not been fulfilled. He cordially concurred in all the eulogiums which had been passed upon the great work of Mr. Herbert, and he had the authority of that gentleman for saying that unless he received something like £5,000 he would never again put his brush upon the walls of the Houses of Parliament. [Cries of "No, no!"]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman must be labouring under some mistake; it was impossible that Mr. Herbert could have said that unless he received £5,000 he would never again lay his brush to the walls of the Houses of Parliament.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was also convinced that there must he a mistake. He had seen the picture Mr. Herbert was working at, and whatever he might do with regard to any other work of art, he did not think Mr. Herbert meant the remark to apply to the work he was then engaged upon, but it applied to any other work of art which he might be asked to execute.
MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that Mr. Herbert was in the room when he saw his great picture, and, pointing to the other end of the apartment, he remarked that his ambition was to cover it with a Representation of Our Lord delivering a Sermon on the Mount. Certainly that did not indicate that he would be influenced in any way whatever by the amount of his remuneration.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Taunton must have misunderstood Mr. Herbert. That gentleman might have said that, with such payment as he had hitherto received, he could not, with a due regard to those who depended upon him, continue the great sacrifices he had made while producing the wonderful work which struck all beholders with delight and admiration.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, the discussion was another illustration of the old adage that it never rained but it poured. When the House of Commons was disposed to be liberal and eulogistic it was so with a vengeance. He wished to call attention to the want of ventilation in the Ladies' Gallery, which could only be likened to the Black Hole of Calcutta. There was no possibility of obtaining air except by opening a door, which created a draught by which the ladies were almost blown to pieces. He hoped some improvement would be introduced as soon as possible.
MR. COWPERremarked that the ill-ventilation of the remote corner to which the eyes of hon. Members were so often turned was owing to a defect of structure, but he had no doubt that every effort would be made to promote the comfort and convenience of the ladies. With regard to Mr. Dyce, he was a man of great celebrity as well as of high honour, and

435
he felt deeply the observations made in that House as to his not having executed the works he contracted for. He was certainly underpaid for the work he did, and was anxious to be released from his engagement, and offered to return the money he had received if released. He (Mr. Cowper) did not feel at liberty to accept that offer, because he thought that what the country wanted was not his money, but that he should complete the works he had commenced, and he feared it was owing to the great exertion he made to execute these works that his illness was increased, and ultimately proved fatal.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to know whether the grating in front of the Ladies' Gallery could not be removed. If it were removed the ladies would have some fresh air, and he was sure Gentlemen would not be sorry to see them.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he cordially concurred in the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such questions ought, as far as possible, to be transferred from the House of Commons to a more competent tribunal. He also admitted that it would be invidious to deal specially with Mr. Herbert's case, when other gentlemen had similar claims on their consideration. He was unwilling to raise a squabble over the grave of a great artist, and should, therefore, pass over the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks on another topic, merely saying that he did not use stronger language regarding it than the First Commissioner of "Works. He did not base Mr. Herbert's claim on the fact that he had a large family; he mentioned that circumstance only to show that Mr. Herbert could not afford to make those sacrifices for the sake of art, which his generous enthusiasm would otherwise doubtless lead him to do.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he was sorry to have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

BREECH LOADING RIFLES.

  PAPEES MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DUNNEmoved an Address for the Reports made to the Military Authorities in regard to Breech-Loading Rifles.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTLWTONopposed the Motion, on the ground that the Reports were strictly confidential.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "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 the Reports made to the Military Authorities on Storm's Rifle, and on any other Breech-loading Rifle that has been reported on,"— (Colonel Dunne,)
  —put, and negatived.

  BEER HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, Bill for more effectually regulating the sale of Beer in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROBERT FEEL and Mr. ATTORNEY GEHERAL FOB IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 109.]

  VACATING OF SEATS (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, Bill for amending the Law relating to Seats in the House of Commons of persons holding certain Public Offices, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Viscount PALMERSTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 107.]

  SERVANTS HIRING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DUNLOP, Bill to amend the Law of Scotland in regard to the Hiring of Servants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. CARNEGIE, and Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 108.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading—Court of Justiciary (Scotland)* (No. 82); Naval Agency and Distribution* (No. 83).
Second Reading— Local Government Supplemental* (No. 71); Under Secretaries Indemnity* (No. 77).
Committee — Registration of County Voters (Ireland)* (No. 50); Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment* (No. 51).
Report — Registration of County Voters (Ire land)* (No. 50).
Third Reading—Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Ireland)* (No. 68); Customs and Inland Revenue* (No. 69), and passed.

UNITED STATES—KIDNAPPING FOREIGN SUBJECTS FOR MILITARY SERVICE.—OBSERVATION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords: I wish to draw the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the statements contained in a letter of General Wistar, an officer of the United States army, with reference to the kidnapping of persons, principally foreigners, mostly seamen, and, therefore, very likely to be British subjects, with the view of forcing them to take service in the armies of the United States. I believe I shall do most justice to the case, and to the gallant officer who has written this letter, by reading the whole of it. The letter certainly does him very great credit. The letter is dated Yorktown, April 15, 1864, and is addressed to Major General John A. Dix, New York city. It is in these words—
"General,—An extended spirit of desertion prevailing among the recruits recently received from the North in some of the regiments of my command has led me to make some inquiries, re-
354
sulting in apparently well-authenticated information, which I beg respectfully to communicate to you in this unofficial manner, deeming it required by humanity, no less than by our common desire to benefit the service. There seems to be little doubt that many—in fact, I think I am justified in saying that most of these unfortunate men were either deceived or kidnapped, or both, in the most scandalous and inhuman manner in New York city, where they were drugged and carried off to New Hampshire and Connecticut, mustered in and uniformed before their consciousness was fully restored. Even their bounty was obtained by the parties who were instrumental in these nefarious transactions, and the poor wretches find themselves, on returning to their senses, mustered soldiers, without any pecuniary benefit. Nearly all are foreigners, mostly sailors, both ignorant of, and indifferent to, the objects of the war in which they thus suddenly find themselves involved. Two men were shot here this morning for desertion, and over thirty more are now awaiting trial or execution. These examples are essential, as we all understand; but it occurred to me, General, that you would pardon me for thus calling your attention to the greater crime committed in New York, of kidnapping these men into positions where, to their ignorance, desertion must seem like a vindication of their own rights and liberty. Believe me to be, General, with the highest esteem, your obedient servant,
J. J. WISTAR."
"To Major General John A. Dix, New York city."
These, my Lords, are the very proper sentiments of this American officer. It is said that many of those who have been kidnapped are seamen and subjects of Her Majesty; it is scarcely possible that those transactions could take place without the knowledge of many of the officers of the American army; it is scarcely possible that the Government itself should not be cognizant of them. I understand that in one case where a Frenchman was detained the French Admiral interfered, the man was released, and the captain in whose regiment he was placed was dismissed the service. Many of your Lordships read a few days ago a statement, which I know to be true from other sources, of the case of a poor man named Edwards, a seaman of one of the Liverpool steamers, and who had only recently been married. He left his clothes on board his vessel, and the money which was due to him, and went on shore by direction of the surgeon to get a warm bath. He was taken to a drinking shop, was drugged, and when he recovered his senses found himself in the uniform of the United States, was told he had enlisted, and carried off to a depot, having no means whatever either of joining his family or informing them of the circumstances of his case. He sent a letter in Welsh, which his wife received in Liverpool, and that led to inquiries

355
being made. This is a very serious grievance. I am not aware if the noble Earl has been, previously made acquainted with the case. If he has, I wish to know what steps he has taken; and if he has now heard of it for the first time what steps he proposes to take, for the purpose of protecting Her Majesty's subjects from these monstrous atrocities, not only for the future, but in order to obtain the release of those who may have been so seriously ill-treated, and to obtain compensation to them for what they have suffered?
EARL RUSSELL, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he knew nothing of the letter which the noble Earl had read, further than that a copy of it had been sent to him. Without, therefore, giving any answer to the individual cases stated by the noble Earl, he would say that very great hardships were incurred in such cases. It appeared that the bounty given on enlistment by the general Government of the United States and by the States' Government amounted altogether to 600 dols. or 700 dols.; and this large sum, it appeared, induced nefarious and unprincipled men to get hold of persons on landing in the United States, who drugged them, kept them without food, and tempted them to enlist, when they were marched off to some depot and deprived of all means of obtaining their liberty. Whenever such cases came to the knowledge of Lord Lyons, he had made immediate representations to the United States Government. He was not so much surprised at the unprincipled conduct of the parties referred to as that attempts should be made to throw protection around them; and he was sorry to say that Lord Lyons had made repeated complaints, but in most cases he had not obtained that satisfaction which he had a right to expect. The noble Earl then read the following passages from a memorandum of similar cases which had recently occurred, and the result of the representations made by Lord Lyons:—
"Two other cases have been reported to us by the Board of Trade. The first is that of Hugh Bennett, who stated that having gone on shore from his ship, the Edinburgh, at New York, in order to make a purchase, he was induced to enter a public-house, where he, in company with eleven other steamboat men, had been drugged and carried off to the United States receiving ship North Carolina. This case having been referred to Lord Lyons, he baa succeeded in obtaining the man's discharge. The other cage is that of a seaman named Charles Thompson, who wrote from Beaufort, South Carolina, on the 25th of February
356
last, to say he had been drugged, and while in that state was enlisted, not knowing anything until he came to himself, when he was informed that he was a soldier. He further stated that as soon as a sailor arrived in the United States he was nearly certain to be drugged and made a soldier of before he knew anything about it, and that in several cases the British Consul had obtained their release."
Several cases had been brought to the notice of the British agents in the American States, in which several British subjects were kidnapped, as was alleged, while in a state of intoxication. In reply to a representation from Lord Lyons, the United States War Department said they would investigate the case, and in a certain sense they did so, examining the recruiting agents and other persons, who stated that the men were sober when they enlisted. Lord Lyons answered, very properly, that that investigation was not satisfactory, it having been carried on entirely in the absence of the men themselves, four or five of whom had been sent forward to the army. The recruiting agents were tempted by the very large bounty to use every unfair means of inveigling men to enlist. He must say it would throw great discredit on the United States Government if such practices were allowed to go on. It was their bounden duty to see that these persons were not forced to enter the service against their will. He must say that these proceedings would render it necessary that Her Majesty's Government should make the strongest remonstrance to the United States Government. No doubt if the facts referred to by the noble Earl were authentic, they formed a very great hardship, and disclosed conduct on the part of agents of the United States Government which was highly reprehensible.

AGRARIAN OFFENCES (IRELAND)— CASE OF MICHAEL DUIGAN & OTHERS.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHrose to move an Address to Her Majesty praying for a copy of the Memorial respecting the release of Michael Duigan and others, convicted of agrarian offences at Westmeath in 1862. The noble Marquess said, that these men were convicted of a very serious offence, and sentenced by Chief Justice Monahan to two years' imprisonment. When only two-thirds of their punishment had been undergone they were released by order of the Lord Lieutenant. The grand jury of Westmeath addressed a remonstrance to his Excellency, protesting against the system of pardoning offenders

357
against the public peace without previous consultation with the local magistrates, specially convened for the purpose. An uncourteous reply was returned, to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant conceived he had sufficient grounds for the course he had pursued. The men were released on the 19th of February last. On the 23rd of March a man named Thomas Welsh, living in the same neighbourhood, was attacked and wounded by a pistol shot in the open day by seven miscreants, and so severely beaten that he died two days afterwards. The fact was, that when the law was relaxed an Irish peasant thought he might with perfect impunity knock down or otherwise maltreat any person who had incurred his hatred. Other cases had also occurred in which violent outrages had been allowed to be committed with comparative impunity. The magistrates of the county of West meath felt greatly aggrieved and insulted by the course which the Irish Government had taken. He held that it was most desirable that such matters should no longer be left to the caprice of the authorities in Dublin, but should be referred to the Home Office. The Government were bound, he thought, to disclose the names of those who had deceived them in asking for the remission of punishment in the case he had referred to. He was satisfied that if the Memorial had been sent to the Home Secretary instead of to the Lord Lieutenant it would not have been attended to in the least. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of any Memorial received by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or the Irish Government praying for the release of Michael Duigan, Patrick Duigan, and Patrick Egan, Three Prisoners confined in the County Gaol of Westmeath, convicted at the Summer Assizes of 1862 of Agrarian Offences, or any of them; and of any written Communication forwarding the same, and recommending their Enlargement to the Irish Government."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in the case referred to everything seemed to have been done in the most regular manner. The condemned persons were sentenced to the maximum punishment allowed by the law. A Memorial was then presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who, as he was informed, took all the customary steps on the occasion, consulting with the usual advisers of the Crown and communicating with the Judge; and the result was that the sentence was remitted. There
358
would be no objection to the production of the Memorial; but it would be inconvenient and injurious to the public service that a communication such as the other document moved for should be produced.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the facts of the case were very simple. The county of Westmeath was the headquarters of Ribbonism, and it was difficult to procure evidence on which to convict the offenders. In this ease, however, convictions were obtained against three persons for an agrarian offence, and the Judge sentenced them to the highest penalty. The Lord Lieutenant, however, without any communication with the magistrates or grand jury of the county, remitted a part of the punishment. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) said that the Lord Lieutenant consulted with his usual advisers; but he forgot to say that these advisers were the Inspector General of Police and other gentlemen who sat on easy stools in the offices of Dublin Castle assisting in the government of disturbed districts. When the grand jury made a humble representation to the Lord Lieutenant, pointing out the grievous effect such a remission would have on public opinion in the county, all they got in answer was an official reply that his Excellency was perfectly satisfied with the grounds on which the remission had been granted. The Judges had found fault with the grand jury for the state of their county; and these gentlemen, who were obliged to submit to those rebukes, and who were made responsible for the proper administration of justice, were not consulted. It was very difficult for them to do their duty under such circumstances, and he thought the grand jury had a right to I demand on what grounds the Lord Lieutenant remitted these penalties. There were rumours afloat of a very awkward description. It was said that the person who brought this case before the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Westmeath, und that improper political pressure had been resorted to to obtain the release of these men. He hoped the House would support the noble Marquess in calling for the production of the documents.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, if their Lordships thought the Government had done wrong, a Resolution condemning them ought to be brought forward.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could not assent to the doctrine laid down, by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that if they thought the Government was to blame they had only to bring forward a Resolution. What their Lordships asked for was the means of knowing whether the Government were to blame or not. It appeared that, without any communication with the local magistrates and those who knew the state of the county, these men were released; and it was asserted, though not by his noble Friend, that political influences were brought to bear, and that communications had been received which should be considered, not of a private, but of a public nature. Consequently the noble Marquess asked that the grounds on which the memorial rested should be made known, and he could not but think that the application was most reasonable. This was not the first by many times that the present Government had systematically passed over the local magistrates, and placed their sole reliance on the information received from the police officers. Under such circumstances the peace of the country could not be effectually maintained. If the peace was to be preserved in any country, and especially in Ireland, the Government must carry along with it the gentry and magistracy, and what was wanted was that their Lordships should be satisfied that the release of these men was founded on reason and justice, and not on any local, private, confidential, or political motive. He hoped that the House would insist on the production of the papers.
LORD VAUX or HARROWDENsaid, that as their Lordships were perfectly in the dark on this matter, information should be produced for their satisfaction; but he thought that the production of the Memorial would be sufficient.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not remember an instance of the production of such documents as those referred to in the Motion, and asked for on the ground—which was, no doubt, unfounded—that an improper communication had been made to the Government, ever being refused. He begged his noble Friend (Earl Granville) would not put the House to the trouble of a division. He should be most reluctant to vote against Her Majesty's Government on a question of this kind, but he really thought that no ground had been shown for refusing to produce the documents.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should be
360
most unwilling to put the House to the trouble of a division; but certain remarks had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) which were calculated to produce an erroneous impression, and upon which he wished to say a few words. The noble Earl spoke of political influence having been brought to bear—
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he had only stated that there was a rumour to that effect.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was perfectly ignorant that any such influence had been exerted, and he believed there was no foundation whatever for any such rumour. He was not aware that the Home Secretary in this country was in the habit of communicating with the local magistracy in reference to the remission of punishment; and, if that were so, he did not see why the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be bound to communicate with the local magistrates in Ireland on a similar occasion. At the same time, he certainly would not object to the production of the Memorial and any letters of a public nature; but he could not consent to produce confidential communications, such as might have taken place between the Irish Government and the Judges.
After a few words from Lord BERNERS and the Marquess of WESTMEATH,
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that no communication, although it might be marked "private," could be considered private which covered a Memorial of the kind referred to. He trusted that no such remedy as that suggested by the noble Marquess, namely, the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, would be hastily adopted. He could not see anything more important to a country situated like Ireland than to have a man of the exalted position of Lord Lieutenant resident there to superintend the administration of the different parts of the Irish Government.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, that with regard to the practice in this country, it was usual for the Secretary of State, when he received a Memorial praying for a remission of punishment, to communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and to request information as to the evidence from the notes of the Judge.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.