Sitting of 2 June 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMAIES—CLASS IV. EDUCATION, SCIENCE, and ART.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Inland Revenue Acts. *
Ordered—Lunatic Asylum Act(1853) &c. Amendment *; Poor Law Board Continuance, &c. *
First Reading—Pheasants (Ireland) * [193] [Lords]; Lunatic Asylum Act (1853) &c. Amendment * [196]; Poor Law Board Continuance * [197]; Sugar Duties and Drawbacks * [198]; Clerical Subscription * [199] [Lords].
Second Reading—Defence Act (1860) Amendment * [176].
Committee—Writs Registration (Scotland) [41] [The Lord Advocate] (Debate adjourned) Militia Ballots Suspension *; Militia Pay *; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) * [130]; District Church Tithes * [186], [Lords] Trespass (Scotland) * [98].
Report—Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2) * [194]; Militia Ballots Suspension * Militia *; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) [130]; District Church Tithes * [186] [Lords] Trespass (Scotland) * [98].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * [132].
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
[BILL 41.]—[The Lord Advocate.]
WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was sorry that the arrangement he formerly suggested had not been acceded to, and that he was obliged to insist on the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He certainly regretted that a matter involving so much detail, and so little general interest, should be forced on the House at large. It was impossible to get Members to take an interest in the discussion, because the questions that arose were such as could only be well considered in a Select Committee. He would refer to some of the general features of the two Bills for the purpose of showing that the details were not likely to receive that attention in a Committee of the Whole House which the Amendments proposed required. There had been for two centuries and a half a system of registration of land rights in Scotland. There were a number of registers for districts—every Royal burgh had its own register; there was one in nearly every county, although in some cases two might be joined together to form a district; but substantially there was a local register. Unfortunately, however, there had been combined with that what was called a general register. That was kept at Edinburgh, and its original was to relieve the proprietors of baronies, which included lands in several counties, from the necessity of registering the sasines in every county in which there were lands forming part of their baronies. The effect of this was, that the registers not being

  1189
  limited to the great baronies, but being free for parties to register, although holding lands only in one county, lands might either be registered separately in the different counties, or in the general register where they were all mixed in one register, without any arrangement whatever; so that it became a very difficult matter indeed to make the searches which were required. Now, although about the beginning of this century certain abridgments or indices were began, so as to admit of searching the registers more conveniently, yet nobody could be sure whether the lands were registered in the local or general register; and, consequently, it was essential, before a man lent money on the security of land, or sold it, to make a double search in the local and general registers. The great amendment which both the Bills on the paper sought to accomplish is to have only one register. The Lord Advocate proposed to effect that by abolishing all the local registers, giving compensation to the parties interested out of the Consolidated Fund, and taking their offices all into Edinburgh, in order to make what is still to be called the General Register. He proposed that all the work should be done in Edinburgh, and in that way to simplify and reduce the searches from two records to one, and to facilitate the making of abridgments and indices by recording the several deeds in county order, just as it is now done in the local registers. The plan of his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill was to abolish the General Register, which had been the great obstruction all through, and to keep up the local or county registers, which, as a collateral advantage, would obviate the necessity of compensation to the keepers. Instead of the Registrars, as at present, drawing the whole fees paid for registering the deeds, he proposed that the holders should be put on salaries as the Edinburgh Registrars now were, and in that way the expenses would be diminished, as largely at least as by the plan of the Lord Advocate, so as to admit an equal reduction in the amount of fees by both Bills. These were the main features of the two Bills, and it was necessary the House should understand them, as they formed the ground on which he pressed for the reference of both to a Select Committee. And the first ground he took was that they had not sufficient materials for coming to anything like a
  1190
  satisfactory decision on the various details involved in either Bill. The only information they had was the report of two gentlemen—one an Edinburgh solicitor, and the other a Glasgow solicitor—both able men, no doubt, but they had not reported to the House any of the evidence on which their Report was founded. They have given nothing but their report, and, so far, their opinion; but they had not enabled the House to judge how far that opinion was founded on the facts, and whether the facts really bear it out. He considered it essential that they should enter into some inquiry into circumstances that had not been reported on. These gentlemen were required to report only on the state of the county registers and burgh registers, which last were not dealt with in this Bill; but they were not required or allowed to look into or examine the state of the Edinburgh registers at all—the difficulties which exist there at present to get the work required done, and how it would be possible for them to undertake the additional labour it was proposed to throw upon them. That was a point on which some inquiry must be made. They were called upon to transfer to Edinburgh all the county registers in Scotland from the counties, although not a word was said against the manner in which the duty is now discharged. Two things, therefore, had to be considered—how the work was done in the counties, to which no objection had been taken; and, secondly, how it was likely to be done in Edinburgh. Now, as to this last point, they were utterly in the dark. Then as to the Report of the Commissioners, it had been stated publicly, and not denied, that their investigation into the county registers was of a very summary kind; and this is clearly beyond doubt, that they assigned as the main cause of the abridgments and indices not being in a forward state, the delay of sending up the record volumes from the county. Now, it had been conclusively proved by the Return which had been obtained by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr district (Mr. Craufurd) that this was utterly incorrect—there was not a single county in which the registers were not transmitted to a much later date than the indices had reached. In Edinburgh the abridgments and indices had been very ill-managed and badly done. The system was begun in 1821, and if they had done nothing more than year by year made an index and abridgment of the current work of the year,

  1191
  there would now have been a complete index for forty years; but instead of that, they began twenty-eight years backwards, and they had never been able to overtake the arrears. The accumulation had been going on year by year, until at last, since 1830, they had been obliged to give up altogether the most valuable of all—the index of places. The index of persons was still six, eight, or even ten years in arrear. That is a specimen of the superior excellence of Edinburgh superintendence, which was one of the great charms held out to induce the House to transfer the local registers from the counties to Edinburgh. It would be a proper subject for inquiry by a Select Committee, whether the means for accomplishing the end of perfect registration were more efficient in the counties or at Edinburgh. There was another matter on which they had no information—the convenience or inconvenience of sending all the writs to Edinburgh, and having them registered there or in the counties. All that was stated on that point was, that in many counties the writs were sent to a large extent by post; but, in the larger proportion, they were delivered personally. They had no evidence as to the bearing on local transactions in the county which the sending of the sasines to Edinburgh would have, and they had no evidence as to the convenience or inconvenience of such an arrangement to the persons borrowing or lending money, and selling or buying land. To one class the convenience of having all writs registered in Edinburgh would, no doubt, be very considerable. That was the class of great proprietors who had their agents in Edinburgh, whose deeds were all prepared in Edinburgh, and were thereafter kept in tin boxes at their agents' chambers. But, after all, this class comprised but a small body of men, and the inconvenience which would arise to the great mass of persons who would be compelled to employ a local and an Edinburgh agent, and who desired to keep their deeds in their own custody, far outweighed the interests of the other. That was a point on which they might have evidence given in a Select Committee. Then, as to the delay or rapidity of recording the writs at Edinburgh, it was shown by a Return that the number of writs in the registry of the Lothians which were unengrossed on the 1st June in each year was from 600 to 700. In several cases the delay in recording a writ had been close upon eighty days.
  1192
  It was necessary to inquire into that subject—to see why so much delay had occurred in Edinburgh; how it would be obviated when the county registers were transferred to Edinburgh; and how far it might be necessary, for any advantage to be gained by going to Edinburgh, to sacrifice the great advantage of local registers. There was another matter on which the Lord Advocate had spoken very confidently—the saving of expense to be effected by means of this Bill. There could be no doubt that a saving of expense was a very desirable thing. But there was no evidence of such a saving of expense under the Bill of the learned Lord as he appears to contemplate, The learned Lord said that the whole expense under this Bill would be £5,000; but, looking to the present expense of the staff, he (Mr. Dunlop) calculated that it would be brought up to at least £9,000 a year. The present staff at Edinburgh was insufficient for its present duties, and it was impossible to imagine that an additional staff would not be required when these additional duties were thrown upon the office. But that, again, was a matter into which a Select Committee might inquire. Then, as to the matter of compensation:—the offices are held for life; the Lord Advocate proposed to compensate the holders out of the Consolidated Fund; whereas by his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill, these persons would be placed on salaries, and the amount of compensation would be only the difference between the salaries and the excess which the present fees gave them; and that would not be very considerable. So far as the main objects of the Bill were concerned they could be done just as thoroughly and quite as cheaply in the country as in Edinburgh; and he (Mr. Dunlop) thought it would be better done in the country than in Edinburgh. Then there were many minor points, such as the superior local knowledge of the district solicitors over any set of clerks, and all the questions raised by the Amendments, of which notice had been given—Amendments involving the question whether they should have one register by abolishing the local or the general register; whether they should keep up the general and the particular registers of adjudications and inhibitions, or discard them and substitute the register of sasines. These subjects could not be adequately considered in a Committee of the whole House, and could be only adequately considered in a Select Committee, where the same Members were always present.

  1193
  Another question of great importance, raised by one of the Amendments, was the responsibility of the keeper of the general register. At present all the local keepers were responsible for whatever blunders they committed; but his learned Friend had not informed them whether he intended to make the general keeper responsible for the errors committed in recording writs in the General Register at Edinburgh. A similar question arose as to the responsibility of the searchers. Searchers were generally selected by the parties for whom the search was made, and if he made a blunder was answerable for the consequences. The Lord Advocate proposed that there should be official searchers appointed by the Treasury. Were these searchers appointed by the Treasury to be liable, like the professional searchers, for the blundering they commit, or was the Treasury to be liable? Then, again, the question of town registers was a large question, which must be fully discussed. At Glasgow, for instance, there was a register which comprised a large part of the city of Glasgow. Now, part of this scheme was that this register should be transmitted from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and made part of the county register. Now, the evidence was strong against these new county registers, and the Commissioners, having discussed the question whether burghs which had registers should retain them and other large towns, such as Greenock and Leith, which had none, should have registers assigned to them, they came to the conclusion, though with great hesitation, that these burghs should remain as they were, and suggested a mode of search which they called a search-sheet, which should be gradually adopted, and prepare the way for the ultimate transfer of the burgh registers to the General Register House in Edinburgh; and it was only on the ground that the burgh registers were ultimately to be transferred to Edinburgh that the Commissioners reported against establishing distinct registers in the large towns, not being burghs, which at present had none. But the officials had condemned utterly the search-sheet, and his hon. and learned Friend had abandoned that part of the scheme entirely, and had abandoned all idea of sending the burgh registers to Edinburgh. Should not, consequently, these towns have registers given them? Then the burghs and their suburbs were to be in distinct districts—one side I of a street would have one register and
  1194
  the other side another—all on one side could register their deeds and get them back immediately; all on the other would have to send them to Edinburgh. Nothing besides but burgage tenure was to be registered in the burgh registers; but why were the feudal tenures within the burgh to be precluded from being placed on the burgh register? The house property in the suburbs was in reality a burgal property—why should not they he registered in the burgh register? The burghs which petitioned in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill while they did not care about the county registers being taken to Edinburgh they required that their own suburbs should be added to their own burghs. It was impossible to discuss these and many other questions in an open Committee of the whole House. The Lord Advocate had said that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would be tantamount to throwing it out. But, even if it were so, he (Mr. Dunlop) should say that that would be better than passing it in a way that would create dissatisfaction. Still, this was no fault of his. The Bill was brought in on the 24th February, and he (Mr. Dunlop) then suggested that both Bills should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and if that had been agreed to the Bill might have been carried through the House this Session. The Lord Advocate, however, objected to this course, but allowed the Bill to stand over, no obstruction being offered by him (Mr. Dunlop), but the Bill being allowed to be read a second time without a division, there was a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and he was satisfied that, if the matter were referred to a Select Committee, a satisfactory measure might be agreed upon. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Dunlop,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he regretted to find so much difference of opinion amongst the Scotch Members on a subject of such importance; but after the

  1195
  many stages of opposition through which the Bill had gone, it appeared to him that to refer it to a Select Committee, as the hon. and learned Member for Greenock proposed, would be tantamount to defeating the Bill for this Session. That was a result he could not contemplate with satisfaction; and if it was really the opinion of all the Scotch Members that the Bill should fall through altogether this Session, he thought it a pity that result had not been brought about by moving the rejection of the Bill on the second reading. No doubt it was difficult to arrive at any conclusion respecting a Bill of this kind when there had been so little public discussion on it in this House. The discussion which commenced here was adjourned to another room; and probably the opinions expressed there would have produced an effect on the public mind if they had been uttered in this House. The learned Lord Advocate proposed to make the registry general, while the hon. and learned Member for Greenock wishes it to be particular and local. Now, it appears to him (Lord Henry Scott) that if this was to be the issue there could be no groundwork for those measures which had been framed by the Lord Advocates who formerly had a seat in this House, for Mr. John Inglis and Mr. Baillie both brought forward Bills of exactly the same nature as this. It could not be said that this subject was one that had not had the greatest consideration. It had been under consideration for a series of years. Clauses had been inserted in all the Commissions given to the different local registrars, by which they were declared not to be entitled to demand compensation in case local registers should be abolished. It had been the subject of a Royal Commission; and if the Report of two able Commissioners was not enough to give us a groundwork, he did not know that a Select Committee would be able to give them more. It had been said that the Commissioners did not take their evidence in a proper manner; but from a careful perusal of that Report he (Lord Henry Scott) did not agree with that statement. It appeared to have been carefully drawn up, and went into every possible detail that could be brought before a Select Committee. He must say, as regarded the general question, that if it was desirable to have any registration at all, the opinions of all the county meetings in Scotland ought to have some weight in favour of the Lord Advocate's plan. With
  1196
  regard to complaints as to the present arrears on the registers, that might be got rid of by adopting the English system, and abolishing the minute-books. It has also been said that great expenses would be incurred by the Lord Advocate's plan; but when it was remembered that at the present moment the registers paid a surplus of £6,000 a year to the Consolidated Fund, and more than £12,000 to the local registrars, it appeared to him that all the expenses would be met, and that there would be a surplus. He knew also that there were complaints as to the borough registers; but it was not proposed to meddle with them in this Bill, or in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock. The whole question of borough registers was treated of in the Report, and the Commissioners gave ample reasons for not wishing to interfere with them. The real question before the House was whether they should delay the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee, and thus practically throw it out altogether; but he could not think, after the lengthened investigations of the Commissioners, that a Select Committee would be of any value, or that would, on the whole, be a wise and proper course.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had presented a petition from Aberdeen against the Lord Advocate's Bill, and he must say he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition. He held in his hand the last Report of the Committee upon Public Petitions, from which he found that there had been ninety-six petitions in all presented upon this subject; and of these twenty-three were in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill, seventy against it, and three prayed for alteration in both Bills. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that these petitions were not signed at street corners like many petitions that had recently been presented to the House, but by gentlemen of education and position. Was it then right or reasonable that they should take upon themselves to decide here in this House, with scarcely a quorum present upon these Bills when there was evidently a conflict of opinion out of doors upon the question? He emphatically said it was not; and although it was possible and probable that a reference to a Select Committee might delay or cause the loss of these Bills for the present Session, he also said so much the better; for this advantage would be gained, that they would have the maturely-formed judgment of men upon whom they could rely.

  1197
  The parties who would chiefly benefit by the Lord Advocate's Bill were the Lord Clerk Register by emolument and patronage, the Edinburgh conveyancers, who would practically have a monopoly of the business, and departments of the Register House, whose returns would be increased from fees. Those who would benefit by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock were the local solicitors, the proprietors of land who would pay reduced fees, the smaller proprietors who would avoid the delay and risk of sending their deeds up to Edinburgh, and have increased facilities for searching; and the country at large would be benefited by the prevention of a great scheme of centralization and patronage. That could not be regarded as a slight advantage, when they remembered that the principle of our representation was hostile to centralization. How could they look for any advantage whatever in a complete transfer of all registration to Edinburgh when they remembered that the three local registers already in the office there were ten years in arrear? What would be the state of that office when nineteen other registers were handed over to it? Surely, under these circumstances, the simple and obvious course was to ascertain the real state of things, and that could be best done by submitting both these Bills to a Select Committee. If they were thereby lost for this Session, the public would be no losers, for a further opportunity would be given to the country at large to consider and to make up its mind upon this important subject. He should certainly support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he spoke without claiming to possess special legal knowledge, but he wished to say a few words as a proprietor—for he took the question to be, in fact, a proprietors' question. It was the interest of the proprietors that had to be guarded, and not the interest of the lawyers. The proprietors complained at present of the great expense of registering deeds. That expense was attributable to two causes—first, the great delays and arrears in writing up the index; and next, the necessity for a double search. They were all agreed upon the desirability of having only one search; and both the Bills before the House profess to have that object in view. But it appeared to him that under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, two searches
  1198
  at least would be required—a search into the local registers and search into the Edinburgh register, and, if the property lay in several counties, three or four searches would be required. Even for the counties themselves local registers were inconvenient. He might instance his own county—Argyleshire—where the registers were kept at Inverary, which was less accessible to many parts of the county than Edinburgh. The tendency of all improvement in communication was towards the capital, and therefore the facilities for searching in the capital were always improving. So, as a matter of convenience, Edinburgh was the best place for the registers, especially as all large proprietors have agents in that city, and the interests of the smaller proprietors would be secured by the permanent establishment of the sixty-six burgh registers. As to security, the hon. Member for Greenock said that at present the keepers of the registers were responsible for the results of any negligence. But it must be remembered that these persons were, in general, men of very small means; whereas the responsible officers at Edinburgh would probably be persons of a superior class, from whom it would be practicable to obtain ample and satisfactory security. As to the question of expense the real expense lay in the search not in the register, and as by the Lord Advocate's Bill the search would be simplified the expense must be proportionately lessened. As to the proposition to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, they were all agreed upon the principle, and all that would have to be referred to the Committee would be the details, which could only be understood thoroughly by lawyers; and the question is whether they should be guided by the declared opinions of the first lawyers of Scotland, which is already before us, or send the question to be decided by a Committee which could not consist of persons so well qualified to pronounce upon details of this kind? He did not think that such reference to a Committee would be of any advantage to the public. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Greenock would not press his Motion.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, it would perhaps be in the recollection of the House, that no discussion was taken upon the second reading of this Bill, at the express suggestion of the Lord Advocate. It was against his wish that the Bill passed that important stage sub silentio; and it was clear that the opponents of the Bill

  1199
  are under a disadvantage now from having allowed that course to be taken. The reason suggested for this course was that opportunity should be given for the discussion of the question at a meeting of Scotch Members, when some understanding might be arrived at as to future proceedings. No doubt his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock had reason to expect that some deference would be paid to his views. As there was no record of the proceedings of such gathering as they had in the tea-room, he could give no detailed account of what passed in the little Scotch Parliament on that occasion; but he would simply remind those present that the Lord Advocate, finding that a majority of the Scotch Parliament was not likely to agree with him, closed the discussion by saying that he should persevere with his Bill. So, after they had been induced to consent to the second reading sub silentio, they were told that, in an exhausted House approaching dissolution, the measure would be pushed on by any means whatever. The majority of the representatives from Scotland sat behind the Government; but although that portion of the Empire was less strongly represented on this side, he could not in his experience remember any occasion when they had to complain of a measure being unfairly or unduly pressed by a majority upon a reluctant minority. Our Scotch measures were generally discussed in a spirit of conciliation and fairness, and to no one was that fact more attributable than to his hon. and learned Friend opposite. But the manner in which it was attempted to force on this measure was at variance with the usual practice. Never was there a measure more fitted for consideration by a Select Committee or even a Commission, and never was there a question less fitted for general discussion than that which was now sought to be pressed on in this unusual and unfair manner by means of calling in aid the Government supporters, who, knowing nothing of, and caring nothing for, the subject, were able to overbear the wishes of the majority of the representatives of Scotland. One reason why this Bill was distasteful to me was because it was based upon a centralizing principle. They had already a very centralized Government in Scotland. That kingdom was governed from headquarters by an official who occupied a position perfectly anomalous, whose government would not have been tolerated for a moment had it not been administered
  1200
  uniformly in a judicious and prudent spirit for the benefit of the country. This centralizing principle was being applied step by step to other departments of administration. In former times centralization might have been absolutely necessary, but now it could not be said that where they had had local government for centuries it was necessary all at once to introduce a system of centralization. Only in one department had local management been retained, and that was in the matter of registration of titles to land. Every county and every burgh had its register, and every one who had investigated the subject knew that a more perfect system did not exist in any country. No one denied that there were faults in the existing system—that, for instance, the fees from persons having recourse to the register offices might be advantageously reduced; nor did any one deny that some confusion had arisen from the ancient system of a double register, which was good in its time but had been abused. It could not, however, be denied that the local register was the chief register, and that the general register was essentially the subordinate one. The noble Lord the Member for Selkirkshire (Lord Henry Scott) thought that he had made a great point when he said that the General Register of Edinburgh yielded to the Consolidated Fund a surplus of £6,000 a year, while the local registers were of no value to anybody. But they were of value to those who kept them. The noble Lord was in error in saying that Bills had been introduced by Conservative Lord Advocates, or that measures similar to this had been contemplated by them; because the measure which was thought of but not introduced by the present Lord Justice Clerk, when Lord Advocate, contemplated the provision of registers for the various districts of Scotland. Undoubtedly he contemplated the removal of the local registers but he believed he contemplated their collection into certain districts. As to the weight of authority, I cannot pay to the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk, and of the Lord Advocate, the deference which I should be disposed to pay to it upon all other questions. The weight of the authority of all the country lawyers is against the change proposed by this Bill. It is true that this was an interested opinion to this extent, that those gentlemen would lose a great deal of business if all these registers were transfered to Edinburgh; because there was no doubt that although

  1201
  the post might to a considerable extent be used for the transmission of deeds to the registry, or the making of inquiries, careful practitioners would never be content without going themselves, or sending their agents to the registry to report the deed, or make the inquiries that might be necessary. It was, therefore, obvious that if this change took place, there would be some transfer of business from the country to the Edinburgh solicitors, and in so far the opinions of the former might be said to be interested. The noble Lord said that the proprietors were not opposed to this Bill; but who was the best judge of the interests of the proprietors, and of how the business in which he was concerned can be best transacted? Was it not the professional man by whom that business had always been managed; and he ventured to think that in this matter the concurrent opinions of the practitioners all over Scotland is deserving of some respect. And if there be an imputation of interested motives on both sides, surely the onus probandi rests upon those who want to take the business away, and not upon those who have it now. This Bill, while it proposed to transfer the conveyancing business of all the county districts of Scotland to Edinburgh, did not propose to treat the burghs in the same way. The reason why the local registers of the burghs are to be left was, they were told that local knowledge was there of so much importance. Why was it important to burghs and places possessing municipal government, and of no importance throughout the counties cither in populous places or in purely rural districts? It was a distinction that would not hold for an instant, to say that certain burghs required a great deal of local knowledge, and that therefore their local registers should be preserved, but that all others were needless and should be swept away. But if centralization be in fact of so much importance as was represented, he should not be wrong in saying that this Bill would fail to effect that object, because there would still remain sixty or sixty-eight burgh registers. If it were necessary to concentrate all the business in Edinburgh, why did not the concurrent testimony, of which they have heard so much, propose to concentrate every one of the registers throughout the country? The reason was the burghs were too strong for the Government. Let them take warning by what was now going on. If concentration in Edinburgh was of such great im-
  1202
  portance, and if the improvement of communications had been so great that it was not necessary to prolong the continuance of these registers in the various localities, why should not concentration be carried a little further—why keep up branch establishments in Edinburgh itself? If concentration was to go on, rely upon it that the establishments which now afford such great public conveniences in Edinburgh will not long be left there. They would soon have their postal arrangements, and all other matters, conducted in London, and Edinburgh would sink into a mere provincial town. There were other things now kept in the counties, not to mention the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, which might be sent to Edinburgh. Why should not all the commissary business, probate, and so on, be done in Edinburgh? There was no end to the concentration that might be carried out. He did not wish to say much upon so delicate a subject; but there is a question of patronage. The Register House in Edinburgh had been used a little as an office of political reward. He did not wish to say anything invidious, but it was impossible to deny that, however excellent and worthy a gentleman might be, if the charge of the Register House was to be made a matter of political reward, and if considerable patronage was to be attached to it, people in the country would look upon such an arrangement with considerable jealousy. The only weak point in the present system brought out by the Report was the confusion which arose between the two registers. The noble Lord (Lord Henry Scott) seems to think that the inconvenience was very formidable for the registers to be in one county and the writs in two counties; but when a proprietor had a large estate which extended into two counties, the inconvenience of registering in these two counties was in reality exceedingly small. But the great argument against the Bill, and one which he thought of more weight than all the rest, was that the evidence showed that the public were satisfied with and use freely the present system. If 15,000 writs are annually registered, and if out of these only 3,000 are registered in Edinburgh, it being equally open to proprietors to register there as in the counties, that was a conclusive proof that the public had decided in favour of local registers as more convenient and best. There was only one point more to which he wished to refer. The hon. Member for Argyleshire said that this was

  1203
  not a matter for a Select Committee; but it was impossible to have a matter of a more abstruse and technical character, and one which in its details was more fit to be considered by a Committee upstairs. The subject had never yet been examined properly—even the Royal Commission had not examined the register, and reported their condition, and it was clear from the animus that pervaded their Report, that if they had discovered anything unfavourable they would have exposed—but there was nothing of the kind in their Report, and therefore it was to be presumed that there was nothing to expose. He submitted that this was not a case for legislation at all—that no case had been made out—and that, at least, there ought to be more inquiry before disturbing the present system—that no public hardship had been proved, or any grievance substantiated; and he trusted the House will not permit this measure to be forced through by the Government, when it was not only not required, but viewed with jealousy and dislike by the people of Scotland.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, that he had had the honour to present a petition from Aberdeen of exactly a contrary nature from that presented by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes). He (Mr. Crum-Ewing) supported the Bill because it would get rid, at a marvellously small cost, of a large and expensive staff; secondly, it would be the means of preserving greater uniformity; thirdly, it would give greater facilities for examining the writs by having them all at one place, and at a less trouble and expense than having, as now, to go through the various counties; and, fourthly they would be placed in a fire-proof building, and thus be more secure from accidents. He thought the measure one of great improvement.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I hoped, after the full discussion that had been had, they should be allowed to go to a division that night. He would only address the House upon the question whether this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He contended that it was altogether an unsuitable question for such a reference, because it essentially related to the law of Scotland, and did not depend upon evidence to be taken. Under ordinary circumstances, the Members for Scotland would have been inclined to have left it to be decided by those legal authorities best qualified to form an opinion.
  1204
  These authorities were all on one side. There was no difference of opinion amongst the best and first jurists in Scotland that this was a most desirable measure. The Faculty of Advocates were unanimous, as indeed were most of the persons interested in business of this nature. His predecessor in office unquestionably intended to legislate in this sense. All professional and scientific opinion was in favour of the Bill, but there was another interest to be considered—that of the public. He did not want to exaggerate too much the effects of it, but this House ought not to let private interest—the interest of those local practitioners whose business might be affected—to stand in the way of a great general reform. The hon. Member for Argyleshire (Sir James Fergusson) said we had called a meeting of Scotch Members, and were now pressing this Bill against the wish of that meeting; but every one who heard the able speech, on that occasion, by his learned Friend the Solicitor General, must have been convinced of the utility and advantage of the measure. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) had made it his business to ascertain whether the Members for Scotland were in favour of this measure or against it; and when they divided it would be found that, not only on that side of the House, but on the other, they were in favour of it in the proportion of at least two to one, so that it was impossible to say they were pressing this Bill against the sense of the Scotch Members. And although the Bill more immediately affects the counties, the main opposition comes from Members for the burghs. The burgh registers were not touched by this Bill. Take any locality, and it would be found that the advantages would greatly outweigh any injury that may be occasioned. There was evidence enough on that point from men of great ability and position, and a Select Committee was wholly unnecessary except for the purpose of shelving the Bill for this Session, which is the object of its opposers in talking of a Select Committee. Very exaggerated ideas seemed to be entertained as to the transfer of business from the county to Edinburgh. The hon. Member admitted that many gentlemen of large property had agents already at Edinburgh; and agents in many cases must be employed now by others. Suppose a person at Aberdeen had money to lend at Glasgow, he would now, as his first step, send to Edinburgh to search the records,

  1205
  and he would employ an agent. The mortgage deed would be prepared in Glasgow; and then would come the question, where it should be recorded. According to the present system, it would be at Aberdeen; according to the Bill, at Edinburgh. What advantage would it be to the lender to record it at Aberdeen? None whatever. The fears of the hon. Members as to centralization were equally chimerical. The only difference in what he proposed and that which now took place was this:—Now, entries were made in the books at various places, and at the end of the year these hooks were sent to Edinburgh; and he proposed instead that the writing should be done at Edinburgh at once, and thus be of immediate use for reference and getting rid of the double search, which all parties admitted to be bad. The burghs were anxious not to be touched; they were anxious to have a register of their own, and the persons who opposed this measure are the persons who were connected with the burghs. It was alleged that the registration in burghs formed a separate and distinct system, involving no doubt many important interests, and standing upon a wholly separate footing, regulated by different rules, under different superintendence, and to a certain extent dealing with matters of a different nature. The burgh registries were not under the Lord Clerk Register, and never had been; they were not established by the same statute as established the county registries, and they dealt with tenures of a very different description. They might, therefore, very properly be left to district registries. Whether they should be brought to Edinburgh or left in the localities was another matter. These were the views on which he thought that House ought not to accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Into the merits of the Bill introduced by his hon. and learned Friend he now proposed to enter. It would be easy to show that, as under the existing law, so under the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the expense would be very great. His hon. and learned Friend said that the expenses of deeds might be reduced by the Lord Advocate, but he must be aware that the Court would long ago have been moved in that matter but for the opposition which the proposition received from those who were chiefly concerned. Then, again, his hon. Friend raised some phantom of official patronage, and he intimated that persons
  1206
  would be appointed, not only to the office of Lord Clerk Register, but to other offices, because they might happen to be of the political creed of those who happened to be in power. He (the Lord Advocate) entirely repudiated such an insinuation as that. His hon. Friend says this will increase the patronage of the Crown. Does it not, on the contrary, abolish nineteen most lucrative offices at present in the patronage of the Crown? And what does it substitute? Why, a few clerkships of £300 or £400 a year, which may be in the gift of the Lord Clerk Register and the Treasury. And what did the hon. and learned Member for Greenock propose? Why, not only to keep up the nineteen offices at present existing, involving an expenditure which amounts altogether to a very considerable sum, but to add on to the country registries now existing an establishment which increases those nineteen offices to thirty. There was no ground whatever for delay, and he trusted the House would at once go into Committee.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he had no intention to enter into any discussion of the merits of this question, for in his opinion only a lawyer could properly discuss it; but he desired to make one or two remarks on the doctrine which the learned Lord Advocate had laid down in the speech, because he thought it one of the most extraordinary doctrines which a person in his position could lay down. The learned Lord appealed to the House not to send his Bill before a Select Committee, not on the ground that it was so late in the Session that to do so would have the effect of putting off the Bill altogether, but because he says it was not a question that ought to be investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but one which ought to be determined by authority. Now he (Mr. Aytoun) was always under the apprehension that the only authority which ought to determine anything in that House was the authority of reason and conviction in the minds of Members, and least of all did he expect to bear "authority" quoted, not by a Whig Minister—for he was afraid that a Whig Minister might rather like the term "authority" than otherwise—but by a Liberal Minister. He would surely have thought that a Liberal Minister would have desired the question to be settled by facts and reason. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the opposition to the Bill was an opposition which is got up

  1207
  entirely by pressure brought to bear upon Members by political agents. Now, he (Mr. Aytoun) had the honour to represent a district of Scotch burghs which had no interest whatever in the matter, and certainly no pressure had been brought to bear upon him. He believed that it would be quite as much for the benefit of these burghs that the registers should be transferred to Edinburgh as that it should be retained in the county town of Cupar. He was not opposed to the Bill, but he said he was not acquainted with the facts, and therefore he was unable to form a judgment upon them; and on that ground he said that he was justified in asking that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, by means of whose labours he might be made acquainted with those facts of which he was now ignorant. He had no wish whatever that the Bill should be thrown out; and he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he had the honour of a seat in that House in the new Parliament, when the measure was brought forward again, and if the House should determine to go into Committee upon it, he would offer no factious opposition to its passing. He had no personal feeling against the Bill. On the contrary, as far as his information goes, he must say that the knowledge he had obtained was favourable than otherwise to the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, at the same time, he did think that resolutely to refuse all inquiry had the effect of raising a feeling in the minds of the people of Scotland which it would be most desirable to avoid.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the course which had been pursued illustrated the truth of the old adage, "The more haste the less speed." If the learned Lord Advocate had given the Scotch Members the inquiry they demanded, and to which they were entitled, he would probably now have been passing the Bill with certain amendments. At all events, he would have got it through this House far more easily than he was likely to do by withholding it. As to the doctrine of authority—which as a guide to legislation was one of the most astonishing doctrines that could be heard at the present day—who was to decide between the conflicting authorities? The learned Lord Advocate said that this was not a question for us to decide—that, being of a technical legal character, it must be decided by eminent lawyers, and that the highest legal authority was on his side.
  1208
  The effect of that was that this was a matter with which the House of Commons has nothing to do, but must follow the course which the Lord Advocate and his authorities tell it to take; or, in other words, the learned Lord says to us, "Shut your eyes, open your mouths, and see what a Whig Minister will send you." No doubt, the learned Lord and his friends were honestly convinced that the scheme they proposed is the best. The learned Lord himself, his Commissioners, and every one else who had examined the question, admitted that the system of the registration of laud rights in Scotland, viewed as a whole, was the most complete and practically useful system which had yet been devised in any country. They ought, therefore, to be on their guard, not unnecessarily to disturb that which was on the whole working well, nor listen too readily to those who recommended changes, which, although apparently more consonant with theoretical perfection, might he difficult to reconcile with the peculiarities of our existing forms of conveyancing, and with long established professional habits and usages. With respect to the advantages resulting from the saving of expenditure under the Bill, although there was a certain saving of expense, the present expenses might be very properly diminished without altering the present system a tittle. At any rate, comparing the expense of conveyancing in Scotland with the same expense in England, it would be found that in Scotland it was not one-third of what it was in England. He quite admitted that, if no system already existed in Scotland, the one proposed might be a good one. If there were a tabula rasa of the Scotch system, then there could be no objection to the proposition of the Lord Advocate; but he could not see the advantage of changing a system that had been in operation and had worked well for two centuries and a half, unless it clearly be shown that the advantages gained would counterbalance the inconveniences of a change of system.
  The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to show that as far as expense was concerned that might be reduced without making the slightest alteration in the present system—when it being Pour of the clock,
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

THE CANADIAN DELEGATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared in the Owl newspaper to the effect that a perfect understanding has been arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Canadian Delegates; and, if so, when he will be prepared to acquaint the House with the precise terms of the arrangement?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the conferences between Her Majesty's Government and the Ministers from Canada have not yet been brought to a close, but I hope very soon to be able to report the result of those conferences to the House.

CHINA—DISMISSAL OF PRINCE KUNG.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received of the dismissal of Prince Kung from his office of President of the Board of Foreign Affairs at Pekin, and who has been appointed his successor; and whether official Reports have been received from the diplomatic and consular authorities in China of the progress of insurrection in several provinces as affecting the Export and Import Trade of the Country?
  MR. LAYARD: Sir, I am happy to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that Prince Kung has been appointed his own successor. We have received a telegram at the Foreign Office from Pekin to the effect that he has been re-instated with all his dignities, and is again Prime Minister. We have no official Reports with regard to British trade, but on the whole the accounts are very favourable, with the exception of those places occupied by marauders. There is every prospect of the trade increasing.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved that this House at its rising will adjourn till Thursday next.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The University of London, whose claims I have been asked to lay before the House this evening, stands in a totally different relation
  1210
  to the Government of this country from that of the great majority of our educational institutions. It is almost a department of the Government. Its Chancellor, and three-fourths of its Senate, are directly nominated by the Crown; the regulations made by the Senate must obtain the sanction of the Home Secretary before they can become operative, and its accounts are regularly passed by the Audit Office, like those of any other branch of the public service, By its connection with the Government, it is obviously cut off from any resources which are open to other institutions, and it is not unreasonable that, since it suffers the drawbacks, it should also claim the compensating advantages of its semi-dependent position. There was a time when its name was a watchword of party, but that stage of its history has long passed by, and one would no more expect now-a-days to hear of any party opposition to its pretensions than to those of the Board of Customs. Indeed, I shall be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works tells us this evening that the present Government is prepared to do as much for the University as I have reason to believe the Government of Lord Derby was prepared to do when it was last in power. In order that I may make quite clear the exact relations of the University of London to the Legislature of the country, I may be allowed, in two or three sentences, to recall its history to the minds of hon. Members. In the year 1825, a number of gentlemen, dissatisfied with the attitude which the old universities assumed towards their dissenting fellow-countrymen, united together and raised a fund of about £160,000, which was chiefly spent in erecting a large building in Gower Street. The idea of those gentlemen was to call into existence an institution which should mutatis mutandis resemble one of our Scotch universities. In due time they applied for a charter, and the question whether a charter should or should not he granted to them was, from 1830 to 1835, matter of constant and somewhat acrimonious dispute. At length, on the 25th of March, 1835, the House of Commons, by a very large majority, resolved to address the Crown to give them a charter. To that address a gracious answer was returned, and the question was considered settled. Meanwhile, however, the Liberal Government, which succeeded the shortlived administration of Sir Robert Peel,

  1211
  saw their way to doing more to meet the views of the persons who had erected the building in Gower Street than those persons had originally ventured to hope, and determined to create an institution of wider scope and higher pretensions, for which they borrowed the name of the University of London, while the institution in Gower Street retired into the background, and continued its useful labours under the name of University College. The University of London, as constituted by its charter in the last reign, and as re-constituted by two charters in the present reign, is an examining body, which confers degrees, honours, and prizes upon those who satisfy the requirements of its examiners, but which undertakes only to test the results of instruction, not to give instruction itself. It will be obvious, therefore, that when it asks for a building it does not contemplate so large an expenditure as would he necessary if, in addition to the facilities which it desires for examining candidates, it also asked for lecture rooms, professors' houses, and all the other apparatus of teaching. The correspondence of the authorities of the new University with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, led them to believe that the Government would, at no distant date, provide them with a suitable building, and they immediately entered upon the discharge of their duties, occupying for that purpose some rooms at Somerset House. That was the day of small things, and the accommodation was sufficient for the moderate scale of their first operations. In a few years, however, even that limited accommodation was curtailed, for some of their rooms had to be given up to the School of Design. From that day to this, for something like twenty years, the University has been wandering from one public building to another, indebted for the use of a hall now to the Royal Society, now to University College, and now to King's College, and carrying on its examinations as it best could, sometimes at Exeter Hall, sometimes in the Thatched House Tavern, and sometimes, strange to say, even in Willis' Rooms, where the solution of mathematical problems has before now been agreeably diversified by the rehearsals for a concert going on within earshot. At the present moment things are indeed altered, but not much mended. The University is now located in a corner of Burlington House, but the accommodation which it finds there is not nearly sufficient, and at any moment it is
  1212
  liable to be turned out, and again sent forth as a wanderer on the face of the earth. The rulers of the University supplement their wretched accommodation by all kinds of devices; for example, they use for their matriculation examination a shed which has been erected by the Volunteers in Burlington Gardens. Do what they will, however, the constantly increasing number of candidates who present themselves for examination threatens ere long to be too much for them, and to set their devices at defiance; for, whereas in the year 1838 they had only twenty-three candidates to examine, they had in the year 1863 no less than 1,020. It cannot be said this is a creditable state of things, and the senate has been for many years entreating successive Governments to do something for it, nor has any Government, so far as I am aware, failed to admit that its case calls for serious attention. The demands of the University authorities are not excessive. They want what is necessary to transact their business, and nothing more. For this purpose it is calculated that they must have a series of examination rooms, capable of accommodating not less than 400 candidates. They must have a collection of typical specimens, from which the numerous objects which are placed before the candidates in their scientific examinations may be selected. They must have a respectable library for examination purposes—they must have a hall in which convocation may meet from time to time to perform its necessary duties; and they must have proper accommodation for the senate—these are the essential features of the building that ought to be provided. That building ought to be central, because many of the members of the senate are men in public or professional life, with very little leisure, and on whose time it is not desirable to make greater calls than is absolutely necessary. Taking its stand as it does, upon its usefulness, the University is content to say little about its right to have a building which shall not only be suitable but dignified. It is confident that it may safely leave the House and the Government to take care that no injustice is done to it in this particular. All that it wishes is that Parliament should be correctly informed as to its present position—a position of which it may well be proud—as the following facts will show:—the University of London numbered about 1,600 graduates. Its senate consists for the most part of very

  1213
  distinguished men. The Lord President of the Council is its Chancellor, and one of the greatest of English historians (Mr. Grote) its Vice Chancellor. Its matriculation examination corresponds to examinations passed at Oxford and Cambridge after several forms of residence. Its ordinary B.A. degree implies very much greater mental cultivation than is necessarily implied by a simple B.A. at the older universities, and its examinations for honours take also a very respectable rank. Its examiners are men of the greatest eminence. It gives degrees in every faculty except theology. Its medical degrees are very highly considered; and it confers several degrees which are not conferred at Oxford; and Cambridge. Such is the degree of M.S., Master in Surgery, and such is the new degree which it has just created, that of Doctor in Letters—one calculated, I cannot help thinking, to meet a want, and to be of great use. An institution which has done so much in about thirty years, may well claim to shed some honour upon the Government and the Parliament which has fostered it, and from which Government and Parliament it receives only the modest allowance of about £5,500 a year. And remember that this sum of £5,500 a year is not given to enable the University of London to compete with other institutions; nay, the University of London is little more than a channel by which the sum of £5,500 a year is distributed to English, Scotch, Irish, and I Colonial Institutions, whose students may desire to have the results of their education tested by a perfectly impartial tribunal. It I has no local connection with the metropolis. University College and King's College have no closer relations to it than Galway or Aberdeen, and a student at Galway or Aberdeen has now no privileges in connection with it over a student who, without going to any school or university, may have prepared himself for its examinations in the remotest of our colonies. It would be a mistake to describe it even as a national institution. It is an Imperial institution, taking no heed of birth-place, of creed, or of colour, but absolutely open to every subject of Her Majesty who chooses to offer himself for examination, and to pay a trifling fee. An institution which does so much for the State, and receives so little from it, may well ask to meet with some consideration; and, after wandering in the wilderness for a whole generation, to be at length placed in a building which it
  1214
  may call its own. Its authorities do not doubt that, if they once had such a building, they would be able enormously to extend the area of their exertions, and that whereas now more than a thousand candidates present themselves for examination in a year, they may have before another period of thirty years has passed away, as many as 3,000 students from all parts of the Empire coming to have the results of many different systems of education tested at this great central institution, or arranging, as has been done lately in the case of the Mauritius, to have themselves examined under the authority of the University of London, in the places where they reside. Till the University of London has such a building as I suggest, it will never have a fair opportunity of putting itself before the public; and if there were any way of testing the truth of what I say, I would be content to stake my whole case in favour of its having a building upon the assertion that at least a third of the Members of the existing House of Commons have either no definite idea as to what the University of London is, or else identify it with that exceedingly respectable institution in Gower street, to which I have already referred. If this he true, or if it at all approaches to being true, it will be generally admitted that a commodious, central, and dignified building for the reception of the University would be its best advertisement, and on the ground of mere utility I am content to rest its claims, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman may consent to do justice to them, and thereby gain credit for the administration of which he forms a part.
  MR. COWPERsaid, his hon. Friend had not at all over-stated the claims of the London University to the favour and support of that House. He fully concurred in what the hon. Gentleman had said of the great usefulness of the University and the great benefits it had conferred upon the education of the country. Any one who knew anything of the subject must be aware that the examinations provided by the University had been a great means of improving the education which was given in a large number of the educational institutions both in this country and in the colonies. The degrees given by the University were held in high esteem, more especially those in the branches of medical and physical science. There was no question, therefore, that the London University ought to receive all the support

  1215
  and encouragement in its useful labours that could be fairly and properly given by the Government and the House. He thought it was unfortunate when the charter was granted thirty years ago, that no permanent provision was made for its accommodation. It was for many years lodged in a very imperfect and inconvenient manner; but since then the University, having had the use of a portion of Burlington House, the complaints previously made of want of space had not been repeated until lately. The space it then had had now become inadequate for its purpose, and the subject of providing additional accommodation had been under the consideration of the Government for some time past. It was the wish of those who represented the University that it should remain where it now was, and it was generally agreed that Burlington House was as convenient a place as any that could be found for the purpose. Fortunately, too, there was then a considerable space unappropriated which might very well be devoted to this purpose. There were two ways in which the accommodation might be provided, and the choice between those alternatives had probably been the reason why a more early decision had not been come to on the subject. On the one hand the University might remain in the apartments, and halls, and rooms which were at present appropriated to it, and such additions made to the premises as might be necessary for its work. It would not be difficult to add one or two examination halls and some other rooms to the present building. On the other band, some of the friends of the University maintained that what was required was a new, distinct, and separate building, which might be known by all the world as a building to which the name of "The London University" was attached, and they thought that such a building would, as his hon. Friend said, act as an advertisement, and would make known to all passers by that the London University was a tangible and visible institution. He thought there was considerable doubt whether the expenditure required for the erection of a really handsome, imposing, and dignified building, especially appropriate for the purposes of a University, would be commensurate with the advantages to be thereby attained, and whether, after all, the London University was not mainly known by its actual educational work in connection with educational institutions.
  1216
  These were matters that required great consideration, and in regard to which so rapid a decision could not be come to as if the claims of the institution were of a more restricted character. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that the matter had not been lost sight of by the Government. There was every disposition to provide the University with suitable and adequate accommodation for carrying on the valuable work in which it was engaged. At present, probably, the addition of one examination hall and a waiting room for candidates was all that was absolutely necessary; but he admitted that if the matter was to be dealt with they must not be content to look at the immediate wants of the University, but must remember that it was a growing institution. The number of persons who were anxious to take degrees were always increasing, and he was glad to see that the Council of the University were always ready to extend their operations whenever they found that any branches of scientific knowledge required that more attention should be paid to them, and that greater facilities should be afforded for their cultivation.

ARMY—ORDNANCE SELECT COMMITTEE

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. BAILLIE, in calling attention to the proceedings of the Ordnance Select Committee, said, that when on a former occasion he had thought it his duty to direct the attention of Parliament to what he considered the mismanagement of Ordnance Department, he then stated that the Ordnance Department had been unable during the last five years to furnish the Admiralty with sufficient guns for naval purposes; that a vast and extravagant expenditure had occurred without any adequate result; and that the Department was administered by a committee of officers, who were practically without responsibility, and who had very anomalous duties to perform; he stated that they were called upon to pronounce judgment upon the inventions and manufactures of other persons, whilst they themselves had become rival manufacturers and inventors, carrying on their experiments and transactions at the expense of the country. These statements were at the time denied by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, and he was also surprised to hear a very emphatic denial from his right hon. Friend the hon. and

  1217
  gallant Member for Huntingdon. He, therefore, felt, under the circumstances, that it was his duty not only to state but to show that not only was the statement he then made perfectly correct, but that the evils that existed, if continued, must prove injurious to the public service. The Ordnance Select Committee was appointed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon when he was Secretary of State for War, the previous Ordnance Select Committee having been dissolved upon the ground that some of its Members had become inventors; and his right hon. and gallant Friend stated, before a Select Committee of the House, that when he appointed the Ordnance Select Committee he had no intention that they should become inventors. He (Mr. H. Baillie) did not know what might have been the understanding at that time, but this he did know, that his right hon. Friend had not left office many months before the Ordnance Select Committee commenced their career as inventors, and he would show that the President and Vice President of that Committee had become inventors, and that their inventions were submitted to the Committee over which they were called upon to preside. The President of the Select Committee appointed by General Peel was Colonel, now General, St. George, and the Vice President was Captain Wiseman, R.N. He found, from the evidence published by the Select Committee of 1863, that a table was put in of various inventions undertaken by inventors for the purpose of strengthening cast iron cannon, so as to convert them into rifle cannon. And among the inventions he found in 1860, a few months after General Peel had left office, two 32-pounders, cast iron, smoothbore, slightly tapering from trunnions to breech, on a plan proposed by General St. George, C.B., and bored up to 68-pounders; but the experiments failed, the gun having burst after sixty-seven rounds. He found again that two 32-pounders, cast iron blocks, were treated in the same manner and submitted to a trial, and that they also burst after sixty-eight rounds; so that here they had the President of the Committee submitting his invention in cast iron guns to the Committee over which he was called upon to preside. Then he found that Captain Wiseman, Vice President of the Committee, submitted an invention for a new gun-carriage for ships, which received the seal of the Committee; so that the gun-carriage was actually received into
  1218
  the service. One hundred and fifty of them were constructed at Woolwich, and they were tried on board the Excellent and failed. He now came to the Vice President of the present time, Captain Heath, R.N. He, he found, was the inventor of a magnum shell with a large bursting: charge. The shell was tried on 3rd November, 1864; and one shell turned over at a distance of 434 yards from the muzzle of the gun, and the remainder were unsteady, and the experiment was regarded as a failure. Now, he did not blame those officers for trying their experiments at the public expense. It was quite natural they should do so if they were permitted; because, if they succeeded, they gained all the honour and glory of the trial, while if they failed the expense was borne by the country. It was not, however, only as individuals that the Committee were inventors. The Committee itself bad invented a gun which was brought forward as the gun of the Ordnance Select Committee. The public had heard very little of it—it was proved, but had been heard of no more—but he had been curious enough to examine into the matter. He had procured a description of the gun from an artillery officer of high rank. That description was as follows:—
  "The Select Committee gun weighs 82 cwt. 1 qr.; length, 9·5–12; calibre, 7·1 in.; spiral not known; grooves, 15, 0·73 in. wide by 0·5 in. deep; charge, 16lb.; shell, a compound of steel, cast iron, and lead; body cylindrical, of cast iron, inclosing a steel core; head, hemispherical, false; lead outside all; bottom of shell secured with a wooden sabot like Bashley Britten's. Altogether, it appears to combine the worst properties of many inventors' shells without their corresponding advantages. It produced no effect on the target."
  He would presently refer to another gun which had been produced by the Committee; but before he entered into what they were about at the present moment, it would be necessary that he should advert to the present state of our naval armaments, which, be regretted to find, were in a more uncertain and doubtful condition than they were when he last addressed the House on the subject a few months since. Now, what were the modern guns which they possessed at the present time? They knew that they possessed 1,000 of those fine-groove breech-loading guns commonly called the Armstrong 110-pounders; but these guns, they were lately given to understand, were not deemed suitable for naval purposes, and were to be superseded by a new 64-

  1219
  pounder shunt gun. It was perfectly true that at the commencement of the present year these new 64-pounder shunt guns were sent on board the ships of Her Majesty's fleet; but they now heard that these guns in their turn (150 only of them having been completed) were to be superseded by a new gun, to be called the Woolwich gun—a gun totally different in principle from either of the others, and admitted to be so far imperfect that the depth and width of the grooves of the rifling, or the gaining, or even the twist, had not yet been decided upon. With reference to the introduction of the shunt gun into the service and its discontinuance, he found the following remarks in The Mechanics' Magazine, and, from the information he had received, he believed it to be perfectly correct. The statement was to the following effect:—
  "The shunt gun has been definitively abandoned, and no large guns will for the future be rifled on that principle. The 64-pounders which have so very recently been finished and issued to the Royal Navy have utterly failed on trial on board ship. The shot with the hollow head did not travel in a straight course, and were found to break up on impact, or even by a fall upon the ship's deck. The intention now is to make a new shot, which is to be hollow in the rear. The shells from this naval 64-pounder have been found to burst prematurely in the gun, and in one gun on board the Excellent the rifling was entirely destroyed from this cause. A second gun was also seriously damaged by a similar premature explosion of the shell. The rifling of the French gun, which has a gaining twist, has been strongly recommended by the Ordnance Select Committee for naval guns. The Committee, however, state that it will be necessary to introduce sundry modifications, which it is now engaged in carrying out, previously to applying the system to the naval guns of 7, 8, and 9-in. bore, weighing 6½, 8, and 12½ tons respectively. The new gun, constructed according to the Committee's modifications of the French rifling, is to be called the Woolwich' gun. This, then, is the present position of matters in this respect, a position which speaks so plainly for itself as to render more than superfluous any comment on our part."
  That state of things was, he thought, sufficiently alarming for the British taxpayer, even if regarded simply as a question of present money payment; but when it was borne in mind how great was the confusion which was thus being introduced into our armaments, it would, he thought, be considered high time to inquire how such sudden changes in the opinions of those to whom those important matters were intrusted had been brought about. What, he would ask, was this Woolwich gun? Who were its inventors? Hon. Members were all aware who invented the finely
  1220
  grooved breech-loader, and the shunt gun, the Whitworth, the Lancaster, and various others; but of the new Woolwich gun they absolutely knew nothing, except that it was recommended to the naval service by the Ordnance Select Committee to rival all others on this principle. They had no information with respect to this gun except that it was put forward and recommended by that Committee which they had been told by the Government did not invent, and which the public believed to be sitting in calm and unbiassed judgment upon the inventions and systems recommended by others. Now, everybody knew how fond inventors were of their own productions, and it would, he was sure, be admitted that they were the last persons to be relied upon for a fair opinion upon the works of their own brain. But that did not appear to be the view taken of the subject by the Government, for they seemed to think that inventors must naturally be the best judges of their own inventions. He would, with the permission of the House, give an example of the injustice to which the system which prevailed naturally led, and of the evils which must result from it should it be continued. For the last twelve months it appeared that the Admiralty had been very urgent in their demands on the Ordnance Select Committee to be furnished with a gun rifled upon the most approved principles for the naval service. The Ordnance Committee were, unfortunately, nil abroad, and could not make up their own minds as to which system was the best. They had many systems before them, but they could not come to any definite decision as to which it was most desirable to choose. At last, being strongly pressed by the Admiralty, they determined to have a competition between the different guns under their consideration, and of that competition he held in his hand the printed programme. From that programme he found the trial was to be one between four guns rifled on four different principles. They were to be 7½ tons weight, 7-in. calibre, wrought-iron guns, which were of the size sometimes called 120-pounders, and were to be fired with five different projectiles. The guns consisted of the Scott gun, the Lancaster gun, the Bashley Britten gun, and the early pattern French gun. The Bashley Britten gun was soon withdrawn from the contest, because it was found to be incapable of standing the heavy charge of 25lb. Subsequently the shunt gun was introduced; and the competition com-

  1221
  menced and was carried up to a certain point, when it was suddenly stopped—no one knew why or wherefore. Up to that point Captain Scott's was the winning gun. It appeared, however, some of the Committee thought they saw that by uniting the principles of two of the systems under trial they might produce a gun of their own which would suit their purpose. They accordingly had a gun constructed adopting in its construction two of the principles of the guns brought under their notice. That was the second production of a Committee which the House was told did not invent, but which was not, at the same time, above adopting the inventions of others and bringing them forward as their own. A few hasty and very imperfect experiments were made with the new gun, but no official report had been made with respect to it. An account, however, of the competition was given in The Engineer newspaper, which was the ablest paper in the world on such a subject. From that account he would read the following extract:—
  "In our last week's impression we gave a table of the ranges of the 7-in. competitive guns, supplied by the President of the Ordnance Select Committee. These ranges were the most favourable for the French gun, its shot having been fired with only 20lb. charges, which their zinc studs could withstand, but when the full powder charge of 25lb. was used the studs were partially sheared off, and the shot, consequently, had a very erratic flight. The loading of the French gun was likewise difficult—so much so that the Committee cut off the rear stud to facilitate the operation, which had, however, the effect of making the shooting still more inaccurate, and they then reduced the size of the buttons. It was at this period that the special correspondent of the Standard, who had been favoured with the ranges, &c., of the 7-in. competitive guns, reported that the French gun was virtually hors de combat, and the contest now laid between the Scott and Lancaster guns. At this point of the competition, when the victory seemed to be secured to the former gun, from its superior facility of loading and its great advantage in round ball firing, the Committee again interposed, and this time entirely broke through the rules of their own printed programme, introducing, as they themselves state, a complete alteration in the 'arrangement of the studs'—the metal was changed from zinc to gunmetal, the smaller stud was placed in front, and the larger one behind; both were attached in a different manner.' Had the inventive faculty of the Committee stopped here this change would still have been a clear breach of faith; but, having once commenced to make alterations, they now went much further, and used the experience already obtained from Commander Scott's well-known plan of loading and centring, and applied it to their new projectiles for the French gun. This plan, so much commended in the work of Mr. A. Holley, U.S.A., consists in keeping the body
  1222
  of the projectile clear of the bore of the gun, so that the shot readily loads upon a narrow bearing in the rifle groove, which is rounded to such a curve that the shot may rise up into the centre of the gun on the first pressure of the elastic fluid in firing."
  If this statement were correct, it was obvious that the Committee had constructed their gun by adapting the system of Captain Smith to the French gun. Was this fair or honourable to inventors? It was bad enough to steal a man's purse; it was worse to steal the produce of his brains and to bring it before the world as your own. It was perfectly monstrous if this gun had emanated from the Ordnance Select Committee, or had been arranged under their superintendence, that they should be the judges of its value. That this Committee were not above the average of humanity was, he thought, proved by this startling fact—that although they had made a report on the accuracy of the shooting of this gun, under exceptional conditions as regarded actual warfare, they neglected to mention that this accuracy was accompanied by a rapid deterioration of the grooves of the gun, and that the gun was already, after the short trial to which it had been exposed, fissured or split in a very dangerous manner. That was a statement which the noble Lord might verify if he thought proper. He must, however, protest against this or any other gun being introduced into the service until it had received a fair trial before Judges who had not prematurely pronounced upon its merits.
  He would now turn to another subject—namely, the advice given by the Committee to the Secretary of State for War, which, it was stated, the noble Lord had accepted, and which, if carried out, would be very costly to the country. The Ordnance Select Committee had decided that the name of the 110lb. Armstrong gun should be changed, and that the gun should henceforth be called the 7-inch gun; they recommended that the weight of the projectile should be reduced from 110lb. to 90lb., and that the charge should be reduced from 14lb. to 10lb. Such a change involved the loss of all the existing projectiles that had been purchased at an enormous cost—not only those in this country, but also those in the colonies, and the immense quantity in store in Woolwich. It was also stated that60,000 projectiles of the new pattern had been ordered. The House was probably not aware of the cost of one of these

  1223
  110lb. projectiles. He did not pretend to fathom the mysteries of Woolwich accounts, but the charge made at Elswick was 25 s. for each projectile. Assuming that they could be manufactured for considerably less at Woolwich, the cost of the charge would nevertheless be enormous. If the money were spent in new guns, the country would have something for its money; but here was a worthless gun rendered inefficient by the charge being reduced from 14lb. to 10lb. What would be the use of the Armstrong gun to the navy with this reduced powder and charge? It might be useful for land service, but not for the navy. It was admitted that the First Lord of the Admiralty was answerable for the guns supplied to the navy. Why did not the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) take the responsibility upon himself instead of throwing it upon the Ordnance Select Committee? The noble Duke was well aware of the requirements of navy guns, which greatly differed from those used on land. There were three requirements for a naval gun—simplicity, facilities for loading, and the power of using round spherical projectiles in addition to the projectile appropriate to the gun. They might have had a gun embracing all these requirements, but the proposal was not listened to by the Ordnance Select Committee. The first Lord of the Admiralty was a man of ability and great experience—he had a knowledge of the subject, and he was surrounded by the ablest advisers at the Admiralty—men much more able than the members of the Ordnance Select Committee. Above all, the First Lord was unprejudiced. Why should not the Duke of Somerset take this question into his own hand, and decide upon the rifling as well as the description of gun required by the navy? If he would do so, he (Mr. Baillie) felt persuaded that he would not only give satisfaction to the service, but also to the people of this country, who had so long and so patiently waited for the Ordnance Select Committee to make up their minds, when it was known that it was absolutely necessary that some good gun should be obtained.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he had taken the liberty a few weeks ago of asking the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War whether the trial between the French gun and the shunt gun had been made under circumstances favourable to a fair comparison. The noble Lord replied that such questions were very inconvenient, and that
  1224
  he (Mr. Peacocke) ought to take an early opportunity of stating what ground existed for any suspicion of unfairness on the part of the Ordnance Select Committee. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie) had relieved him from the necessity of going further into the matter; but he would now give the noble Lord precise reasons for believing that the comparison had not been fairly conducted. The shunt gun was placed on a fixed iron platform; the French gun on an elastic if not rackety wooden one. The shunt gun was given at the muzzle just one-half the windage given to the French gun. Lastly, the bore of the shunt gun was tapered, while that of the French gun was cylindrical throughout its length. He thought that unless the noble Lord was prepared to controvert these statements the House would admit that he had been justified in asking the question of which the noble Lord had complained. The best proof of the fact that some of the members of the Ordnance Select Committee were inventors was one of their own rules, which set forth that members of the Committee should not sit upon their own inventions. This showed that a great departure had taken place from the principle upon which the Committee had been nominated, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, when he appointed the Committee, stated that one of the fundamental principles of its action would be that no Member of the Committee should himself be an inventor.

ARMY—MILITARY CHAPLAINS IN NEW ZEALAND.—QUESTION.
COLONEL HERBERT, in rising to ask the Question of which he had given notice, said, that during the war in New Zealand the reinforcements of troops sent out brought up the total to 10,000 men. There was only one chaplain of the Church of England with them, and the Bishop of New Zealand volunteered the services of himself and several of his clergy. They performed that duty, it was needless to say, most efficiently. But as it was somewhat inconvenient, not to say derogatory, to these clergymen that they should be indebted for their food and the forage of their horses to the hospitality of officers, whenever they visited the camp, representations were addressed to the Secretary of State, who immediately sanctioned the issue of the pay and allowances attached to the office of acting mili-

1225
tary chaplains. But, by an Order dated February, 1865, stated to have been issued in consequence of a letter from Lord de Grey, all these clergymen were turned off by General Cameron without a days' notice. He trusted that this Order had arisen from a misconception of the instructions conveyed in Earl de Grey's second letter, since it was wholly opposed to the spirit of his former despatch. The House, he believed, would agree with him that our troops, scattered as they were, ought not to be left without the advantage of clerical superintendence, wherever this could be obtained; and also that clergymen giving their services to the army, ought not to be expected to act gratuitously. He therefore begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether any instructions have been sent to General Cameron which have induced him to withdraw from the Clergymen acting as Chaplains to the Troops the pay and allowances given them while performing duty with the Troops; what number of Clergymen had been drawing such pay and allowances at any one time; what number of Military Chaplains of the Church of England are serving in Now Zealand, and the number of troops now there; and whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the House any instructions bearing upon the subject?
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that having acted for two years on the Select Committee, the difficulty and doubt which he had always felt was as to the person responsible for the adoption of any particular arm. During the past few years serious mistakes had been made, both as regarded small arms and ordnance; but one might almost defy any person to say who was responsible for these mistakes. What was needed was the guiding hand in this branch of expenditure. In the navy, if defective ships were built, there was a Constructor who could be blamed or superseded; but in the army there was no corresponding official. In former times the Master General of the Ordnance was responsible for the Vote for small arms and big guns; but the noble Lord would hardly say that the present Director General of Ordnance was responsible for the selection of any particular arm. As regarded the Select Committee, questions were no doubt submitted to them for their opinion, but they were not entitled to make suggestions.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the question of responsibility just raised by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire had been fully discussed on the last occasion, when the subject of heavy ordnance was before the House, and it was then agreed on all hands that the Secretary of State for War, and no one else, was responsible to the House for the adoption of any gun or system of ordnance. The functions of the different offices enumerated by the hon. Member were perfectly defined. The Select Committee was a consultative body, principally charged with carrying out such experiments as were necessary to ascertain the merits of the different inventions, and to make reports for the guidance of the Secretary of State. These reports were made to the Director of Ordnance, to whom also, in the first instance, the proposals of all inventors relating to improvements in ordnance were referred. The Director of Ordnance was the adviser of the Secretary of State, and was held responsible by him to a considerable extent for the advice which he gave; but the responsibility of making any change, or of deciding upon any new system, rested, as far as that House was concerned, finally and solely on the Secretary of State himself.
With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Baillie), he would not follow the hon. Member into all his details. The complaint of the hon. Gentleman against the Select Committee was two-fold—that in defiance of what had been stated by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and himself, the Committee were inventors; and that they had not carried out the competition as to the 7-inch gun in a fair and satisfactory manner. As to the first of these allegations, he was not aware that the gallant General had ever stated that no Member of the Select Committee should bring forward any invention of his own, or that any positive rule had been laid down prohibiting the Members of the Committee from being inventors. No doubt, their functions were not inventive; but if any of the members were in a position to suggest any useful improvement or important alteration, the regulation seemed an absurd one that would debar them from doing so. The hon. Gentleman, after considerable research, had only brought forward two cases—he said that General St. George had invented a rifled gun, and that another Member of the Committee had invented a new gun-carriage, which had

1227
been adopted. He was not in a position to say whether the inventions by Members of the Committee had been correctly described in those two instances; but if, during the seven years or more that the Committee had exercised their functions, those were the only cases that could be adduced, the Committee certainly had not been an inventing body to any great extent. The hon. Member also stated that the Select Committee had invented a gun. The facts simply were that Mr. Bashley Britten and Mr. Jeffrey having brought forward different systems of projectiles for rifled guns, without having proposed any special gun to give them, it seemed to the Committee unnecessary to have two guns to try the different systems. One gun, therefore, was prepared capable of testing these different projectiles; there was nothing peculiar about it, but as it could not correctly be called the Bashley Britten gun or the Jeffrey gun, it was called by the name of the Select Committee, and it was used solely for trying these two kinds of projectiles. A more important point appeared to be the manner in which the competition between the 7-inch guns had been conducted; and, perhaps, it would have been well had the hon. Gentleman postponed his observations on that point, until the Report of the Select Committee which had been moved for was produced. So far from departing from the conditions laid down in the printed programme, he believed they had not done so in any instance. The 22nd Article said—
"The Committee reserve to themselves full latitude in the use of this second 100 rounds to fire them in such a way as to bring out the strong or weak points of any one of the systems in such a manner as they judge best calculated to answer the purpose of this inquiry—namely, which of these five systems of projectiles and four systems of rifling is to be preferred, and to determine whether any one of them is to be recommended for further trial or adoption."
The Committee in other respects laid down very stringent conditions, which had been scrupulously adhered to, as to the way in which the competition was to be conducted. The hon. Member said that up to a certain point the competition was entirely in favour of Commander Scott. But when the Report should be laid upon the table the hon. Gentleman would see that he was completely in error in that statement. The hon. Member said that another gun was then introduced in which the different merits of the different systems which had been proved by experience were adopted, and that was
1228
done for the purpose of competing with Commander Scott's gun. Where the hon. Gentleman had got his information he could not say, but he could assure the House that no alteration whatever had been made in any one of the guns from the time that the competition originally begun. The complaint which Commander Scott made against the Committee was that they refused to allow him to make certain alterations which would add to the efficiency of his gun. But the Committee were willing to allow him or any of the competitors to make any alterations which appeared reasonable, and which would not clearly prolong the time within which the competition should take place; but they were not willing that such alterations should be made as would necessarily take too long a time and seriously delay the trial. Besides, this competition was not ordered with a view of enabling competitors to work out by experiments a good system of rifling. The object of the Committee was to test five different systems, each of which had been so far tried by experience as to have assumed at least, in some respects, the characteristics of a complete system of rifling. The hon. Member had asked what was this Woolwich gun. He would explain that. In the course of the competition the Committee recommended that a system which had not been brought forward by any inventor in England should also be tried. That was a system of rifling on the French principle, and the gun rifled upon that system was what the hon. Member thought fit to designate as the gun of the Select Committee. But the Select Committee had no sort of interest in that gun, except that knowing it had been adopted by the French Government they thought it desirable that the system upon which it was rifled should be tested in comparison with the other systems. The only alteration which was made and which the article of the programme to which he referred fully admitted, was the alteration in the position of the sights on the French gun. That alteration consisted solely in reversing the position of the large and small sights, but no alteration whatever was made which effected the general principles of the system. As to the assertion of Commander Scott, that the Committee adopted his plan of centring the shot, the Committee entirely denied that Commander Scott had any right whatever to what he now claimed as his invention of this principle of centring the shot. In his

1229
first communication to the Government, I Commander Scott described his system of centring the shot as very analogous to Mr. I Whitworth's, and, as the Committee had shown, the very system which Commander Scott claimed as his own had been in use among some of the oldest inventors; and they further expressed a strong doubt whether this mysterious operation of centring the shot ever took place at all.
With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) he (the Marquess of Hartington) certainly did say that it was extremely inconvenient that matters involving the character of the Select Committee should be brought forward in the form of a question, inasmuch as within the limits of an answer it was not possible that a satisfactory explanation could be given. The hon. Member stated, that in the competition which took place one gun was fired from a wooden platform and the other from an iron platform. That fact might have given some advantage during part of the trial to one gun over the oilier, but if the hon. Member had not been so precipitate in asking the question the error might have been corrected, for it was intended by the Committee to do what was ultimately done—to change the gun from one platform to the other. The hon. Member stated that the shunt gun had less windage allowed than the French gun. That might be accounted for in this way. The first supply of shot to these guns was ordered to be made with a smaller windage than the second and third supplies, in order to bring out as fully as possible all the best qualities of the gun. It was obvious that the smaller the windage the greater the accuracy, and it was probable that the shunt gun was fired with shot from the first supply, while the French gun was fired with shot from the third. As he had said before, the Select Committee had no interest whatever in I these guns beyond what everybody had in securing a good system of rifling for the guns of the service. Neither did the Committee claim any merit whatever as inventors of the French gun, and although it was true, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, that they recommended that the guns now rifling should be rifled on what was called the Woolwich system, that was simply and solely because the results obtained by that system had been considerably superior to those of any other system. He believed there was no other point brought forward by the hon. Member upon which an answer
1230
was required. It was a matter of great consequence that the trial in so important an affair should be conducted in the fairest possible manner. No one had any ground for stating that the Committee had shown any favour whatever to any of the competitors, and he was quite certain that they had shown none whatever for what was called the French system, but was now denominated the Woolwich principle of rifling.
With respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Herbert) he was not aware that any Orders had been sent out to General Cameron on the subject of chaplains, except an Order in October, 1863. There was at that time a very large number of officiating chaplains employed with the forces, and General Cameron was informed that Lord de Grey was desirous of reducing the number. At the date of the last Returns for the quarter ending the 31st of December, 1864, there were in the colony five Church of England, six Roman Catholic, and five Presbyterian officiating clergymen, in addition to the commissioned chaplains of the forces, of whom there were two Church of England, two Roman Catholic, and one Presbyterian. He had no knowledge of any such order as that attributed to General Cameron having been issued by him; but if issued, it had been under a misapprehension of the order of the Secretary of State. It would be seen that some reduction had been made, but General Cameron had full authority to employ as many clergy as he might consider necessary.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

AZEEM JAH (SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS.)—COMMITTEE.
Order for Consideration of Report read.
MR. HENNESSYpresented a petition from Mr. G. M. Mitchell on this subject, and moved that it he read by the Clerk at the table.
Whereupon a Petition of George Morris Mitchell, praying for further inquiry before another Committee, composed of Members not having previously sat upon this inquiry, brought up, and read.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, the House would remember that the Committee which had inquired into this subject

1231
reported that George Morris Mitchell, together with Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. Mitchell having presented a petition asking for a further opportunity of defence, the House directed that the Report should be re-committed, and that this opportunity should be afforded him. In the course of the former inquiry the expert delivered in a list of forged names. The Committee had summoned before them the whole number of twenty-seven persons named in the list referred to in Mitchell's petition. Of these nineteen attended and stated that they were in total ignorance of the petition and gave no authority for their signatures. The expert stated that he saw no reason to alter or modify his evidence. But, independently of the expert, a clear breach of privilege was established by the evidence of Mr. Graham. Mitchell acknowledged that Mr. Graham's signature was in his handwriting, but said he wrote it by that gentleman's authority. Mr. Graham, however denied that he had ever given such authority, and that up to the time of his appearance before the Committee, he was in ignorance that his name had been signed to the petition; and his evidence, so far from being shaken, was strengthened when confronted with Mitchell. Throughout the whole inquiry Mitchell received every indulgence. They granted adjournments to him on two separate occasions, in order that he might bring up witnesses; in one case they procured him a Speaker's summons; and in another they allowed him the expenses of a witness from Manchester. But the result of the fresh inquiry and the examination of witnesses was that a clear case was established against the three persons charged with this breach of privilege. By a majority of seven to one the Committee resolved that they—
"See no reason to alter or qualify their report already made to the House, and are satisfied upon the whole of the evidence laid before them, and upon their own renewed and repeated personal inspection of the several documents and signatures forming part of that evidence, that the said George Morris Mitchell has wilfully affixed a great number of fictitious signatures to several of the petitions in question, without the knowledge or authority of the persons purporting to have signed those petitions; and that the said George Morris Mitchell, as your Committee have before reported, has therein been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."
The Committee also resolved as to Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, that they saw no reason to alter or qualify their Re-
1232
port respecting those persons. The Committee had not the power of examining witnesses on oath, and had not the assistance of counsel, but they had endeavoured to find the facts to the best of their ability. It was now for the House to determine what further steps were necessary in order to protect its own privileges. The Committee had no wish to press on these persons with undue severity, but they felt that, if this House was not to be trifled with in the matter of petitions, such a breach of privilege as had been committed here could not be allowed to remain unpunished. In accordance with precedent the course for the House to pursue would, he believed, be to accept the finding of the Committee and direct that Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant for the committal of George Morris Mitchell to Newgate, and that Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The hon. Member concluded with his Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That George Morris Mitchell, having fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, and having knowingly procured other fabricated signatures to such Petitions, has been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should have anticipated that the Attorney General would have favoured the House with his opinion on a question of such importance. It was remarkable that Mr. Strutt, who got up the petitions, paying a penny per head for each signature, had never been mentioned by the hon. Member. Mr. Strutt not only paid for the signatures, but was fully cognizant of the fact that the signatures were fictitious. Those petitions were presented to the House by the instigation of Strutt, and he knew they were forged, for a letter was produced from him before the Committee, in which he expressed, some time before the petitions were presented, his doubts as to the genuineness of the signatures. And yet his name was altogether omitted by the hon. Member for Walsall. Mitchell all along expressed his desire to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, but in the second Committee he was again refused the opportunity. Again and again he had expressed a wish to ask Mr. Strutt some questions, but he was not allowed. Hon. Members would see that by turning to the evidence, and at question 2,136 they would see how the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) was stopped by the Committee

1233
when he was proceeding to put some questions to Mr. Strutt on Mitchell's behalf. But it was not only the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) who said that the Committee was condemned; the Attorney General said the report of the petitioner must not be sent back, as it would be a reflection on the Committee. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never said anything of the kind.] Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had been hardly treated, for all the daily press concurred in attributing expressions to him to that effect. When the last Report of the Committee was presented and the hon. Member for Walsall proposed to commit Mitchell to Newgate, the House appeared unanimously of opinion that they had been too hasty in their decision, and especially in not allowing Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt. They ordered the Committee to re-consider their proceedings; but notwithstanding that, the Committee still refused to allow Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt. When the Committee met again Mr. Netherclift, the expert, was recalled and admitted that he had made a mistake about one signature and that he was puzzled about another—curious admissions for an expert to make. It was no wonder that he was puzzled, for he had never seen Mitchell write, and he only judged by comparison of handwriting. He was handed certain receipts and other documents, and told that they were in Mitchell's handwriting, and from looking at them he formed his judgment as to the forged signatures. But Mitchell produced three or four witnesses, who had known Mitchell for twenty years and who had often seen him write, and they swore most positively that the signatures were not in his handwriting. Mitchell himself supported this evidence by handing in a statutory declaration denying what he was charged with. The only evidence on the other side was that of Netherclift, who admitted that he had been mistaken and puzzled. As to the receipt which was said to be in Mitchell's handwriting, it was proved satisfactorily that it was not. The man who actually signed it was produced, and Mitchell's medical man, who told the Committee that at that time Mitchell had broken his finger, and was totally unable to sign his name. The hon. Member for Finsbury in the Committee had moved a Resolution, which was a great deal more in accordance with the justice of the case
1234
than that of the hon. Member opposite, to the effect that though if they had been sitting as magistrates they might have been justified in committing Mitchell for trial, yet acting both as Judge and jury they were not justified in returning a verdict of guilty. He himself had refused to attend the second Committee, because on the previous occasion most of the hon. Members of the Committee had expressed their opinion of Mitchell's guilt, and he thought that it was rather hard upon the man that he should be re-tried by persons who had already pronounced a verdict. Under all the circumstancs, seeing that Mitchell had not been allowed to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, that most of the evidence had been taken behind his back, that many questions had been asked which would never be allowed in a Court of Justice, and that none of these charges could ever have been proved in a Court of Justice, he hoped the House would not press its privileges to the length which was proposed by the hon. Member opposite. The man who paid for the signatures and who distributed among the Members petitions to which were affixed signatures which he knew were fictitious, he was passed over, and his agent was to be punished by that House. He trusted the House would not take that unfortunate course.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was no class of cases with which it was more painful to deal than such as were exemplified in the present instance. But the House owed an imperative duty to itself and to its Committees not to be deterred by any disinclination from asserting and vindicating its rights and privileges. The very tone adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hennessy) seemed to make it more incumbent on the House, unless it believed that its Committee had exceeded their duty, to mark its sense of the practices into which the Committee was appointed to inquire. Every one knew that no Committee except an Election Committee had power to administer oaths; but that was no reason why the House should abdicate its own powers. Of course the examination before a Committee was not and could not be conducted with the technical strictness of a Court of Law; but still the House was able to judge of the real merits of the case presented to it, and if they saw the substance of a case made out it was bound to vindicate its privileges. Then, what was the case before the House? He dis-

1235
sented from the statement that, by referring the matter back to the same Committee, the House intended in the slightest degree to reflect upon the manner in which the Committee had discharged their duty. There was no distrust of the Committee, and there could be none. Upon that Committee was the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) who was the earnest advocate of the claims of Azeem Jah, but who, of course, would not consent to throw his shield over any improper practices. The other Members of the Committee took great pains to perform their duty, and as they found that Mitchell was only trifling and fencing with them, and feeling satisfied that they had ample and sufficient evidence, they closed their proceedings, and presented the results of their inquiry to the House. It was now for the House to consider what its duty was, comparing the points upon which there were doubts with those parts of the case which were undoubtedly proved. Mr. Mitchell, who from his antecedents as a servant of that House, was well acquainted with its practices and proceedings in the matter of petitions, undertook, for pay, the getting up of a considerable number of petitions concerning the case of Azeem Jah. That there had been systematic fraud and forgery in the getting up of those petitions was proved beyond all doubt. Many persons proved that their names had been forged, and at the last inquiry Mr. Mitchell cited four persons, who were not involved in the charges, to support his statements. Those persons, however, all proved that their names had been forged; and although it was not proved who was the forger, yet, as the petitions came through Mr. Mitchell and his associates, Marshall and Whitehead, if they were not parties to the systematic and audacious fraud, Mitchell might have assisted the Committee in finding out the agents who had deceived him. There was also a Mr. Graham, at whose office Mitchell had been in the habit of calling, who declared that his signature had been forged. He was examined in the absence of Mitchell in the first instance; but upon the last inquiry the two were confronted, and Mr. Graham again stated, and professed his readiness to swear in a court of justice, that he had not signed his name to the petition, and that he had given no authority to any one to do so for him. Mitchell did not deny that the signature was not Mr. Graham's, but declared that he
1236
had authority from that gentleman to sign his name to the petition. The question resolved itself into one of authority; and Mr. Graham, upon the second inquiry, repeated, in a manner which added to his credibility, that he had given no authority. He further said, if he had been asked to sign the petition he would have done so. But, in fact, the parties engaged in these transactions were so reckless that they would not take the trouble of asking persons to sign, even where there was no prospect of refusal. The Committee had unanimously decided that the signature in that case was forged, and he could not see any reason why the House should be dissatisfied with their opinion. The fact that the name of Graham was written by Mitchell was not in controversy, because that it was so was admitted by Mr. Mitchell himself. Other names, too, were proved to be forgeries, because the persons themselves, on being summoned, stated that they had neither signed the petitions nor authorized any one else to sign for them. The question, then, was, by whom were the signatures forged? No doubt Mr. Mitchell brought forward his accomplices to prove that the forged signatures were not in his handwriting; but they did not in any way show by whom they were written, as they might undoubtedly have done if they had chosen. The Committee had, moreover, the evidence of their own eyes, which he believed, in cases of this kind, went further than anything else with Judges and juries. Under these circumstances, he could not see why the House should hesitate to act upon the Report of the Committee. Now, one word as to Mr. Strutt. He had taken a part in this affair, which he (the Attorney General) should be very sorry to speak of with approbation; and, indeed, he was not quite sure whether he had not committed a breach of the privileges of the House, but he thought that the Committee had taken the safer course in holding that no actual breach of privilege had been proved against him. It seemed that he had written a letter expressing his doubt of the genuineness of these petitions which he afterwards presented; and no doubt his conduct was highly censurable. The guilt or innocence of Mitchell, however, was not at all involved in the case of Mr. Strutt; it was not pretended that Mr. Strutt forged the petitions or had any control over them after they were in Mitchell's hands. On the first occasion Mitchell cross-examined Strutt; but on the second occasion he said

1237
that he did not want to trouble him to come. [Mr. HENNESSY: Subsequently he asked for his attendance.] He said he wanted to ask him a question, but the question could not have had anything to do with his defence, or he would not have stated before, that he did not want to trouble him to come. He could not, therefore, see any reason why the House should refuse to act upon the Report of the Committee.
MR. COXwas anxious to say that each Member of the Committee had been most desirous to do justice to all the persons involved in the inquiry, and if he had had the misfortune to differ with the rest of the Committee, it was not because they were less anxious than himself to arrive at a proper decision. There could not be the slightest doubt that many of the signatures attached to the petitions were forgeries, but that fact in itself would not be sufficient to convict a man in a Court of Justice. For that reason he had thought it his duty to move in the Committee the Resolution referred to by the hon. Member for the King's County. There was, undoubtedly, strong primâ facie evidence to show that one or other of the parties concerned forged signatures to the petitions, and the only question was as to who was guilty. When the Committee made their first Report he was inclined to believe in the guilt of George Morris Mitchell; but as they proceeded with the evidence he came to believe that Mr. Powell Marshall had, more probably, committed the forgeries. The writing of both those persons was so much alike that it was impossible to perceive any difference in them. Mr. Netherclift himself had to acknowledge that he had made a mistake upon this point. The handwritings having so much resemblance Mr. Netherclift picked out signatures which, in his judgment, he said, were written by Mr. Mitchell. In that opinion he did not concur, for he thought that they were written by Mr. Marshall, and therefore, feeling himself in the position of a juryman, he could not concur in convicting Mitchell. He believed it would be better if in cases of this kind the House would not constitute itself into a Court of Justice and send a man to Newgate, where he might be kept four or five weeks, but would commit him for trial to the Old Bailey, where if forgery were proved, he would receive a lengthened imprisonment, which he would have richly deserved. It was clearly proved before the Committee
1238
that these petitions were delivered in blank to those persons in the commencement of the month of January, and that they remained in their possession only two or three days. After the signatures had been attached to them they were delivered to Mr. Strutt. The petitions were not given to Members for presentation till the beginning of March. Would any jury convict of forgery where the document had been three months out of the possession of the party charged, where there was no evidence to show how many signatures were attached to the petition when it left his hands, and how many it bore when placed by Strutt in the hands of Members?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There was evidence as to the number of signatures paid for.
MR. COX: But there was no evidence to show the exact number the petitions bore. Two petitions were divided into three. The Attorney General laid great stress on the case of Graham, who stated that he had neither signed the petition nor authorized his signature to be appended. But another witness called to corroborate that statement gave his evidence in a manner which satisfied his (Mr. Cox's) mind that authority had been given for Graham's name to be signed, although he had forgotten all about it. He would not, by a Resolution of that House, deprive a man of his liberty when a jury would certainly not return a verdict of guilty against him. He did not think that either a Committee upstairs or the Bar of that House was the proper place to try a man for forgery. In his view there was sufficient primâ facie proof against these men to induce the House to send them for trial before a jury, and, if they were found guilty, adequate punishment would be awarded to them; but if they were guilty, and the House sent them to Newgate for four or five weeks, would that be a punishment commensurate with their offence, or befitting the dignity of that House?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that having served upon this Committee from the commencement, he must say that he thought that no Member of it considered the duty of attending a welcome one. The inquiry was extremely tedious and difficult, and one which no one would go through but from a sense of duty. The Members of the Committee had done their duty to the best of their ability, and he was only sorry some Gentlemen were not satisfied with the result. No one could accuse the hon.

1239
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) of unfairness in what he had said in the Committee; but it was to be regretted that he could not bring his mind to a conclusion which had proved irresistible to every other Member of the Committee, including the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) who had had so much experience in legal proceedings. The hon. Member (Mr. Cox), however, was not present during all the time, and the rest of the Committee could not get him to fix his attention sufficiently on the signatures and to examine them for himself. Nothing more was necessary to convince any one than to look closely at the petitions—all other evidence might have been dispensed with—but the hon. Gentleman was by no means disposed to apply that test. The fact that some questions had not been allowed to be put arose from this, that the Committee were anxious that the parties should not criminate themselves. He had great respect for the industry and ability of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), but he must say that in this matter he had not acted fairly towards the Committee nor judiciously with respect to his duty in that House. The hon. Member on the first occasion attended off and on; but when the Committee reassembled he declined to attend; and surely it was neither fair nor usual for an hon. Member who had abstained from attending a Committee of which he was a Member, afterwards, when the Report was brought up, to attack it. The hon. Member had attempted to show that Strutt was equally guilty with Mitchell; there was nothing which could lead the Committee to think so, unless his conduct in hawking about the paper to procure petitions. But the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) said that Strutt was responsible for these petitions; though the fact was that Strutt declined to have anything to do with them, because he saw the signatures to be fictitious, and Mitchell sent them, with a note in his own handwriting, to Members to present them. When Strutt was before the Committee he was not as a witness against Mitchell, but was called for the purpose of showing that Westley Richards was not a sub-agent, and Mitchell declined to have Strutt called. No evidence affecting Mitchell was taken behind his back since the Committee resumed its inquiry. It was said that some Members of the Committee assumed Mitchell's guilt; but the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) ought to refer to
1240
the part of the evidence in which that appeared. However, he (Sir James Fergusson) had reasons before to complain of the hon. Member for not giving the true substance of the references which he made. In no Court of Justice would Mitchell have had the same opportunities for making his defence as he had on the Committee. There were repeated meetings to allow him to produce any one he named as a witness, and that he might not have a shadow of an allegation that he was not given every opportunity. The entire case would have been a trumpery one if the privileges of the House were not concerned in it; but, as a Member of the Committee, he had not the smallest doubt that justice had been done.
MR. BENTINCKregretted that the subject did not attract more attention, and was not discussed with fuller benches. From what he had heard of it he ventured to suggest that there were two morals to be drawn from it. The first was the uncertainty which existed in respect of the petitions. In this instance the fictitious signatures had been discovered; but he ventured to think that this was the exception, and that, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, fictitious signatures to petitions were not discovered. That moral might be drawn in connection with the practice of inundating the House of Commons with petitions. Another and more important moral was to be drawn from the manner in which the House dealt with such questions as this. It appeared to him that the Committee had pursued a course which was not uncommon in that House—they had dealt with the small fry and allowed the big fish to escape. His hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) had told them that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Strutt with misdeeds or immoral practices. According to his hon. Friend, there was nothing in that gentleman's conduct which the Committee had been called upon to investigate. Now, he had taken the trouble to refer to the Order of Reference, from which it appeared that it had been quite within the province of the Committee to deal with Mr. Strutt's proceedings. The reference was—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which, and the parties by whom, the signatures were annexed to the petitions relating to the case of Prince Azeem Jah during the present Session."
The order did not say a word about "fictitious signatures." It was one directing the Committee to inquire into the circum-

1241
stances under which the signatures had been obtained. Well, it had come out that Mr. Strutt had obtained signatures at 1d. a head; and he put it to the House whether, virtually, there was much difference between forging names to a petition and procuring them at 1d. ahead. Why, when the Committee were dealing with Mitchell did they not deal with Strutt? [Mr. CHARLES FORSTER: We censured him.] Oh! they drew a distinction between the man who forged names and the man who paid a penny a head for them. No doubt the Committee were right; but he confessed that his powers of discrimination were not I equal to drawing such a distinction. He must say he thought the proceedings of the Committee were characterized by a want of energy and determination. The hon. Member for Finsbury told them that, as a Member of the Committee, he had felt he was acting as a juryman; and the Attorney General said the Committee had occupied the position of both Judge and jury. It was to be remembered that jurymen were sworn. What did a Judge of one of our courts do before submitting a case to the jury? In the first place he took care that the examination was conducted according to the laws of evidence, and did not permit that kind of desultory cross-questioning which took place before a Committee; and he also took care that the prisoner had the full benefit of counsel and of every available means for his defence. Now, he had it on the high authority of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) that Mr. Mitchell at the last stage of the proceedings appealed to the Committee to be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, who might fairly be looked upon as standing in the position of an accomplice. A Court of Justice would either have given Mr. Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt, or would probably have placed him at the Bar, instead of in the witness-box. But the Committee did neither the one nor the other. They neither allowed Mr. Mitchell to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, nor did they—as they were bound to do by the Order of Reference—inquire into Mr. Strutt's conduct as to the mode of obtaining signatures. All that he wanted—and he believed the feeling was one in which every Englishman would join—was that they should have a certainty that the man who was about to be punished had been found guilty upon sufficient evidence, and that that evidence had been given before a com-
1242
petent tribunal. He contended that neither the tribunal nor the evidence was what it ought to have been, and that the system of cross-examining before Committees reduced the whole thing to a broad farce, and took away all semblance of a Court of Justice. They were about to condemn a man to imprisonment upon evidence not taken upon oath; and if it should come out hereafter that that evidence was untrue, or that direct falsehoods had been asserted, what would be their position? They would have no means of punishing those on whose false evidence they had condemned a man to durance for so many weeks. Was that, he would not say a legal, but a rational mode of proceeding? It might have been sanctioned by the long usage of that House, but it was, nevertheless, at direct variance with justice and common sense. But he maintained, further, that such a course of proceeding would prejudice the position and reputation of the House in the eyes of the country; for, assuming that they consigned a man to durance on a criminal charge, and it subsequently appeared that he had been condemned upon false evidence, they must either admit they had been guilty of an act of gross injustice, or that their whole system was founded upon error. A good many years ago he had the honour to be a Member of what was called a Privilege Committee, which was nominated in consequence of an article that appeared in The Times newspaper. That article reflected in the strongest possible manner upon the character of gentlemen belonging to the sister country—not individually, but collectively. He did not now remember the exact words; but if he had known that that debate was coming on he would have taken care to have had the Report of that Committee in his hand, as he thought it would have strongly supported the view he was attempting to enforce. However, the result of that Committee, which consisted of some twelve or thirteen Members, was that the statement made in The Times was held to be a breach of privilege against that House, as impugning the character of a large number of its Members connected with Ireland, and asserting that they were all corrupt. The charges then investigated turned in many cases upon facts with respect to which they had only answers of "Yes" and "No" for many weeks; and the result was that upon both sides they had pretty nearly the same number of witnesses, the one set declaring a thing

1243
was black, and the other that it wag white. It was in human nature that if there were not certain penalties before men's minds when giving evidence in these cases they would be drawn into a process of evasion, even though they might have no wilful intention to create a false impression.
MR. BONHAM-CARTER, as a Member of the Committee, said, that no doubt there was great difficulty in conducting an investigation of that kind in a Committee exactly as a case would be conducted in a Court of Law; but the Committee had desired to give the fairest trial to those who came before them in the character of accused persons, and no bench of magistrates could have taken more care than they had shown in order that there should be nothing done to prejudice the prisoners. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had stated that Mr. Netherclift, the expert, felt himself puzzled; but why? It turned out that Mitchell employed Marshall to draw cheques in his name and sign receipts for him, and there were certain signatures about which it was difficult to say who was the writer. But there were hundreds of signatures as to which there was not the slightest doubt, and could not be, and which were the signatures of Mitchell and Marshall. He entirely agreed in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir James Fergusson) with regard to the hon. Member for the King's County. The latter hon. Gentleman had commenced by attacking the Committee on Petitions; but if he had only attended a judicial Committee, as he ought to have done, from the beginning to the end, he might at any part of the examination have made the proposals which now came too late from him. Mitchell was told, on the very first day of the proceedings before the Committee, that he might hand in a list of the witnesses he desired should be produced, that he was at liberty to adduce any evidence he might think proper in his own defence, but he declined to avail himself of that permission.
Motion agreed to.
On Question, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the committal of George Morris Mitchell to Newgate,
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the hon. and gallant Member near him (Sir James Fergusson) had indulged in some personal remarks upon his conduct; but he should not occupy the time of the House by
1244
answering them. Notwithstanding the hon. and gallant Member had boasted of his knowledge of law acquired by serving on courts martial, he had put two most improper questions to Mr. Strutt during that person's examination. The questions were in reference to the assumed identity of Mitchell's handwriting with the signatures, and were leading questions strongly tending to extract replies likely to criminate Mitchell. What would be the opinion of the country upon this subject when it heard that the House was going to send a man to gaol upon insufficient evidence? When a somewhat similar case occurred a few years back the person committed to gaol applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and, on the question being argued, Lord Chief Justice Campbell said that the House of Commons was guilty of a gross injustice and a violation of the liberty of the subject when it committed a man to prison, as a writ of habeas corpus was of no avail in such a case. Therefore the House should be careful not to exercise its power of imprisonment except upon the most undoubted proof of the guilt of the accused person. The Attorney General had likened the Committee to a jury; but the jury in this case had not arrived at a unanimous decision, as two of the Members had entirely dissented from the verdict of the majority. In fact, the whole proceeding was contrary to the spirit of the law, and was not likely to meet with the approval or the respect of the country. It would have been far better if the Committee had made a Report to the House on the subject, and that then the House had instituted an inquiry into the conduct of every person implicated in the transaction. When he heard that the matter was to be sent back to the Committee for re-consideration, he declined to serve any longer upon it, as he felt sure that the decision was already determined upon. The real delinquent, Mr. Strutt, had escaped scot free, while the unfortunate man Mitchell had been selected as the scapegoat.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted his remarks fairly. He did not say that he was a master of the law of evidence, but said he had done his best to make himself master of the facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had committed another mistake in having said that Mr. Strutt had uttered the petitions knowing them to be forged. Now, the evidence showed that the officials had received them from the

1245
hands of Mitchell himself. The hon. Member for Norfolk admitted that he had not read the evidence. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County said that two Members of the Committee differed from the others, but only one of them had heard the evidence.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Baronet had construed his admission that he had not heard the evidence into an admission that he was not qualified to give an opinion. What he meant to say was, that if he had read the evidence he should probably have had more to say on the subject. What he contended was, that the proceedings of the Committee were of a most desultory and illegal character. The proceedings of all Committees of the House were of that character. He must enter his strong protest, as a Member of that House, against such an act as they were about to perpetrate—that of consigning a man to prison on evidence not sworn, and on proceedings so irregular and at variance with the practice of the Courts of Justice. If his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Henncssy) divided, as a protest against such a national scandal, he should go into the lobby with him.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not allow to pass unnoticed the very extraordinary language which the House had just heard. The hon. Member's views of law were very extraordinary, if he imagined that the privileges of that branch of the Legislature were not as well established by the law of the land as any other right in the country. It was the law of the land which said that that House had privileges, and the House had its own customary methods of investigating questions which concerned its own duties, in support of its authority, even to the extent of interfering with the liberty of the subject. The custom or law of Parliament was as much law as any other part, even the most sacred part, of the law of the land.
Motion made, and Question put, "That George Morris Mitchell be, for his said offence, committed to Her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."
The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 7: Majority 34.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERthen moved that Powell Marshall, having been concerned with George Morris Mitchell in fabricating signatures to petitions, had
1246
been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of the House, and that he be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that when the hon. Member rose he thought he was going to move that the men whom they tried behind their backs and convicted behind their backs should be hung. The Attorney General might say this was legal; but was it just? These two persons were tried and convicted by a majority of the Committee, and they were now to be taken into custody. He should like to know if they were to be committed to Newgate. These men had been tried privately; the public and the press were not admitted. They were frequently compelled to leave the room, and were condemned without being heard. He considered the whole proceedings discreditable to Parliament and to the country.
MR. COXsaid, he had voted with the minority in the Committee on all occasions, because he did not feel in his conscience that evidence was produced to enable him to find a verdict of guilty against these persons. It was now proposed that one of them should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms—which meant that he was to be kept, boarded, and lodged for the remainder of the Session at the expense of the country, and yet he believed that that one was far more guilty than the man who had already been condemned. These proceedings would not tend to elevate the character of the House, for this House was dealing with men so poor that they had not the means of bringing before the Committee either solicitor or counsel for their defence. These persons were not present during the inquiry into their conduct, there was nothing proved against them, and now they were ordered to be taken into custody. He maintained that the House had no more right than any other Court of Law to inflict punishment until guilt was properly proved, and where there was a doubt the prisoners ought to have the benefit of it.
MR. AYRTONwished the Chairman of the Committee to explain clearly and distinctly the relative degree of guilt of these parties. He did not intend to vote on the question, and thought the Government ought to enjoy the honour and privilege of sending these men to prison. He trusted the rest of the House would take no part in it.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, the Committee regarded Mitchell as the chief offender, and the others as acting under his direction. As to the statement that they were directed to leave the room, they had the fullest opportunity of examining the witnesses and putting any questions to them that they might think desirable.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, the hon. Member had not answered the question asked. He had been asked to state distinctly the difference between the assumed guilt of the two men. In his opinion this proceeding was most discreditable; a private tribunal was opposed to all the principles of English justice, and any man who was tried behind his back should have his sympathy; and he could not understand why, having vindicated the dignity of the House with regard to one supposed offender, they should think it necessary to sacrifice these two also. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was, in his opinion, entitled to a distinct answer to his question—upon what grounds the Chairman of the Committee drew a distinction between the person who was to be committed to Newgate and those who were to be consigned to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that he had already stated most distinctly that the Committee were of opinion that Mitchell was the principal offender, and that the others acted under his instructions.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, having, in consort with George Morris Mitchell, fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, have been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)
The House divided:— Ayes 39; Noes 5: Majority 34.
MR. HENNESSYwanted to know what was to be done with the men when they were committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. A precisely similar punishment had been some years ago inflicted, by order of the House, upon Mr. Strutt, who had been committed to the: custody of the Sergeant at Arms for I forging signatures to a petition. That was the first offence of that man; and when he committed a second offence he was let off without any punishment.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERobserved, that it depended upon the discretion of the
1248
House how long the men would be kept in custody.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that this was the mildest form of proceeding that the House could adopt. If these persons admitted their offence and petitioned the House for their release, the House would no doubt not be indisposed to give, according to its usual practice, a merciful consideration to their petition. If, however, they asserted that they had committed no offence against the privileges of the House, and set themselves in opposition to it, they would remain in custody.
Ordered, That the said Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead be, for their said offence, severally committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SUPPLY considered in Committee:—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £235,583, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, with the permission of the Committee, I will, as usual, state what are the main features of the Vote for which they are now asked. I am happy to be able to state that, although there is an increase in its amount over that of last year, that has arisen from an extension of the system in Ireland and an increase of the number of children who are availing themselves of its advantages. The Vote exceeds that of last year by £8,313; but there are now in Ireland 100 more national schools than there were then, and the number of teachers has proportionately increased. If I review the history of national education in Ireland since the year 1834, in three decennial periods ending 1844, 1854, and 1864, the House will see what is the progress which has been made. In 1834 the number of schools under the national system was 1,106, and the number of pupils upon their rolls 145,521. In the first decennial period from that date—namely, up to 1844—the number of those schools increased to 3,153, and the number of pupils on

1249
the rolls to 395,558. In the decennial period ending 1854 the number of schools rose to 5,178, and the number of pupils to 555,110; while in the last decennial period, from 1854 to 1864, the increase was still more remarkable, the number of schools having risen to 6,263, and the number of pupils to 870,401. It was evident, therefore, that in Ireland the population have availed themselves in an increasing proportion of the present system; and this remark applies not only to the Protestant and Presbyterian portion of it, but also, I am happy to say, to the Roman Catholic. To show to what an extent Roman Catholic children have availed themselves of the advantages of those institutions, I may mention that while in 1861 the Roman Catholic population amounted to 77½ per cent of the total population of Ireland, the Roman Catholic children attending the national schools amounted to 81½ per cent of the total number of pupils, or 4 per cent over and above the relative percentage of the entire population. We have, in the present year, an increase in several of the items in this Vote. As the Committee will observe by a reference to the tables before us, the general summary of the system of national education falls under ten distinct heads, six of which show an increase. There is an increase under the head of District Model Schools amounting to £917. We propose to open in the course of the present year a beautiful model school in Cork, which is just now on the point of being completed. That in Enniskillen was opened last year; in reference to the Cork model school I received a letter today, in answer to a request for information on the subject, to the effect that there was some little delay as to the time of opening, but that the school would be handed over to the Commissioners of education next July. The increase under the head of District Model Schools is for the purpose of opening that establishment, and I trust the population of the important city of Cork will avail themselves of the benefits which it is calculated to confer, as is done in the case of similar schools in other parts of Ireland. This establishment is designed for the accommodation of 400 boys, 250 girls, and 150 infants; in all 800 pupils. The Commissioners state that if it is successful to the extent which they anticipate a very considerable staff of teachers will be required. The staff proposed to be employed will consist of three
1250
principal and three assistant teachers, twelve pupil-teachers, and twelve monitors. Thus much for the causes of the increase under the head of District Model Schools. Under the head of Minor Model Schools the increase is £417. These schools are very numerously attended in different parts of Ireland, and the growing desire of the population to avail themselves of them, and the consequent necessity of having a greater amount of accommodation, is another reason why this Vote is increased. There are seven of these Minor Model Schools in Ireland—the total number of Model Schools being twenty-six—exclusive of those in Dublin; and in those seven schools we find that there were on the rolls, in 1864, 1,642 pupils, whereas in 1863 the number was 1484, and in 1862 only 1,230—thus showng a very satisfactory increase in the attendance. I now come to the salaries of the teachers which, as the Committee will observe, embrace one of the principal items of increase in this Vote—the increase being £10,000. That increase is accounted for in the following way:—Increase in the salaries of teachers, £7,000; of monitors, £2,500; in the charge for singing and drawing, £300; other items, £200—making a total of £10,000. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that last year an animated discussion took place on the subject of monitors. I have no wish now to renew that discussion beyond remarking that the result of the decision then arrived at has been such as fully to answer our expectations. As the Committee is aware, from the year 1845, when monitors were first instituted, up to 1864, no question was raised in Parliament with regard to the monitorial system. Last year, however, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), brought forward the subject in connection with the employment of first-class monitors in certain schools, and I have here a Return moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman who found fault with the system the Commissioners were establishing. This Return shows how the sum of £3,000 for this purpose had been laid out; and I must say that I think it has been most fairly distributed. The hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that these first-class monitors would be given exclusively to what may be called denominational schools; but, according to the Return, it appears that out of 124 only 57 of those monitors have gone to those excellent convent schools which exist through-

1251
out the country. It cannot, I think, be denied, that it is a great advantage to those schools to have the services of first-class monitors in instructing the children, who crowd to them in large numbers; and having looked through the Reports of the Inspectors, I find that all of them, Presbyterians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics, with scarcely an exception, bear testimony to the admirable management of the schools under the control of religious persons. The system having worked so advantageously, the Commissioners now ask for an additional sum of £2,500 with a view to its further extension; and I am sure the Committee will not refuse that sum for the development of the monitorial system, which never until last year was contested in Parliament. I now come to another item in this Vote, in reference to which I wish to offer a few remarks. There is, I regret to say, a reduction in the Vote for the Agricultural Department again this year, to the extent of £224, and I use the word "regret" because it has been always against my wish, and solely in accordance with the desire of Parliament, that, year by year, for the last four years, I have been obliged to urge the Commissioners to reduce this Vote. The Vote includes what is called the Glasnevin School, which has done an immense amount of good. We have used the utmost economy in the maintenance of that establishment, and since I last addressed the House on this subject, the respected chief manager of the instition, Dr. Fitzpatrick, has been obliged to retire. In the Agricultural Vote he hoped there would be no more reduction. Within the last eight years it had been reduced from a sum little short of £10,000 to its present limit of £5,000; that reduction had been contrary to the wish of the Members of the Irish Government, and he hoped the Committee would set their face against any further proposals in a similar direction. In the present state of the House (a very few Members were present), it was unnecessary to make any lengthened statement. He would merely add that the Returns, undoubtedly of much value, obtained last year on the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), had cost the country upwards of £400, owing to the number of additional clerks who had to be employed to prepare them.
MR. MONSELLadmitted that the Agricultural Department, properly carried on—and he admitted that the Glasnevin School was well managed—was calculated
1252
to confer great benefits on the country. But it was notorious that the minor agricultural schools were complete failures throughout Ireland, and all the Commissioners to whom he had spoken agreed that the sooner they were got rid of the better. The Glasnevin Schools, on the contrary, ought to be fostered and encouraged, and he should like to see an acre of ground added, wherever this was practicable, to every ordinary school, in which the elder pupils might receive a certain amount of agricultural instruction from the master. As regarded the proportion paid to monitors in certain schools, it would be desirable to receive a little further explanation from the right hon. Baronet.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he rejoiced to hear that the national education system was bearing good fruit in Ireland. As to the agricultural Votes, it was his experience in Ireland that any agriculturists who were particularly well trained had received their education at Glasnevin. He did not desire, however, to see the district agricultural schools superseded, for he believed that what was good for the metropolis would in time prove to be good for the provinces also. As regarded the suggestion that agricultural training should form a part of the education given in every school, he hardly expected much benefit from it practically, seeing that it was easier to be a good schoolmaster than a good agriculturist, and the combination of these qualities would be rare indeed. The national system of education in Ireland was very good. The excellent character of the education given in the humbler schools was a just source of pride at this moment to Irishmen, but he believed one fact lying at the bottom of much of the emigration constantly going forward was that the people were educated somewhat above their class. The natural result was that they endeavoured to better their condition by going to countries more wealthy and prosperous. He was not one of those who considered emigration such a serious evil to Ireland. Education, however, was attended with other effects, for it had materially increased the tranquillity of the country, and nearly put an end to those agrarian outrages which once were the national disgrace. Faction fighting, also, and other practices only found in countries occupying a low position in the scale of enlightenment, were disappearing. He looked, therefore, on the excellent education which the Irish people were now receiving, coupled

1253
with their natural readiness to avail themselves of all advantages, as one of the most hopeful features in connection with that nation.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he did not desire to oppose the grant to the National Board in the present state of the House. It would not be denied that a Board presided over by Commissioners of high rank and position and administering funds to the amount of £325,000 a year conferred a great amount of good upon the country. Yet he, and those who thought with him, had some reason to complain that a favour was granted to one portion of the population which was denied to another. The Protestant clergy of Ireland were not able, on conscientious grounds, to partake of this grant, and he concurred in their objection. They were bound to instruct their flocks in the Holy Scriptures, and many of them, being men of straitened means, deprived themselves of the comforts of life to support their schools, which ought to receive a portion of this grant. The Protestants of Ireland could not accede to the present system, and the House ought to make such changes as would enable them to participate in the grant. He could not concur in the grant of £2,000 to the teachers in convent schools. In the county of Cork there were nineteen of these convent schools which were receiving that favour from the State which was denied to others on the ground of peculiar teaching. The Return moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, which had been laid upon the table within the last few days, showing the distribution of the £2,000, gave him reason to feel that the apprehension of his hon. and learned Friend with regard to its distribution was correct. One of the Commissioners (he did not know whether he was a Commissioner at the present moment) was strongly opposed to the transfer of popular education to monastic teachers, and another high authority, Mr. Sheridan, stated that in the Killarney district no day school by lay teachers would be tolerated. It happened, however, that a considerable number of Roman Catholics could not be induced to send their children to convent schools, and when the lay schools were abolished they could get no education at all.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Vote, though he could not admit that the increase in the number of pupils was to be accepted as a proof of the success of the
1254
system. It might be accounted for by the fact that the Irish people had no other schools. He was convinced he spoke the opinion of the great majority of the people of Ireland when he said that they were not entirely satisfied with the system. He should not say that he was satisfied that the grant had been increased for the higher class education, because he could not concur in the opinion that it was the duty of the State to provide for the people anything more than an elementary education, or to give an education to those who were able to pay for it for themselves. The increase in the Vote which had been referred to was principally due to the model schools; but he understood that a guarantee had been given by the right hon. Baronet last year that there should be no increase in the grant to these schools. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lefroy) had quoted Mr. Sheridan's authority against the convent schools; but it had been clearly proved in the debate last year that Mr. Sheridan had been under a mistake when he reported, for he admitted that he made his Report without having inspected the schools, and the sub-Inspector who had really inspected them had reported that Killarney possessed ample educational facilities.
MR. HENNESSYagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lefroy) in thinking it a great hardship that the schools connected with the Church Education Society, in which the Bible was taught, should receive no grant. The late Mr. O'Connell subscribed largely to one of the schools of the Society in his neighbourhood, and continued to do so even after the Government grant had been withdrawn. But would his hon. Friend agree with him in thinking that it was a hardship that the schools of the Christian Brothers should receive no grant? Ireland ought to be treated like England, where grants were given to the denominational schools. When the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland and the Catholic clergy were both opposed to the present system, it was strange that Government should take no steps to meet the wishes of those two great bodies. With regard to the convent schools, it had been reported by the Inspectors, many of whom were Protestants, that they were the best in Ireland, and that circumstance was owing to the superior manners and education of the ladies who conducted them. The people of Ireland preferred to send their children to the convent school

1255
because they believed them to be denominational. The best schools in Ireland were the schools of the Church Education Society, of the Society of Friends, and of the Christian Brothers.
MR. DAWSONthought it would be a most unfortunate thing for Ireland if these grants became denominational. Such a change would destroy the whole system of education in Ireland—a system which was gaining on the confidence and affection of the people, and which was likely to be of great advantage to the country. He trusted it would go forth that there was in this House a general concurrence as to the value of the existing system, and that the wish to disturb it was only shared by a email minority.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the convent schools were popular because they contradicted in the most positive and express manner the principles on which the National Board was founded. That principle was to assist schools in which persons of all religions should be taught. This sounded well; but the result of it would be to exclude the religious element from education altogether, which was an impossibility. The convent schools were frequented, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) had said, because everybody knew that religion was taught there. Having assisted the convent schools, how could the Government justify the refusal even of a book to the parochial schools in Ireland connected with the Church? It was an absolute impossibility to continue the system upon the principle on which it now was said to rest. The English system would be a much more honest and satisfactory one. It was a peculiarity of the National Board that they never reasoned. Archbishop Whately tried to reason with them; but he failed and retired. He belonged to a society in the schools connected with which—perhaps he ought to be ashamed to mention it in this assembly—they were so imprudent as to allow the reading of the New Testament. This fact ruined their character with the National Board; and the consequence was that there were 1,500 or 1,600 schools which got no assistance from the State. Anything more ridiculous he could not imagine. The National Board said, "It is impossible to aid you; we act on principle in refusing aid in such cases." And yet aid was given to the conventual and monastic schools, while it was refused to the parochial schools of the Church. The Secretary for the Colonies was a sa-
1256
gacious, intelligent gentleman, and if he had the charge of this question and had five minutes' conversation respecting it with him (Mr. Whiteside) it would be settled in five minutes. In speaking of these denominational schools, he did not say that the State should give money without receiving value for it; there should be a certain standard of information in the schools which they assisted. But what he contended for was that if Parliament obtained what it wanted—namely, a certain amount of secular education—it ought not to refuse to those who contribute to the taxation of the country a fair share of the public funds for promoting the education of the people. By denominational schools he meant schools in which the State should receive full value for their money grants. As to the model schools, he believed they were excellent; but what was the state of affairs respecting them? He had looked into one which cost £1,100 or £1,200 a year, and had found that there was not a single Roman Catholic pupil in the school; while there were a number of persons educated who possessed very good means of their own. The education given was so good that these schools had destroyed the ordinary schools of the country, and persons were sent to them to be educated at the expense of the State who were well able to pay for it themselves. His own opinion of the system was that it could not last. If the Roman Catholics and the Protestants were both serious in the work of education, and if both were attached to their religion—as there could be no doubt they were—why not settle the question, as sensible men, in a manner which would produce the greatest good for the country? He had come to the conclusion that, after maintaining a civil warfare for some twenty years, the upshot of the matter would be that the State would demand a good secular education, proportionate to the money it granted, and would leave religious education to be attended to by the different denominations.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had followed the system now for some years, and was convinced that it had been of immense use to the country. Year after year the number of children attending the schools increased, and that was a proof that the system was making great progress in the country. As to one class only being admitted to the schools—which of course the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) meant was only the Roman Catholics—nothing could be further from the true

1257
state of things—the right hon. Gentleman would find by turning to the analysis of the children attending the schools, that whereas in 1861 the Protestants of all denominations in Ireland were 22½ per cent, the number of Protestant children attending the schools was 18 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said that £2,000 was granted last year for monitors in convent schools; but of the total number of schools that had first class monitors appointed, only fifty-seven were convent schools; and, therefore, it was not true to say that the grant was exclusively to give first class monitors to convent schools. When he spoke last year of the grant to the first-class monitors in convent schools, though he expressed some doubt whether it might not be prejudicial to the general education of the country, he was anxious then to give the system a fair trial. Though the system of education) in those schools might be somewhat exclusive, there was no doubt that the education was of a very superior character, and he saw no reason why the system should not receive further expansion. They had accordingly this year taken £2,500 more than last year, in order to give fuller development of the system. He denied altogether that the Board was opposed to the general feeling of the country. It was composed of men of all denominations, and though they might have differences of opinion, they worked harmoniously together and in unison with the feelings of the country. As regarded the question put by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) in reference to the monitorial system, the number of monitors connected with all the schools in Ireland was last year 3,400, and this year 3,600, Last year the grant was £20,000, this year it was £22,500. There was only one monitor to every national school in Ireland, consequently it could not be maintained that the system was not capable of still greater development. As regarded the agricultural schools, there was no doubt that the model farm at Glasnevin had worked a great deal of good, though there might be something wanting in the management of the agricultural schools to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, A great many of them were let to agriculturists, who paid a certain rent, and who received in addition £30 from the Board for giving agricultural instruction to the boys of the National Schools of the neighbourhood. If any improvement could
1258
be made in the system he should be glad to lend a hand. The actual receipts of the Albert Model Farm last year were £1,802 6s. 11 d., and the probable receipts were estimated this year at £1,700, which was deducted from the amount granted by Parliament; so that he did not agree that this part of the system required revision. Upon the whole he felt justified in saying that the National system had taken deep root in the country—the annual increase in the number of children attending the schools was a proof that the system was working well, and he could not but believe that the spread of education must be effecting the greatest good in all parts of the country.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished the monitorial system to be extended, but was anxious to know why the money voted by Parliament had not been applied. He denied the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) as to the practice of the National Board and the Church Education Society. The distinction between the National Board and the Church Education Society was that the former did not force any child to receive any religious instruction to which the parent of the child might object. On the other hand, the Church Education Society refused any child the benefit of secular instruction unless that child received their religious instruction, to which the parent might object. There were now 15,000 Roman Catholic children in those schools receiving religious instruction from persons not of their own persuasion. He protested against the introduction of such a system into Ireland. The first principle of any national system of education which would work in Ireland must be to avoid the suspicion of proselytism (to use the expression of Lord Derby), and therefore he protested against the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not argue that the parental authority should be set aside; but contended that those who thought with the right hon. Gentleman defied the parental authority. They called that "liberty" which said "If you agree with us we will give you assistance; if you do not we will give you none." His complaint was that if a parent chose to send his child to a school where the Scriptures were taught no assistance from the State was given. The Church Edu-

1259
cation Society did not force anybody into its schools, but it announced beforehand that in the schools a portion of the Scriptures were read every day. That was not proselytism. He believed that not one of the 15,000 Roman Catholic children mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as attending those schools bad changed his religion because the Scriptures were read in them.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the two rules governing the national system in Ireland were plain. One was that in school hours the teaching should be of such a character that all Christians might partake of it; and the other rule was that when religious teaching of a peculiar character was given children whose parents objected should not be compelled to attend. If the schools to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) had referred would conform to those simple rules they could receive the benefits of the public grant, but, if they did not, then no amount of eloquence or mystification would entitle them to those advantages.
THE O'DONOGHUEthought the best way to prevent proselytism would be to introduce the denominational system into Ireland. The national system was calculated to make people believe that religion was a secondary consideration.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £730, Commissioners of Education (Office Expenses), Ireland.
(3.) £6,773, to complete the sum for University of London.
(4.) £14,485, to complete the sum for Universities, &c. in Scotland.
(5.) £2,372, Queen's University in Ireland.
(6.) £3,150, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
(7.) £700, Royal Irish Academy.
(8.) £3,400, National Gallery of Ireland.
(9.) £1,500, to complete the sum for Belfast Theological Professors, &c.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,336, 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 1866, for the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures."
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKexpressed a hope that the Government would not proceed with the Vote at that hour (twelve o'clock).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had thought it right to give effect to the Vote which the House of Commons had arrived at last year, and they had, therefore, been engaged in framing plans for the enlargement of the National Gallery upon its present site, and the work could be executed from time to time as necessity should arise. The House would have an opportunity of considering the question at the proper time; but the Vote at present before the House was simply for the purchase of pictures and for the ordinary maintenance of the establishment.
LORD JOHN MANNERShoped some intimation would be given when the Vote would be proposed. The state of the House at the present time warned them that unless the Vote was brought in immediately after the recess there would be little chance of having a House to consider the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House could not be much worse than at present, but there was a hope that after the Whitsuntide recess it would revive; the Vote would be laid upon the table immediately after the recess.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURthought the Vote too important to be at once proceeded with, and he should, therefore, move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion agreed to.
To report Progress.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Thursday next.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

SUPPLY.
Resolutions [June 1] reported.
MR. DILLWYNasked for more information. There was a rumour that, many years ago, the Soulage Collection was purchased but had not been paid for until about a month or three weeks ago. He wished to know whether some portion of this Vote was not interest, and whether the Government wanted to conceal from the House the expenditure the South Kensington Museum cost the country.
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce), who could have answered the question, had left the House; but if the hon. Gentleman gave

1261
notice in the usual way it would be answered.
Resolutions agreed to,

SUPPLY.

  SUGAR DUTIES AND DRAWBACKS.
  Resolutions [June 1] reported.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 198.]

  LUNATIC ASYLUM ACT (1853), &C. AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCOURFIELD, Bill to explain and amend "The Lunatic Asylum Act, 1833," and "The Lunacy Act Amendment Act, 1862," with reference to counties of towns which have courts of quarter sessions, but no recorder, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCOURFIELD and Mr. PUGH.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.[Bill 196.]

  POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE, &C. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. VILLIEES, Bill to continue the Poor Law Board for a limited period, and to make certain amendments in the Law regulating the relief of the poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. VILLIERS and Viscount ENFIELD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.[Bill 197.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Dockyard Extensions * (143); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4.) * (144).
Second Reading—General Post Office (Additional Site) (124).
Committee—Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * (129); Inclosure (No. 2) * (135); Lancaster Court of Chancery * (78).
Report—Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * (129); Sewage Utilization * (134); Inclosure (No. 2) * (135); Lancaster Court of Chancery * (78).
Third Reading—Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland) * (118); Parsonages * (137), and passed.
Royal Assent—Metropolitan Houseless Poor [28 Vict. c. 34]; Public Offices (Site and Approaches) [28 Vict. c. 31] I India Office (Site and Approaches) [28 Vict. c. 32]; Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees [28 Vict. c. 33]; Police Superannuation [28 Vict. c. 35]; County Voters Registration [28 Vict. c. 36]; County of Sussex [28 Vict. c. 37].

CASE OF CATHERINE GAUGHAN.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BANDONasked the noble Bail the Lord President of the Council, Why the Sentence which was passed on or about the 20th April last, on sub-Inspector Burke and other individuals of the Police Force concerned in the outrage on Catherine Gaughan, at Ballisodare, in the county of Sligo, was not carried into effect?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Irish Government had believed that the sentences pronounced upon sub-Inspector Burke and two constables bad been carried out; but it appeared that such was not the case, and the explanation was that the removal of the sub-Inspector from the district had not taken place because of his illness, but, although he had remained in the neighbourhood, he had not done duty. The constables would be removed as opportunities presented themselves.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, the Irish Government refused to carry out the law in cases of this kind, because they feared to do so; and expressed a hope that the Imperial Government would institute an inquiry into the whole system of Government by the Lord Lieutenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHtrusted that the noble Earl would give some more satisfactory answer to the question. A great failure of justice bad taken place, when an officer charged with such an offence was retained in the public service, and would hereafter be entitled to a pension.

GENERAL POST OFFICE (ADDITIONAL SITE) BILL— [No. 124]

  SECOND READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that when he mentioned that the number of letters transmitted and received through the Post Office in this country had increased from 70,000,000 in the year 1839

  1187
  to 700,000,000 now; and that the number of letters received in and despatched from London alone was nearly one quarter of the whole correspondence of the kingdom, he thought he would have almost adduced enough to prove to their Lordships the necessity for a large addition to the present accommodation of the Central Office. The business of the Department had also been greatly increased in the Money Order branch, as also by the establishment of the Post Office savings banks, by the book post, pattern post, and other valuable adjuncts, all of which rendered it necessary that they should have an enlarged space for their operations. Indeed, so great had been the pressure upon them that they could not have gone on but for the opening of the district offices which now existed in various parts of the metropolis, by means of which a considerable portion of the business had been taken off the hands of the Central Office. However, the business of the Chief Office had at present to be transacted in four or five separate places, the Money Order Office being in one spot, the Savings Bank in another, and so forth. That was found to be on inconvenient arrangement, and it was very desirable that, as far as possible, the various branches of the chief establishment should be consolidated. It was, therefore, proposed to purchase certain property adjoining St. Martin's-le-Grand, and there to construct buildings for the purpose of supplying the requisite accommodation.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed for Tuesday, the 13th Instant.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Monday, the 12th Instant, at One o'clock.