Sitting of 23 July 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For the College of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, v. The Right hon. James Whiteside, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Henry Whitmore, esquire, for Bridgnorth.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Mines Committee (No. 431).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee— MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENTS.—WARLIKE STORES.—PUBLIC EDUCATION.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries).
Ordered—Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation*; Inclosure (No. 2)*; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)*; Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment*; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1848) Amendment.*
First Reading—Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment*[235]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)*[236]; Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation*[237]; Inclosure (No. 2)*[238]; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1848) Amendment*[232].
Second Reading*Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances [220]; Colonial Branch Mints [215]; Fees (Public Departments)*[223]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements*[228]; Turnpike Acts Continuance*[229]; Naval Discipline*[231].
Committee—Inland Revenue*[209]; Court of Session (Scotland)*[204]; Land Drainage Supplemental (No, 2)*[192]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)*[174]; Overseer of the Poor (Small Parishes)*[214]; Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment*[222].
Report*Railway Companies' Securities*[233]; Inland Revenue*[209]; Court of Session (Scotland)*[204]; Land Drainage Supplemental (No. 2)*[192]; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)*[234]; Overseer of the Poor (Small Parishes)*[214]; Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment*[222].
Third Reading—Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order*[117]; Courts of Justice*[217]; Public Works, Harbours, &c.*; Public Works Loans (Ireland)*[219]; County Assessments*[179]; Commons (Metropolis) * [84], and passed; Paupers (Scotland) * [197], and passed.
Withdrawn—Railway Debentures, &c. Registry*[109]; Vaccination (re-comm.) [173]; Writs Registration (Scotland) (re-comm.)* [203]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) * [156]; Admiralty Court (Ireland)* [133]; Court of Chancery Ireland) * [19]; Common Law Courts (Ireland)* [18]; Rateable Property (Ireland)*[135]; Terminable Annuities* [144]; Church Temporalities Acts (Ireland)* [134].

NAVY—COLLISION BETWEEN THE "AMAZON" AND THE "OSPREY."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reference to the collision of Her Majesty's sloop Amazon and the screw steamer Osprey, and the foundering of both vessels, to explain how it has happened that the Amazon war steamer, apparently built with the view to be used as a ram, should have caused her own destruction by striking a vessel in a smooth sea, that vessel being smaller than herself, and not built with any powers of resistance beyond those ordinarily adopted in merchant vessels; and if the Amazon was not intended to be used as a ram, to explain why the cutwater was constructed in a form only to be justified if it were intended to be so used?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,in reply, said, with regard to how it happened that both the steamers after their unfortunate collision sank, the hon. Gentleman was as well informed as he (Sir John Pakington) was. Probably the hon. Gentleman was aware that a court martial had been held on the officers of the Amazon, the result of which had been that the officer of the watch had been dismissed the service for a breach of well-known regulations; but the commander and all the other officers had been honourably acquitted. With regard to that part of the question which referred to the construction of the bow of the Amazon, he was informed by the Comptroller of the Navy that she never was intended to be used as a ram; and with respect to the remaining portion of the question as to why, if she was not intended to be used as a ram, the bow of the Amazon was built of the shape referred to by the hon. Gen-
  1280
  tleman, the explanation he had to make was that that shape was adopted with the view of giving her, in the first place, finer lines than she would otherwise have had; and, in the second place, with the view of giving her greater bouyancy in order that she might bear the weight of her bow gun.

  UNITED STATES—OUR RELATIONS WITH.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether looking to the conspicuous good faith and friendly feeling of the Government of the United States towards this country in its recent conduct to the Fenians, Her Majesty's Government is now prepared to submit all claims and matters in dispute between the two Powers to an arbitration mutually acceptable?
  LORD STANLEY: I agree, Sir, in the opinion which the hon. Member has expressed as to the friendly and honourable feeling that has been shown by the Government of the United States with regard to this Fenian affair. I am very anxious personally—and I can speak for my Colleagues as well as myself—to do anything that is reasonably possible to remove any feeling of irritation or of soreness which may remain in consequence of circumstances connected with the late war. But, with respect to those claims, I am afraid I cannot give him so precise and so positive an answer as he may desire. With regard to the most important of those claims, a full discussion has taken place between the Government of the United States and those who preceded us in office. That discussion was terminated six or seven months ago, and during the very short time I have been in office those claims have not been revived. They involved questions of considerable perplexity and difficulty, and, I need not add, that I have had very little leisure to consider them. In any case it would be premature on the part of the Government to say immediately what answer we should be prepared to give to claims of that kind when they are revived until and unless they are brought before us. Perhaps I may say that, with a view to lessen the probability of such differences arising in future, it is the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Neutrality Laws, and, if necessary, to revise those laws.

INDIA—STATE OF OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to the pledge which had been given to this House—that all the public and bonâ fide claims against the late State of Oude would be paid out of the Revenues of the country—it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into those claims, and the decision of the local government thereon, upon the footing of all other Reports and decisions affecting the rights of individuals in India, and to allow the same to be reviewed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Sir, these are claims that arose out of transactions that took place about eighteen years ago. They are claims of a moral, and not of a legal character, and they depend, as I am informed, upon proof that falls very far short of legal proof. There is no doubt by the statute a power enabling Her Majesty to refer to the Committee of Privy Council any matters which she pleases, but I imagine there would be a very great difficulty in referring matters of this kind to a judicial tribunal, and certainly I cannot pledge myself generally to do so. If references are made, it must be on each individual case, on cause shown, and on a full review of all the circumstances.

CATTLE PLAGUE—COMPENSATION.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for Morpeth, Whether any intention ever existed at the Home Office during his Secretaryship to grant compensation for cattle slaughtered by the order of the Government Inspector previous to the passing of the Act of this Session; and, if so, what steps were taken to obtain information on the subject?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that there was a clause in a Bill of the present Session providing for compensation in the case of cattle slaughtered previous to the passing of the Act, but it was withdrawn. There was a general concurrence of opinion that the matter required further consideration, and that these cases stood on a very different footing from those in which cattle were slaughtered under the Act of Parliament. The Privy
  1282
  Council called for Returns from the local authorities as to the number of cattle slaughtered and various particulars including the amount, if any, of compensation already received. When he left office those Returns had not been completed.
  MR. CUBITTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Returns ordered from the Government Inspectors of Cattle slaughtered last Autumn under their authority are now complete; and whether the Government have come to any decision upon the question of compensation to the owners of cattle so slaughtered?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, the Returns alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) are still incomplete, both as to counties and boroughs. I hope these Returns will be more complete before the Session comes to a close, but until they are complete the Government forbear to form any decided opinion as to what is to be done, although the subject requires the early consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

IRELAND—WASTE LANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for advances out of the Consolidated Fund for the purchase and rental of the reclaimable portion of 4,000,000 statute acres of waste land in Ireland, upon security of debentures of £5 and upwards upon the lands so reclaimed, and let or sold in farms of thirty acres each, with three cottages and farm buildings suited to the holdings, with a view to the employment of the labouring population, the diminution of emigration and poor's rates, and to the profitable employment of the capital and time of tenant farmers in Ireland?
  LORD NAASsaid, in reply, that any project for giving profitable employment to the labouring population and the capital of Ireland would receive the careful consideration not only of the Government but of that House. He was afraid, however, that the proposal in question, involving the purchase and reclamation of 4,000,000 acres of waste land, was one which he should have some difficulty in persuading his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to undertake.

METROPOLIS—PUBLIC PARKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DYCE NICOLsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the present state of the roads in the Public Parks; and whether the repairs cannot be made in a less inconvenient manner?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: My attention, Sir, has been called to the state of the roads in the Public Parks, and I find that they are being repaired in the same manner they always have been repaired before. I am, however, now making inquiries into the system in force in Paris, of levelling the granite by means of a steam roller, with the view of seeing whether it can be adopted in the Royal Parks.

CATTLE DISEASE IN THE NORTH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that the privilege of importing live cattle from the Newcastle Market, which has been granted to Sunderland, has been refused to Tynemouth; and, if so, what are the circumstances under which that boon has been conceded to the one borough and withheld from the other?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that the privilege of importing live cattle from Newcastle had been granted to Sunderland. It was also true that applications had been made not only from Tynemouth but from other places that the same privilege should be conceded to them. It was not, however, thought advisable at present, except under special circumstances, to remove the restrictions that existed.

  WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the late period of the Session, he does not consider it advisable to postpone the further consideration of the Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill to another year?
  MR. WALPOLEreplied that if the late Lord Advocate did not undertake to proceed with the Bill he (Mr. Walpole) should consider it his duty next Session to introduce a Bill of a similar character.

  CURRENCY AND BANKING.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), Whether he intends to proceed that night with his Motion for an Address to the Crown praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Currency and Banking?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to interpose for a moment between that question and his reply. It was very important that they should get into Committee of Supply as soon as possible, and there were on the Paper many Notices of Motion before going into Supply, that given by the hon. Member for Stockport being among them. As far as he could form an opinion, it was not probable that the hon. Member could bring forward his Motion that evening, except at an hour of the night when it could not be fully or satisfactorily discussed. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Gentleman would consent to allow the Committee of Supply that evening to close, and then the Government would endeavour to afford him an early opportunity of bringing forward his Motion at a morning sitting.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he was only anxious that there should be a fair discussion on such an important subject. He felt himself to a great extent in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and would postpone his Motion with the intention of taking advantage of the offer just made to him.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would proceed with his Church Rates Bill to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that ho had intended to proceed with the Bill to-morrow evening, but if it should not be convenient that he should do so he would take care to make his decision known before the closing of the House.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been come to upon the application of the Madras Irrigation Company for an advance of £600,000

  1285
  to enable them to complete their works; and, if so, under what conditions, and with what security for repayment, the loan is to be made?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Sir, Lord De Grey agreed to advance the above sum in case the whole of that sum should be required for the completion of a certain portion of the canal. The Company will draw on the Government of Madras and the Indian Office Treasury for sums to that amount, which will be a loan bearing interest at 5 per cent, such interest being a first charge on all profits from the canal. The conditions of the loan are—1st. That if within three years from the first of July the canal shall not be thoroughly completed the Company shall convey the whole of their works to the Secretary of State in exchange for Indian Government Five per Cent Stock equivalent at the price of the day to the actual amount of the guaranteed capital invested in those works. 2nd. That before any advance the Company shall obtain powers from Parliament to enable them to carry out the arrangement.

IRELAND—SIR ROBERT PEEL AND PROFESSOR SULLIVAN.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would venture to ask the kind indulgence of the House while he referred for a single moment to a statement affecting the character of Professor Sullivan, of the Queen's University, Dublin, made on Monday last in that House by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). He had intended on Friday last to refer to that statement, but he had not then the opportunity of giving previous notice to the right hon. Baronet, who was not in his place. The statement made by the right hon. Baronet was to the effect that the very first thing done by Professor Sullivan on being appointed to the Senate of the Queen's University was to write to the newspapers under a feigned name as to what had been said in the Senate; and when the right hon. Baronet was challenged by "a laugh," he said that he had seen the letter in the newspapers, and that he believed it could not have emanated from any one but him. Now, to that statement of the right hon. Baronet he begged to give the most unqualified contradiction. Professor Sullivan neither wrote the letter in question nor got it written, nor did he give any information, or knew who wrote it.
SUPPLY.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Supplementary Estimates which we have laid on the table have changed the state of the public accounts since the Financial Statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), and I think it convenient that I should place our position exactly before the House, and state the course which, on the whole, we deem it expedient that the House should pursue in consequence. It will be recollected that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite brought forward his Financial Statement, he estimated the revenue at £67,013,000, including £500,000 which were to be obtained by New Zealand bonds; and the right hon. Gentleman estimated his expenditure at £66,727,000, including £502,500 for the creation of Terminable instead of Permanent Annuities. The result of that Estimate of revenue and expenditure left a surplus of £286,000. Now, the amount of the Supplementary Estimates which we have laid on the table is £495,000, and the House will see in a moment that the result of that has been that the surplus of £286,000 has been changed into a deficiency of £209,000. The question, therefore, is, what is the best course which, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government should adopt. We might in the first place, of course, propose a new tax to supply the deficiency; but I should think there would be an almost unanimous opinion in this House that that is a process to which it is not expedient to have recourse. Sir, the obvious course under ordinary circumstances would be to ask permission from the House to grant a supply to complete the service of the year, which would be raised by Exchequer bonds or Exchequer bills. But there are objections to that proceeding. In the first place, I need not remind the House that, under the circumstances which at present prevail in the monetary world, it is not very easy to place securities of that description. Secondly, it must be remembered that with these difficulties we have not yet

  1287
  floated our £500,000 of New Zealand bonds. And thirdly, I must remind the House that by the existing law Exchequer bills are payable for taxes, and the holders of Exchequer bills may always require payment for such securities at the termination of the current year. Of course, in times of extreme financial pressure like those which we have experienced, and which I am sorry to say we are still experiencing, it is not wonderful that the holders of Exchequer bills should have availed themselves of this privilege. At the present moment an amount of £860,000 of Exchequer bills has been discharged by balances in the Exchequer. It is very true that we have powers granted by Parliament to issue bills to a similar amount, but the difficulty to which I have alluded is an obstacle in our way; and, considering that we have not yet placed our New Zealand bonds, and that in order to square our account, we have yet to issue £860,000 Exchequer bills, the House would hardly be of opinion that it would be an expedient mode of meeting the difficulty in which we find ourselves to have recourse to new powers to be granted by Parliament for the issue of Exchequer bills or bonds. There is a third mode by which we might meet this inconvenience and bring our account into the state in which, I am sure, the House wishes that it should be brought; and that is by considering the propriety of relinquishing further progress with the Bill for the conversion of Permanent into Terminable Annuities, which has been read a second time. By that Bill there is an increased charge on our resources of something exceeding £1,000,000 a year. I think the exact sum is £1,005,000 a year, but only a moiety of that amount will come into charge in the present year—that is to say, £502,500. Now, if we did not, at least for the present year, proceed with that Bill, that sum of £502,500 would be added to the revenue, and deducting the present deficiency of £209,000, there would remain a surplus of £293,500, being almost the identical surplus contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his Financial Statement. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that, on the whole, it would be the wisest course not to proceed with the Bill for the conversion of Permanent into Terminable Annuities. In that way our finances will be placed in almost the iden-
  1288
  tical position contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman when he brought forward the Financial Statement. If this suggestion meets with the general concurrence of the House, I will, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, when we come to the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Terminable Annuities Bill, move that the Order be read for the purpose of being discharged.
  There is one observation which I cannot refrain from making on the present occasion. I confess that it is with unaffected concern that I find that my first act as Minister of Finance should be to impose any addition to the public expenditure of the country. If, indeed, Supplementary Estimates to a much greater amount than those we have laid on the table were required by the necessities of the State, I trust that I would not, and I trust that no one occupying the position I at present fill, would shrink from the responsibility of proposing them. But, at the same time, I feel it my duty to state, in order that there may be no mistake on the subject, what are the principles, so far as public expenditure is concerned, upon which the present administration is founded. Sir, four years ago, when we were on the Benches opposite, at a time when the expenditure of this country had reached its culminating point, I felt it my duty, after as complete an investigation of the subject as could be made by any one not assisted by the advantage of official information, to call the attention of the House on repeated occasions to the necessity of a reduction, and of a considerable reduction, in our expenditure. It appeared to me that the scale it had then attained was not consistent or compatible with the conditions of national prosperity. I took that course with the entire concurrence and approbation of Lord Derby, and with the advice and assistance of many eminent persons whom I now count among my most influential Colleagues. The views which I thus on repeated occasions brought before the House having found favour with the House, the Conservative party assembled and came to the conclusion that the opinion of Parliament should be asked on the question, and that they as a party would support that reduction in our expenditure, which they felt to be necessary for the welfare of the country. In consequence of that determination a Resolution was drawn up and placed in the hands of a right hon. Friend of mine, who I am happy to say

  1289
  is one of my Colleagues, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. But in consequence of the declaration of Lord Palmerston that he should consider the adoption of such a Resolution as a Vote of Want of Confidence in his Administration, the Resolution was not pressed to a division; but it was met by the Government by an amended Resolution, which, so far as I interpreted it, contained a specific, and, under the circumstances, as I considered, a solemn declaration that the reduction we favoured and advised should be made in the expenditure of this country. Sir, there were some hon. Members who at the time distrusted the sincerity of Lord Palmerston on that occasion, but I am bound to say that in my opinion the pledge then given by the Government, perhaps greatly due to the wise determination of my predecessor, was sincerely and completely carried into effect to an amount which on more than one occasion I had suggested, and in the gradual and not precipitate manner in which the House wished that those reductions should be effected, and which I, for one, deemed necessary for the welfare of the country. I wish to state that, in sitting on these Benches, it is our intention in spirit and in truth to carry into effect that policy in respect to the expenditure of the country which we recommended to the late Government, when sitting on the Benches opposite. We are still of the opinion which we expressed on the Benches opposite. Though we acknowledge that the first duty of Government is to arm our soldiers with the most efficient weapon, and to make such provision for Her Majesty's seamen, that the ships in which they serve should be equal, for speed and for strength, to any vessels they might have to encounter, it is still our opinion that these results are consistent and compatible with a prudent and economical management of our finances. Sitting on these Benches we are still of the opinion we expressed on the Benches opposite that in an epoch like the present—which is an epoch of speculative armament; of discoveries, of experiments and of rapid vicissitudes of practice—foresight, scrutiny, and vigilance are qualities as valuable in a Minister as that precipitate zeal which, squandering the resources of a country, fails often in accomplishing the public end proposed. Sitting on these Benches we are still of the opinion we expressed on the Benches opposite four years
  1290
  ago, that one of England's principal sources of strength is her financial condition; that her financial reserve is far more important than those military reserves of which we often hear such boastful accounts; and if it be true, as has been said by the highest authority on such subjects, that there are few Powers in Europe, however fond they may be of war, who can enter upon a third campaign, it may be some consolation to England, when she is taunted for not engaging in quarrels in which she has no interest, to know that, if ever her honour is assailed or her interest attacked, her financial condition is such that if she enters into a contest she can pursue her inexorable purpose, whatever may be the number and duration of her campaigns, until her honour and her rights are vindicated. Under these circumstances, I need not assure the House that in the administration of the finances of the country we shall be guided by the principle of economy; but by that word I do not mean negligence, inefficiency, imperfection, but I mean, as I have presumed to state before from the opposite Benches, that prudence in the application of our resources, which engages in nothing but what is necessary for the public welfare, but takes care to accomplish its purpose in the most complete manner. Sir, I thought it better before we entered into Committee of Supply, when we are about to propose an increase of expenditure—a not very graceful act for a new administration—to make this statement, and I trust that the House will pardon me for making these few observations.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The observations which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made contain a direct appeal to myself on the subject of a Bill for the introduction of which I am responsible. Finding himself, owing to the introduction of Supplemental Estimates, in a small deficiency of £250,000, he proposes to make good that deficiency, and to restore the balance of income and expenditure to the point at which we had left it—namely, a surplus of about £300,000, by abandoning the measure we had proposed for the reduction of the National Debt by the creation of Terminable Annuities. Were I entirely satisfied as to the nature of the Supplemental Estimates proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, I do not know that I should object to his mode of meeting the case. I shall certainly offer no opposition

  1291
  to the discharge of the Order on that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is therefore free, as far as I am concerned, to follow the course he has indicated; but I say this on the ground that, while I reserve my judgment in regard to a portion of these Supplemental Estimates, I feel that, in the present state of political affairs, any advantage to be gained by seriously questioning any part of them would be less than the disadvantage which might result from disturbing the proceedings of the responsible Ministers of the Crown on questions which are not, after all, of very great account, and that at a moment immediately after they have assumed the conduct of public affairs. The right hon. Gentleman, however, will, I am sure, understand me not to recede from the assertion of the policy of which that Bill was an indication; and, indeed, I am bound to say that I do not understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as having been intended to convey any expression of hostility to that policy. In a future Session we shall have an opportunity of considering whether what I may call the regular and stated provision which has, I think, been wisely made, but which has certainly been made with, I will say, the unanimous consent of Parliament for a long period down to 1861, for maintaining upon a certain scale a machinery for the liquidation of the debt—whether that scale of liquidation ought or ought not to be reduced. It is important that it should be recollected that, until the year 1860–1, we had for a great length of time been paying in the shape of Terminable Annuities—a very large portion of which went not to satisfy the claim of interest, but for the liquidation of the capital debt—a sum about, and sometimes above, £4,000,000 annually. In 1860–1 that amount was reduced to little more than £2,000,000. Since that period we have been endeavouring, by various measures which have received the assent of Parliament, gradually to raise it again, but by no measure so important as to the scope of its operation as that which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to relinquish. Next year we have to contemplate the lapse of a further very considerable amount of Terminable Annuities—in round numbers about £600,000. I have heard, during the course of the present year, several Members of this House question altogether the policy of liquidating the debt by Terminable Annuities. But I must confess, I think, without at all entering on the argument on which that policy is
  1292
  founded, that the question is one of very great importance indeed, and one which I trust the Government will, in the course of the next Session of Parliament, bring under the full consideration of the House. If they should so submit it to the House, I shall probably consider it my duty myself to raise it; because on this depends whether there is to be any certain and unfailing machinery always in operation for the gradual liquidation of the debt over and above the application of the annual surplus from year to year, or whether we are to trust to the annual surplus alone. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the additional charge proposed by the Government for the year, and has entered upon a discussion, slight in outline indeed, but yet full of interest and importance with regard to the principle on which his financial administration is to be conducted. With respect to the Supplemental Estimate, for about £;200,000, or perhaps something more, Her Majesty's late Government are substantially responsible. It is always a matter of very great regret to me when any Supplementary Estimate has to be proposed. I am quite certain there is nothing by which it is so easy to break down everything effected by a system of Parliamentary control as a needless or great extension of Supplementary Estimates. The control of Parliament for practical purposes rests, I will venture to say, wholly on this—that our wise usage is to bring forward once a year and as a general rule, in the absence of disturbing circumstances, once for all, an entire statement of the financial condition of the country. But as regards the charge for the Irish Constabulary, a large item in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates—it was impossible to prepare the Estimate at so early a date as to enable my hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) to lay it before the House in the Miscellaneous Estimates of the year. Again, with regard to the expenditure arising out of the Cattle Plague, undoubtedly he might, if he had pleased, have included in the Estimate at that period so much of the expenditure as had been incurred up to the month of January; but that would have been a very small portion of the whole charge, and it would not have been satisfactory to Parliament to deal with it. But the principal item of the Supplementary Estimate is that presented to us by the War Department, with reference to the adaptation of our small arms. I do not intend to take any objection to that charge;

  1293
  but I must confess that I lean to the opinion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is acting somewhat in haste in making so large an extension of the proceeding contemplated by my right hon. Friend (the Marquess of Hartington). I am now about to state the construction of which his speech is susceptible, in order that he may, as I hope, disavow it. His plan was to spend £250,000 for the present year and £250,000 for each of the two succeeding years in the conversion of small arms, and at the end of these three years, after spending £750,000, he hoped he should be in a condition to say finally what should be the small arm to be adopted by the country. I hope that this may not be the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, because I should consider it to be a very improvident expenditure of money. It would be in a measure practising on the susceptibilities of the English people with respect to a matter which touches their safety and honour, to spend so large a sum in the process of conversion in the expectation merely at the close of that process of substituting an arm altogether new for the arm converted at such a cost. I must confess I have heard much that has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great satisfaction, particularly because I did not listen with equal satisfaction to the discussion that took place in this House on Friday night. I did recollect what we heard in 1859 with respect to the reconstruction of the navy. I did recollect the enormous and useless charge to which this country was put by the conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships. Let us be fair. I remember that the suggestion came from this side of the House, although I do not think it was participated in by many on this side; but the doctrine was laid down by the hon. Member for Tavistock, which I confess is new to me, and new, I think, to the people of this country, that it was our duty to maintain a navy equal to all the navies of all the States of Europe, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), although I grant he did not in terms approve the doctrine, was yet so full of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock for bringing the subject forward, and the return of compliments was so great, that I did entertain some apprehension as to what might happen after the recess, which the right hon. Gentleman most judiciously announced his deter-
  1294
  mination to take for consideration the whole matter, instead of at once acceding to the proposal which was made behind us. I did entertain some fear of the rumination of the First Lord during the recess. I was very glad, therefore, I repeat, to hear the statement this evening of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am compelled to notice the historical portion of that statement. Though I call it the historical portion of his statement, it can never become history, for it is not, I am afraid, sufficiently founded on fact. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking I was enabled to test the accuracy of my own recollection. I will refer to a portion of the statement, and I will likewise mention to the House how the facts really stand. The right hon. Gentleman states that in the year 1862, when the expenditure of the country, although not so high as that of 1860–1, was still very high, he was struck by its alarming state, and he has not now scrupled to adopt—I must say in the most manly manner—the proposition that it is equally our duty to practise economy as much as possible when the country is prosperous as when it is poor. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to state that at a meeting of the Conservative party it was agreed that there was a necessity for a reduction of public expenditure, and that, in consequence of that agreement, a Motion was proposed by a distinguished Friend and Colleague of his for the purpose of binding the Government and the House in a voluntary pledge to effect a reduction in the public expenditure whenever it became practicable to do so. In consequence of that Motion, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Government themselves took up the matter, and invoked the House to support them in a voluntary pledge, which the right hon. Gentleman states his party subsequently fulfilled. Now, I do not so read the occurrences of that year. I do not know what meetings of the Conservative party took place, but this I do know, that independent Members of this House—one, the hon. Member for Montrose; another, the hon. Member for Halifax; and a third, the hon. Member for Bradford—did state to the Government their intention to propose a Motion in favour of the reduction of the public expenditure. Those hon. Gentlemen placed a Motion to that effect upon the paper at a time when no other Motion to the same purport stood there. It was then, I presume, that the meeting of

  1295
  the Conservative party was held. But into that I do not inquire. I am not now claiming credit for the late Government, but I am claiming credit for the three independent Members of this House—economists upon principle and by practice—credit which the records of the House award to them—for having been the pioneers of that movement. There was, however, a meeting of the Government upon that Resolution, and the Government determined, although they were unable to accede to it in its then form, to make a Motion upon the subject, and they accordingly proposed an Amendment on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax to this effect—
  "That this House, deeply impressed with the necessity for economy in every Department of the State, is at the same time mindful of its obligations to provide for the security of the country at home and for the protection of her interests abroad, and it observes with satisfaction the reduction already effected in the national expenditure, and trusts that such further diminution may be made therein as a future state of things may warrant."
  Notice of that Amendment was given by my noble Friend, who was at that time at the head of the Government, and then it was, I think for the first time, that a voice proceeded from the Opposition of that day. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed an Amendment upon Lord Palmerston's Amendment, in the event of that Amendment becoming a substantive Motion, in these words—
  "That this House trusts that the attention of Government will be earnestly directed to the accomplishment of such future reduction—due regard being had to the condition of the defences of the country—as may not only equalize the revenue and expenditure, but will also afford the means of lessening the burden of those taxes which are confessedly of a temporary and exceptional character."
  When the debate took place my noble Friend at the head of the late Government said he should regard the carrying of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman as tantamount to a Vote of Want of Confidence, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, after it had been made the subject of discussion, was withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech on that occasion which is still fresh in my recollection, and of which I must say now, as I thought at the moment, that I never heard a more courageous speech delivered in this House under more disadvantageous circum-
  1296
  stances. I most sincerely and cordially pay that compliment to the fortitude of the right hon. Gentleman under difficulties. I, however, entirely differ from the historical portion of his statement to-night. If I am correct—and I have endeavoured to support my statement by documents—I think I have shown to the House that the memory of the right hon. Gentleman has entirely deceived him. The proposal made for the reduction of the public expenditure was a proposal made by independent Members, supporters of the Government. The Government themselves considered and adopted that proposal in a modified form, and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was posterior, if not, as I think, to the second, certainly to the first of these two proposals, and was, therefore, the result and not the source of these propositions. If the time has now arrived when hon. Gentlemen on the Benches on this and on the other side of the House are disposed to enter into an honourable rivalry in the work of reducing the public expenditure, treating the matter prospectively, the first and main observation I have to make is this—that I congratulate the country upon that state of things. I know of no monopoly which the Liberal party possesses with respect to reductions of public expenditure. I may indeed say that justice would claim in their behalf that they have been the principal instruments in giving effect to those reductions, but I record this fact with pleasure—that when the history of retrenching Administrations and of the commencement of true retrenchment in this country comes to be written, the just historian must, in my opinion, give to the Government of the Duke of Wellington from 1828 to 1830 the honour of having first taken the matter in hand with earnestness of purpose. Therefore, Sir, this field is open enough, and there is enough in it for us all to do. I heartily rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman has delivered the opinion which has now proceeded from him. If I understand him, he means this—not that he considers that this proposed operation of the Conservative party in 1862 does them great honour, and was intended to accomplish the purpose which now having been fulfilled, we need think no more about—that, I trust, is not his meaning; but I construe his declaration to be this, that he thinks the expenditure of the country to be still susceptible of further reduction. I also entertain that opinion. I

  1297
  am not very proud of what we—the late Government—have been able to effect, but I may say that the expenditure of the country for the last five or six years has moved downward in each succeeding year, and I hope it will still continue so to do. The expression of the right hon. Gentleman, however, seems to me to be a little indeterminate, and I am anxious at least to take this opportunity of saying that, knowing myself the difficulties he has to encounter, and that there are many demands on the public service which are of real and of legitimate growth, and which must, I fear increase from year to year, I form no exaggerated expectations of what can be done with regard to retrenchment, and I trust that no portion of the House will call upon the right hon. Gentleman to work wonders in that respect. But I cannot help believing that I am speaking according to his own true convictions and inclinations, and those of many of his Colleagues when I say that it is the opinion of the country that there is yet room for progressive reduction in its expenditure, and that a diminution and not an increase of Estimates from year to year is that to which under favourable circumstances it will be disposed to look. I have nothing more to say with which I need trouble the House. The statement I have made with regard to the circumstances of former years I have endeavoured to found on a reference to documents made much more hastily than it otherwise would have been had I been aware that the right hon. Gentleman was about to introduce the subject in a retrospective sense. If I am incorrect, I shall no doubt be corrected by the more prepared knowledge of hon. Gentlemen around me. The really important question, however, is the prospect which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has held out of progress in the reduction of the public expenditure under the present favourable circumstances of the country. That statement of his I am anxious, on the first moment that offers, to hail joyfully and truly, and I can say that none of those who sit on the Opposition side of the House will for one moment grudge him the well deserved honour he will obtain by proving himself a vigilant and a frugal steward of the resources of the country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to refer to what took place during the year 1862, and therefore what I am going now
  1298
  to state is not the result of special preparation. I am satisfied that the intention of my right hon. Friend has been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It was not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw any reproach upon the Government which preceded the present Administration, nor to claim for ourselves any exclusive title to the name of economical Reformers, and most assuredly my right hon. Friend had no intention of ignoring the part which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax and others took in the debate referred to. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire has not quite understood, or, at all events, he has not quite correctly represented, what took place in 1862. The Motion of the hon. Member for Halifax, although it preceded the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was not the beginning of the discussion that took place upon this subject. The origin of the discussion with regard to the necessity for some retrenchment in the public expenditure may be traced to the debate that took place upon the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill on the 8th of May, 1862. I may mention that I took part in that debate advisedly and with the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at his request, I called attention to the large amount of the expenditure of the country, and urged upon the then Government the necessity for some considerable reduction in the amount of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman opposite followed me, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer then made a speech which attracted considerable attention at the time, in which he urged the importance of some reduction in the expenditure, and especially in that part of it incurred for the support of the army and the navy. Lord Palmerston replied to that speech of my right hon. Friend, and I recollect very well that it was remarked in the House, at first privately and afterwards publicly, that the hon. Member for Halifax had stated subsequently that he would bring forward a Motion on the subject in order to test the sincerity of the expressions of which my right hon. Friend had made use. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) was not one of those who said publicly that he would be glad to test the sincerity of my right hon. Friend's expressions. All I will say now is that I am quite sure that the mo-

  1299
  tive of my right hon. Friend in what he has said this evening was this: he wished simply to state that the policy which we had adopted and announced in Opposition we were now anxious to pursue as a Government. That was the point of his observations, and he would be very sorry that what he said should be taken to mean that he claimed any exclusive credit for himself or us on this point. We sympathize with many hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of retrenchment, and we wish to state that our own opinions have not been taken up recently, nor since we have sat on this side of the House, but are those which we stated four years ago that we had deliberately formed, and which we have ever since acted upon.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I desire to say a few words in consequence of the unexpected reference—of which I think I have reason to complain—which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire to the Navy Estimates of 1859. I think his words were "the enormous waste of money in the conversion of wooden ships in 1859." I did not take the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman, but, at all events, he spoke of the waste of money in 1859 in the conversion and creation of wooden ships. The right hon. Gentleman complained of want of memory on the part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I think I may retort that charge, and accuse him of shortness of memory with regard to the circumstances of 1859, otherwise I do not think he would have brought forward the charge which he has done against me. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the great amount of the Navy Estimates in 1859; but a reference to the papers will show that the Navy Estimates when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer were for several years after 1859 as high, or nearly so, as those which I had the honour to propose in that year. I make no complaint and no charge on that account, because it is well known to the House and the country that during those years the Admiralty were engaged in creating that iron-clad navy which we now possess. But what, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House, was the state of circumstances in 1859? In 1859, neither England nor any other Power possessed a sea-going iron-clad ship. In that year there was no man, whether shipbuilder or naval officer, who could have
  1300
  ventured to predict with certainty the success of an iron-clad sea-going man-of-war. It was in that year that the first commencement was made, and I had the honour of making it, of an iron-clad fleet. But I say up to that moment we had no certainty that that naval experiment would have been successful. It is very easy, as we all know, according to the old proverb, of which I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, to be wise after the event, and it is all very well now in 1866, when the experiment has been successfully made, and every State is in possession of an iron-clad navy, to talk of the improvidence of building wooden ships. But in 1859 no country had any ships but wooden ships. After the attack which the right hon. Gentleman has made upon me I must be allowed to tell him that, foreseeing the possibility of the success of iron-clad ships, and knowing that an experiment was about to be commenced, the Board of Admiralty, of which I had the honour to be at the head, did abstain from beginning any wooden men-of-war. We did so for reasons then approved of, and of which the right hon. Gentleman could then make no complaint. The only way in which we could providently and economically provide a navy for this country at that time was by converting wooden sailing vessels into steamships. It was in this way we were enabled, at a comparatively small cost, to give England a powerful navy of steamships—the only steam navy then known. The right hon. Gentleman may recollect the political circumstances of 1859—that it then became the duty of Lord Derby's Government to fit out a powerful fleet and send it to the Mediterranean. We could not have fitted out that fleet if we had not taken the precaution of converting sailing into steam ships. Sir, I think it hardly fair of the right hon. Gentleman to make these charges. If he had only borne in mind the facts to which I have recalled his recollection, he would have abstained from making accusations altogether unfounded, for I entirely deny, on the part of Lord Derby's Government in 1859, that there was any wasteful expenditure as described by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I never said a syllable in complaint of what the right hon. Gentleman did or did not do with respect to iron-clad ships. I quite agree with what he has said, and I think he deserves great credit for what he did with respect to the Warrior.
  MR. SAMUDAwished to say one word with reference to the observations of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire on what fell from him the other night as to the comparative force which the fleet of this country ought to bear to those of the other nations of Europe. He would have expected from the great knowledge which his right hon. Friend possessed, that he would have followed up his objections with some reasons for holding that what had been then stated was so unreasonable. But as the right hon. Gentleman had failed to take that course, he begged leave to observe that for a number of years before the conversion of the navy the fleet of this country was considerably greater than that of all the nations of Europe, and when the reconstruction with steam did take place in its early days, the number of our vessels were equal, if not superior, to that of all the rest of Europe. Such being the case, why were the relative strengths to be changed now—our necessity for additional increase was much greater than any other country in Europe could show, for he held that as there was no country in the world which had so increased its Colonial Empire, or was so much under the necessity of having efficient vessels on foreign service, at least the same proportion should be maintained in the strength of our fleet, when compared with theirs, as had prevailed in former periods.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he well remembered expressing the satisfaction which he felt at the announcement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman now Chancellor of the Exchequer four years ago on the necessity for a great reduction in what he then characterized as the excessive expenditure of the country. The House would recollect that upon the occasion to which he referred the right hon. Gentleman denounced the enormous expenditure that was taking place, the apprehension that was felt of a powerful neighbour, and the rivalry in armaments which was carried on, and which he designated as "swollen and bloated armaments." He recollected well that he appreciated so highly what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman that he rose from his seat and complimented him on having appeared in the character of an economical reformer, and tendered the right hon. Gentleman on his own behalf and on behalf of some hon. Friends below the gangway their cordial support if he would only press on the Go-
  1302
  vernment the necessity for a reduction of expenditure. He regretted, however, to have to observe that while the right hon. Gentleman expressed his opinions so strongly, the announcement which he made was received very coldly from his own side of the House, and the ominous silence which was preserved by the party of which he was the distinguished leader convinced many hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman and his followers were not thoroughly in accord upon that question. It would have been well for the Gentlemen of the Conservative party if they had then appreciated the sagacity of their leader and had supported him in urging on the Government a reduction of the public expenditure. If they had done so, he believed that what had recently happened might have taken place some years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman would before now have been in his present place. He wished to express his hearty thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the declaration of economical policy he had made that day. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that many Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition side below the gangway would be only too happy to cooperate with him in his attempts to reduce expenditure, and he would earn a title to the gratitude of the country if he would only carry into effect what no doubt were his own sincere opinions.

  SIR ROBERT PEEL AND PROFESSOR SULLIVAN.—EXPLANATION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I think, Sir, with your permission, I shall be in order in referring to a Question put in the early part of the evening, when I was not able to be in the House, and when I was not even in town. It is only since I entered the House that I received notice from an hon. Friend of the Question that has been put. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick put a question as to a matter of fact, and I am glad that he has done so, because it gives me an opportunity of correcting any statement which did not strictly conform to truth. I hold in my hand a copy of The Times newspaper containing a report of the discussion the other night on the Queen's University, and it appears by it that I then stated, as I certainly did, that I had seen a certain letter which emanated from Mr. Sullivan. In the next sentence, however, I corrected myself by saying that I believed it emanated from him, and when some dissent was expressed

  1303
  by an hon. Member, I said I believed it because no one else was present on the occasion alluded to in that letter but the members of the Senate, the Secretary, and myself. I am told the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is authorized by Professor Sullivan to say that he did not write the letter to which I referred, and I am, therfore, very sorry that I should have imputed the letter to him. I am bound to say, however, that the letter, which I did not read at the time, would lead any one to infer that it had emanated from a person who was present at the meeting. I will not read the letter now, because I do not want to justify myself, but it appeared in the Freeman's Journal of the 14th of July. It enters into the conversation between Dr. Corrigan and myself, and others besides myself thought that the letter emanated from a member of the Senate. However, I accept the denial of the hon. Member for Limerick, and I assure Professor Sullivan that I am extremely sorry for having imputed to him statements that in no way emanated from him.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY AND BURLINGTON HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE,in rising to move, pursuant to notice, that a new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House, said, that although this was a stale topic, he hoped to make it as little of a bore as an art question could be made. In moving that the new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House, he was only inviting the House to re-affirm that which was the opinion of Parliament until about two years ago. When, one evening in June 1864, in Committee of Supply, the then First Commissioner of Public Works obtained a vote which affirmed a contrary decision, and laid down the principle that a building in Trafalgar Square with the Carlton House pillars in front and barracks and a workhouse behind should be manipulated and converted into a new National Gallery, he ventured to say that the only argument which could now be adduced in favour of maintaining that position would be the argument of consistency. But considering how often that House had been called upon to discuss all sorts of artistic questions in connection with the National Gallery and the Royal Academy, and considering the totally different conclusions to which it had at different times arrived, he
  1304
  must say that the necessity of consistency in art questions was about as impudent an assertion as could be imagined. He would appeal to his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works whether he did not remember the old adage which they had both learned at school, Sera nun-quam est ad bonos mores via, which he would venture to translate, "It is never too late for Manners to reform." The proposition he recommended to the House was that there was a certain area, at present not built upon, of the size, shape, and dimensions required, larger in extent than any of the great existing public galleries of Europe, already the property of the public, and on which a national gallery could be economically and speedily constructed. On the other hand, there was another area cut up by streets, covered by a workhouse, which could not be procured without an enormous outlay of money, covered also by barracks which could not be obtained in less than two years, nor be removed without great inconvenience to the State, and covered besides by schools and private houses. He called upon the House to say which of these two areas it was most desirable to occupy for the National Gallery. One was Burlington House Gardens, and the other the Gallery in Trafalgar Square and the buildings behind it, a Bill for the purchase of which had slipped through the House during the small hours of the morning, the last stage having been taken immediately after the successful Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin). The area which he called upon the House to sanction was the large oblong space behind Burlington House and occupied as its garden upon which a National Gallery might be built 280 feet long and 215 feet broad, leaving two ample roads east and west, so as to admit the passage of carriages, carts, &c., and to isolate it from neighbouring buildings, and avoid the risk of fire. It contained an area of 60,000 superficial feet for the whole building, equivalent to one of 42,000 feet for the gallery floors, after deducting partitions and lobbies. What was the great advantage of this site? It was necessary in a National Gallery to have a series of larger galleries and in connection with these of smaller chambers for the pictures exhibited, in which set of apartments there were two competing and contesting requirements to be provided for—ample space for circulation and sufficient wall-space for exhi-

  1305
  bition. He contended that this site would enable both those requirements to be met, on the evidence of a plan which had been prepared at the order of the Board of Works by architects of eminence (Messrs. Banks and Barry), and had been set aside in consequence of the vote of 1864. He was not there to be the advocate of any man, and so if he referred to this plan it was, not by way of forcing it on the House, but only to use it in proof of what might be done by competent persons. Burlington House itself had architectural merits. The screen to Piccadilly he would lighten and open, but he would preserve the curved colonnades. Then there were now at the sides of this court and beyond that colonnade two long and heavy buildings occupied by the Royal Society and the University of London, which he would by all means have improved. Burlington House itself would not need extensive alteration in its exterior, the inside being re-cast as a vestibule to the gallery behind, while on the gardens at present belonging to the house the architect would be able to give full play to his ingenious fancy. This consideration would, he believed, go far to meet the arguments of those who contended that in order to build a National Gallery on the site of the Burlington Gardens Burlington House would have to come down. Without entering into the controversy as to whether the windows of picture galleries should be sloping or perpendicular, tinted or plain, he was, he believed, expressing the general conviction when he stated that our galleries should be lighted from the top, with what the unlearned called skylights. A building of that description would require a sort of masking ornamental frontage, and for such a purpose Burlington House would suit admirably; while on the plan to which he had referred, it would be found that the main galleries took the shape of two large naves crossing at a central dome, with the angles filled up by smaller rooms, so as not to lose an inch of space. Of course, with skylights as the system of illumination, internal courts and well holes were not wanted, and the expense of external decorative elevations would be legitimately minimised in a structure possessing so little frontage. Indeed, this gallery would only need one new ornamental façade, that to the north, facing Cork Street and Saville Row. But the House would be surprised to hear the result of a few calculations which he had obtained. The
  1306
  first set of figures related to the linear feet—namely, the measurement of the walls all round—in certain galleries. The linear feet in the Louvre numbered 1,300; in the gallery at Berlin, 1,116; in the gallery at Dresden, 2,220; in the gallery at Vienna, 1,700; and in the old Pinacotek at Munich, 1,600—while our own, with that at South Kensington in addition, only reach 1,850. But at Burlington House 3,950 feet could easily be obtained. The surface flooring, too, of the present National Gallery, including the Royal Academy part of it, measured 9,550 feet, while at Burlington House it would reach no less an area than 42,000 feet. The figures which he gave to the House were from the plan of Messrs. Banks and Barry which he had previously mentioned, and showed to what advantage Burlington House might be turned. The wall surface of the present National Gallery gave only 16,200 square feet against 67,600 which might be obtained at Burlington House. So much for elbow-room, now as to cost. The adaptation of the Trafalgar Square site with the additional buildings which it would be necessary to purchase would involve an enormous expenditure of money, while everything that was requisite might be done on the Burlington House site for £200,000. The architects to whose figures he had been referring had estimated the cost at only £168,750, but £200,000 would give an ample margin even on that estimate, while the Gallery if fixed at Burlington House would receive additional importance from the historical recollections with which the place was connected, built as it was by so eminent a man, and immortalized by Pope and Gay. On the other hand, to get possession of the Trafalgar Square site it would be needful first to get, he believed at a price of —78,000, St. Martin's Workhouse, of which possession could not be obtained till October 1868. Then five houses and Archbishop Tenison's school would have to be bought, and finally the barracks would have to be appropriated and the soldiers sent elsewhere. He doubted whether any adaptation of the present National Gallery to the requirements of the nation, even after the purchase of the buildings in the neighbourhood, so as not to interfere seriously with an important portion of the London traffic, could be made in any manner which would not puzzle a whole board of architects and Chancellors of the Exchequer. It

  1307
  might be urged that the site of the present National Gallery was the one recommended by the Committee of 1853 and the Commission of 1857; but it should be remembered that at both these dates Burlington House had not become the property of the nation, and could not therefore be fairly brought into question as a possible site. The decision on those occasions was in reality given in favour of the site of the present National Gallery in its aspect of a westend position within London itself, as against the suburban claims of Kensington House and Gardens or Kensington Gore. On the other hand, the site of Burlington House was recommended by the Commission of four years ago, which sat upon the Royal Academy, after Burlington House had become public property, as possessing equal advantages, on account of its central situation, with the present National Gallery. It was certain that no National Gallery ought to be placed in such a position relative to the centre of the capital as to call upon people to make a solemn resolve before going to see the pictures. We had heard a great deal of the ease with which South Kensington would be reached when the network of Metropolitan Railways was completed. But this was not enough, the National Gallery should not be planted where it was easy to reach, it should stand where it was difficult not to pass by it. But the objection of distance from the haunts of traffic could not be urged against Burlington House any more than against the present National Gallery; while, at the same time, it would be just so much more retired as to avoid the umbrella and nursery-maid element, of which those who go to Trafalgar Square to study the pictures so frequently complain. Correlatively the rather less secluded and dignified associations of Trafalgar Square would contrast with the more popular and bustling character of a continually changing exhibition of contemporary pictures. The only objection which could be raised in reason against the Burlington House site must, he should think, be based upon a certain vote which his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) had ingeniously taken in the earlier portion of the Session. He believed, however, that his right hon. Friend would now record his vote in his favour when he reminded him of what was said by an eminent Member of the
  1308
  House two years ago in the debate which followed the proposal made at the time by the noble Lord the present Chief Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners.) Two years ago that Member, who was none other than his right hon. Friend himself, said that fixing the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square instead of at Burlington House was a retrograde step from which they never could recover. He thought it was a retrograde step; but, more sanguine than his right hon. Friend, he believed it was one from which they could recover. He hoped they would do so that night; but after such a statement, his right hon. Friend could not hesitate to lend a helping hand to settle this struggling and floundering question of the National Gallery. In the early part of this Session the minds of hon. Members were a good deal occupied with another matter, and votes were sometimes taken at the very ticklish time of between seven and eight o'clock, when hon. Gentlemen thought more of dining than they did of legislation. On one of those occasions a Vote of £10,000 was taken to put the London University on the site of Burlington House Garden. Some hon. Members who were present at the time, mastered sufficient presence of mind to protest against the Vote; but he did not suppose that if Demosthenes himself had come down his eloquence would have prevailed at that particular hour against the Motion. He had, however, some hope that the proposal to bring the London University to Burlington House would not be persevered in. In 1864 his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper), in replying to a question, said there was not much chance of finding accommodation for the London University at Burlington House without interfering with other objects. Now, if the buildings intended for the London University were placed in the north area of Burlington House Garden, there would be put there a building inadequate to cover the space, but at the same time sufficient to spoil that spot for a National Gallery, a purpose for which the site was otherwise eminently adapted. A picture gallery must be lighted from the top; and, therefore, it must be a building of one story, or of one story and a basement; but a building for the London University would require to be a series of examination halls, with offices for the transaction of business by officials, and it could therefore be any number of stories high, so that

  1309
  it was much easier to find a place for that structure than for a picture gallery, while it admitted of being more closely packed upon the ground which it covered. But if the erection of such a building would spoil Burlington House for a National Gallery, then to put the London University in Burlington House Garden would be to fix the right building in the wrong place, as there were plenty of spots both central and convenient which might be found for it—why not the Thames Embankment, or one of the new streets leading to it? As he understood certain observations which were made when the £10,000 was asked for, that was a Vote on Account, and there was a sort of pledge that nothing would be done towards erecting the building till the House saw the plan, which Mr. Pennethorne was preparing. Under these circumstances, he hoped his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works would acknowledge the pledge, not to carry out the project until the House had had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Pennethorne's design. Indeed, he thought the London University would do well gracefully to withdraw their claim on Burlington House. He did not indeed see why they should not put in a claim for the National Gallery or for the ground in the rear of Trafalgar Square if St. Martin's Workhouse was to be purchased. To remove the national collection to Burlington House would in no way prejudge the question as to the future location of the Royal Academy. Every one knew that the building in Trafalgar Square was hideous beyond comparison. At the same time they knew it was a long thin building, and that any additional beauty would have to be applied to the front. Going back as far as Leicester Square would not benefit the façade. Whether Trafalgar Square was the finest site in Europe or was not, it ought to be better occupied. Would it not, then, be better to improve the building that stood there out of some one else's money rather than out of our own? The Royal Academy were rich. Might not the building be leased to them on condition that they should improve it as much as possible out of their own funds? Any want of popularity of which the Royal Academy might have to complain arose, not from the fact of its being an Academy, but from the supposition that the Academicians did not do as much as they ought in proportion to their great advantages. He would not touch on that tangled question.
  1310
  It was one respecting which much might be said on every side; but if that House wanted the Royal Academy to do more, and thus rightfully win popularity, would it not be well that it should have some hold over that body such as lodging them in Trafalgar Square would tend to create? One argument put forward against handing the Gallery in Trafalgar Square over to the Royal Academy was that as they would have it open for only three months in the year, it was making an uneconomical use of the property; but there was nothing in that argument, because there might be an understanding that the annual exhibitions should last for four or more months, or that there should be other exhibitions in the course of the year, of sculpture for instance, or architecture, or art-workmanship. Besides, those who fell back upon that pretext forgot the schools which were at work while the show was closed. To say that there could be no other arrangement with respect to exhibitions than that which now existed, would be to bar any change or improvement by the stupidest of all arguments, that which deals with things as they are as if what was existing was therefore immutable. Still, the question before the House was one regarding the National Gallery, and not the Royal Academy, and ought to be treated with exclusive reference to the former institution. In conclusion, he asked the House to reverse the hasty and unfortunate decision of a Committee of Supply two years ago, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that a new National Gallery be erected on the site of Burlington House Gardens,"—(Mr. Beresford Hope,)—instead thereof.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he thought it was a most unusual course for the hon. Gentleman to move a Resolution of this character when a Bill for maintaining the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square had not only passed that House, but had gone through Committee in the other House. As the Bill had been introduced by one Government, and was being proceeded with by another, both were equally committed to keeping the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Certainly there was not a very great distance between

  1311
  Burlington House and Trafalgar Square; but the latter was decidedly the most central position that could be found in all London. That site had been called by the late Sir Robert Peel the finest site in Europe, and the most eminent statesmen, as well as the Commissioners who had considered the subject, had sanctioned it as the best for the National Gallery. A great agitation had been got up for months past by the Royal Academy in order that it might not be turned out of the building in Trafalgar Square; and that body had most assiduously instigated the hon. Member for Southwark, the hon. Member for Galway, and other hon. Gentlemen, to bring the matter before that House. The Royal Academy, as a quasi-private institution of painters, were at first admitted as suppliants to a portion of the National Gallery building which there were not enough pictures to fill. They were in no respect a State institution; but having now become prosperous, they who formerly were humble petitioners for the use of the vacant room actually wanted to oust the National Gallery and the national pictures altogether, and to occupy the whole of the building themselves. That was the real state of the case. There was no good ground for allowing the Royal Academy to have such a fine site and such a large building, or for making them so valuable a present. In fact, the Royal Academy required far less room than the National Gallery. The site of Burlington House was not very extensive, and, moreover, half of it had been give away, while the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope) himself did not want to interfere with the buildings on the other portion. The University of London had actually received, by the vote of that House, a part of that site, and had commenced the erection of buildings; and, therefore, the present proposal of the hon. Gentleman sought to disturb the whole of a settled arrangement. On the other hand, there was good reason to suppose that if the National Gallery had only had proper accommodation for them, the presents made to the nation of pictures and other works would be enormous. What would French people say to any proposal to remove the collection of the Louvre to the Bois de Boulogne? He had the authority of Mr. Barker, a gentleman well known for the interest he took in works of art, and for his knowledge of them, for saying that
  1312
  he had been in communication with eminent architects on the subject, and that he had been assured that the expense of erecting a fine new building in Trafalgar Square, and converting the present structure into one that would do honour to the metropolis, would not exceed £200,000, which was the sum named by the hon. Member opposite as necessary for building at Burlington House. The hour could not be far distant when a communication would be made between Regent Street and the Strand, and then an opportunity would be afforded for placing at the back of the present National Gallery one of the finest buildings on one of the finest sites in the world. He therefore trusted that the Government would decide upon keeping to the site which had been chosen, and would not disturb the arrangements which had been made with the sanction of a Commission and also of that House.
  MR. LAYARDwished to say a few words on the subject, on behalf of himself and some of his colleagues who were trustees of the National Gallery. He was authorized to speak in the name of Mr. William Russell and Lord Overstone, as also in the name of Mr. Boxall, the Director of the National Gallery; and he must express his entire dissent from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Seymour) as to the Royal Academy. He could state that he did not take up that question in the interest of the Royal Academy, which might go to Trafalgar Square, or it might not. But the question was, whether Trafalgar Square was the best place for the National Gallery; and after that point had been decided, they might then deal with the question as to the Royal Academy. In his opinion, and in that of the director and the majority of the trustees, Trafalgar Square was not the best site for the National Gallery. [In support of his assertion, the hon. Member read a letter, dated the 14th of June, from Mr. W. Russell, and then proceeded.] He thought that any gentleman who went into the National Gallery on a summer day, when the season was favourable for the experiment, would be of opinion that the atmosphere was most injurious to the pictures, and detrimental to those who had to study there. Some people misunderstood the object of a National Gallery. It was most desirable that the working classes should have access to the Gallery, but neither the British Museum nor the Na-

  1313
  tional Gallery was intended merely as a place to gratify curiosity, nor, as was the case until lately, as a place where the visitors could have luncheon. They were intended also for study. It was held by some that the Gallery should be open to the public every day. From that opinion he dissented. On the contrary, he thought that it would be sufficient to throw it open to the public three days, and to reserve the remaining three days for students. The site of Burlington Gardens was accessible, and, at the same time, sufficiently out of the line of the great thorough fares of the metropolis to prevent it becoming a place of general rendezvous for persons who had nothing to do. A very handsome building for the reception of the pictures now in the National Gallery might be built on that site, and there was sufficient space also for a sculpture gallery, without the necessity of pulling down Burlington House, which he admitted was a fine structure, though not of so high a character as the hon. Member attributed to it. It was contrary to usual practice to reverse a decision of the House, but he believed that many who were formerly opposed to the selection of the site of Burlington Gardens, were now convinced that it was the best site that could be chosen. He regretted that a noble Friend of his (Lord Henry Lennox), who used, when those subjects were under discussion, to twit him for being silent because he was subject to the restraint of office, was not present to take part in the debate. The noble Lord was now under restraint himself; but he knew the opinion of his noble Friend to be in favour of the removal of the national collection to Burlington House. He was surprised that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, or any friend of economy, should advocate the retention of the National Gallery in its present site; for in that case the existing structure must be pulled down, as it was not suited for the exhibition of pictures, and a new one must be built on an enlarged space, at a great expense for the purchase of the land; whereas the nation already possessed in Burlington Gardens a site which had been paid for. If the House decided upon rebuilding on the site of the present Gallery, no one, he believed, could venture to predict when they would have a suitable National Gallery.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he supposed the discussion would end in the withdrawal of the Motion, which he thought would never
  1314
  have been brought forward if the hon. Member for Stoke had been a Member of the last Parliament, and had heard the full discussion that was raised on this question, and the final decision which was then arrived at. The present proposal was that Burlington House should be turned into an edifice proper for the collection of our National pictures. He objected to the design on many grounds. The Government had offered to give to the Royal Academy a site at Burlington House, and the Royal Academy deliberately came to the conclusion to reject it, because it was inconvenient and unsuited for a building for the exhibition of pictures. That body ought certainly to be good judges of the fitness or unfitness of a site for a building intended for the exhibition of pictures, and yet it was now proposed that the National Gallery should be placed on the site which the Royal Academy had rejected, and that the present National Gallery should be given up to the Royal Academy. He believed that if the National collection was once turned out of the Gallery in Trafalgar Square it could not be located at Burlington House, but would be moved from place to place, and would ultimately find a resting-place at South Kensington. But the question of that site had been discussed over and over again, and the House had decided that the Collection should not be transferred there. In point of fact, for the last twenty-five years the House and the country had adhered to the one opinion that Trafalgar Square was the most suitable site for the National Gallery; and so settled was this conviction that Lord Palmerston, recognizing public opinion, as he usually did when it had once been definitely pronounced, asked the House to spend £17,000 in altering the National Gallery, so as to make it better adapted for the exhibition of the National pictures as soon as we could get rid of the Royal Academy as tenants. The money asked for was voted, but his hon. Friend, who was a master of art, said it had since been discovered that the National Gallery was so badly constructed and arranged that the only thing to be done was to pull it down. Now, somebody could be found to say the same thing of any building. But what guarantee was there that anything better would be obtained? Probably, if the course now suggested were taken, we should be just as badly off two or three years hence as we were now. Why not, then, rest content with what we had got? If ne-

  1315
  cessary, the Gallery might be enlarged, turning to account the additional space which had been obtained; and it would be time enough to pull down the present building when another had been built behind which fulfilled our ideas of perfection in art, and with which it was desirable that the existing structure should harmonize. Trafalgar Square was the most convenient site in London. He would leave art in the hands of those gentlemen who professed to understand all its principles, and to expound them for the edification of the House. But Charing Cross was most convenient of access from all parts of London, and it was an enormous advantage to have your picture gallery in the centre of the metropolis, where anybody could visit it in passing, instead of having to lose a whole day in searching for it. On this ground alone, if on no other, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke; and he thought that the House should adhere to its often expressed resolution on this subject and stand upon what had been done, instead of being led away by those who professed to have a fine taste for art.
  MR. TITEsaid, he was glad that the question before the House had been raised before it was too late, and if a division took place he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Stoke. As to the argument drawn from conveniences of site, there could be little difference between Piccadilly and Charing Cross, as the one site was almost as central as the other. There was, on the other hand, an obvious economy in selecting the site of Burlington House, behind which a suitable building could be erected for a moderate sum, and a National Gallery thus secured, which would afford ample accommodation, not only for the present collection, but likewise for all the additions which were likely to be made to it for many years to come. The site in Trafalgar Square could then be handed over to the Royal Academy, who would make such changes as they thought reasonable and desirable, subject, perhaps, to the condition that the old façade, which was allowed to be an entire failure, should be amended. It was said that if this course were taken all that had been done must be undone. If, however, a mistake had been committed, it would surely be unwise to go on perpetuating that mistake? No doubt it was undesirable to continue changing your plans from year to year; life was not long
  1316
  enough for this. At the same time, a convenient opportunity seemed to have arisen for reconsidering the whole question; and, believing that it would be desirable so to reconsider the subject, he felt much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) for bringing it forward.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, be believed that successive Governments had been of opinion that the National Gallery should not remain as it was. All parties agreed that greater space was needed, together with a superior building for exhibiting the pictures, and sufficient space for such a building could not be secured there without great expense. No one who visited the National Gallery could dissent from that opinion. There was not room to exhibit pictures which might be acquired by purchase, by donation, or bequest. He should vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Stoke, because he believed that in the Burlington House site we should get a more suitable and a more economical gallery for our National collection of pictures than we now had. It was a great object to obtain a suitable gallery without much delay, and there could be no doubt that if the Resolution which was proposed two years ago by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and of which the trustees of the National Gallery unanimously approved, had been adopted, they would now be far advanced in obtaining a fitting place for the National pictures. The injury that arose from a vitiated atmosphere, and from a mixed concourse of visitors—some not of a very desirable class—might be comparatively slight in an exhibition that was open only for two or three months; but this was a more important consideration as affecting a permanent exhibition. On these and other grounds he maintained that the site of Burlington House was superior to that of Charing Cross. We had made one mistake, and it was too late to go back; but it was not too late to adopt the better and cheaper of the two alternatives that still remained.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was deeply sensible that the House made a mistake in 1864 in this matter; but, at the same time, he feared that the House would not correct that mistake, but would make another if it adopted the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke, which would involve another year's delay. He himself was anxious to make all the progress he

  1317
  could, and not to go back. The present state of the National Gallery was discreditable; there were pictures that could not be hung up for want of room; and if the Motion were adopted it would waste a year in addition to the interval since 1864. They had already passed a Vote of £128,000 for the purchase of the ground in the rear of the National Gallery, and they had made arrangements with the guardians of St. Martin's and the trustees of certain schools for the land they possessed, and further, they had given the London University a site at Burlington House, and voted a sum of money for building, and he thought it best to complete what had been begun. A comparison of the Charing Cross and the Burlington House sites gave no great advantage to either. Both were elegible, central, and afforded ample room for a National Gallery. When, however, in 1864, the Government gave a preference to Burlington House, they did so on the grounds of expedition and economy. The building might have been commenced immediately the Vote was passed; but no steps had then been taken to acquire the other site. It might be more economical to build on the Burlington House site as requiring only one ornamental façade, but the House was unwilling, for economy's sake, to place the National Gallery where it could hardly be seen. While it was an exaggeration to speak of Trafalgar Square as the finest site in Europe, it was the finest in London, and it was fitting that they should have a building there, of which the country would be proud. Two years would suffice for the Royal Academy to build on whatever site it might select, and the guardians of St. Martin's Workhouse had agreed to erect another building as soon as they could procure a site. We were now within two years of the possession of the whole building in Trafalgar Square, and of the land in the rear of it. He doubted whether the adoption of the Motion would enable them to build at Burlington House in less time. The Motion of the hon. Member for Stoke would defeat his darling object of preserving Burlington House; it must be pulled down if the site were selected for the National Gallery, and a larger and grander building must be substituted for that graceful dwelling-house. If the Royal Academy did not desire to make use of Burlington House it would be available for the London Uni-
  1318
  versity and the learned societies, who would now be inconvenienced if they could not use it. The cost of the Trafalgar Square scheme had been exaggerated. The amount of land purchased was an acre and a half; the present building stood upon an acre; and if it should become necessary the barracks at the rear could be appropriated, which would give a total of five acres. The land purchased cost £128,000, and that occupied by the National Gallery might be valued at £100,000. The Burlington House site was worth £200,000. The Burlington scheme was the cheapest, but the increased expenditure on the Trafalgar site would produce an architectural effect and a metropolitan improvement that was worth the money. He preferred to continue the course they had begun to a retrograde movement, and he therefore felt justified in opposing the Motion.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that with reference to the statement that members of the Royal Academy had been soliciting hon. Members to take part in the debate with a view to keeping the Royal Academy in Trafalgar Square, he did not believe that any such application had been made to the Mover of the Motion. A very large proportion of the members of the Academy were in favour of accepting the proffered site of three and a half acres in Kensington, where they could build de novo, have ample space for exhibition, and get their schools open, without losing any considerable number of shillings. The Royal Academy had nothing to do with this Motion. The question they had now to consider had reference solely to the National pictures. The reason why the Royal Academy had refused the site of Burlington House was, that the Government had only offered a portion of it, and they found it would be necessary to have a larger space. For a National Gallery he thought the site of Burlington House infinitely better than the present. He did not object to the pictures being kept where they were on the ground of expense, for a question of £200,000, more or less, was not much, but he contended that they would have to spend £500,000 in Trafalgar Square, while they could have a better place for £150,000. As to the late Sir Robert Peel's preference for the present site, he would state that in May, 1850, that right hon. Baronet wrote to Mr. Russell, one of the trustees of the National Gallery, to the effect that he had

  1319
  misgivings whether it was the best site for their valuable pictures. A National Gallery was intended, no doubt, partly for the amusement of the people; but it was also intended for study; and, speaking as one who occasionally visited the National Gallery, he must say the sights one saw there were often by no means such as would conduce either to study or pleasure. They should be spared a great many of these inflictions if they went to Burlington House. Had they agreed to the proposal to remove to Kensington that place would now have been, or would soon be, as accessible as any other part of London, and a gallery might have been built there in a shorter time than anywhere else. No doubt it would be with regret if any interference took place with arrangements made at Burlington House for the London University; but he understood from his right hon. Friend that the London University had not yet approved the plan which had been submitted to them. It was not for him to point out any other site for the London University; but he had no doubt a place might be found for them which would entail no inconvenience. He could only say it would be found in the end that if Government acceded to this request we should in a comparatively short space of time have a gallery in which our fine collection of pictures might be exhibited in a proper manner; whereas if the pictures were retained where they are, several years must elapse before the exhibition could be properly carried out. The Royal Academy could not be in possession of their new structure before two years; and even after they had left their present apartments many alterations would require to be made with a view to the proper exhibition and security of the National pictures. It would be five or six years before the National pictures could be exhibited on their present site in a proper manner. If the present Motion were acceded to they could within a fixed and comparatively brief period carry out a plan which had already been investigated; if it was not acceded to the prospect was dim indeed.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that the result of several deliberations was that the late Government had granted a site to the London University, in the grounds of Burlington House, and it would be a deliberate breach of faith towards one of the most useful institutions in the kingdom if that site were now to be taken away.
  1320
  Besides this, it was a retrograde step which was proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, the House having already voted a sum of £20,000 for an erection on a site which he now proposed to deal with in quite a different way. He should therefore oppose the Motion.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had listened attentively to the statements of the different Members who had spoken on this occasion, but he should not think it necessary to make many observations in reply. There was nothing new to be said on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman his predecessor in office had placed the question in a very clear and succinct manner before the House. He had to regret, on public and private grounds, that the hon. Member for Stoke had not brought forward his Motion in the last Parliament. The question could not well be re-opened, as the House had passed a Bill, and the other House had already passed the same Bill, for the purchase of ground, in connection with which certain arrangements had been made in reference to this subject of the National Gallery. He must say, with all deference to his hon. Friend, that far stronger reasons than he had alleged must be urged to induce the House at the fag end of the Session to reverse the decision which they had come to in former years no less than in the present Session. He had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who spoke with the authority due to a trustee of the National Gallery. But all he could gather from the speech of his hon. Friend was that the majority of the trustees would prefer a site that was less open to the public than the one now occupied at Trafalgar Square. They wished for a site that was more secluded—that was less open to the intrusion of people who were there not with the most artistic motives, and they thought that their object would be gained by removing the Gallery to the site of Burlington Gardens. He might say the same thing with respect to the remarks of his right hon. Friend who complained of the deleterious influence of the smoke of the metropolis. But so far as the injury caused by smoke was concerned, he might remind the House that in a few years if the present rate of building went on, the same objection would apply to Burlington Gardens that was applied to Trafalgar Square. They all

  1321
  knew that the smoke nuisance was the course of being greatly abated. He therefore could not attach much importance to that argument. If any weight were to be attached to that argument he must say that the conclusion to which he came was not that the site of the National Gallery should be removed to Burlington House, but to South Kensington, in accordance with the opinions of Sir Edwin Landseer, Lord Houghton, and other authorities on the question. With respect to other arguments used by hon. Gentlemen, they might be summed up under the head of economy and the necessity of maintaining faith with other public bodies. Now, as regarded the question of economy, his hon. Friend, pinched by the argument that the London University had an equitable claim to accommodation from the Government, actually proposed to meet that claim by purchasing the site which the Government proposed to purchase at the rear of the present National Gallery for the purposes of the London University. But he (Lord John Manners) thought that his hon. Friend would find on examination that there would be no economy in that purchase and the new buildings it involved. By taking £200,000 for the erection of the National Gallery in Burlington Gardens, £128,000 for the purchase of the ground in the rear of the existing National Gallery, and £60,000 or £70,000 as the cost of erecting a new London University, a very considerable sum total would be arrived at. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway, pinched by the same argument, had proposed that the London University should be called upon to emigrate to South Kensington. Well, but was the Senate of the London University to have any voice in the matter? [An hon. MEMBER: No.] No, but when it was proposed to move other bodies to different sites, it was found that they exercised a very considerable voice in the matter; and he would not undertake, after all the promises that had been made to the London University by the late Government, to treat them in the cavalier fashion that was proposed by the hon. Member for Galway. The speech of the hon. Member for Bath, he must say, was quite as much in favour of the proposition of the late and the present Government, as it was in favour of the hon. Member for Stoke. The hon. Member knew very well that there were various public bodies that had claims to accommodation from the Government. He wanted to know
  1322
  what was to become of the Royal Society and other learned bodies which had been hitherto very comfortably provided for in Burlington House, if the Burlington Gardens' site were now to be selected for the National Gallery, if the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke was agreed to. The hon. Member for Stoke seemed to argue as if Burlington House would still remain intact. But the House would be under a great delusion if they supposed that after the National Gallery was removed to Burlington Gardens, Burlington House could be preserved intact. If the Gallery was erected in the gardens, it would be necessary to make an immense passage through Burlington House as an approach to the National Gallery, and that would unhouse the various learned societies at present provided for there. To procure other accommodation for those learned societies would add some £60,000 or £70,000 to the expense; and the grand total would be by no means pleasing to those who studied economy. The other matters which had been referred to were so completely discussed in the course of the debates upon the subject in 1864, that he would not weary the House by again touching upon them. Her Majesty's Government had not changed their opinion from the time when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to extend the accommodation for the National Gallery on the existing site, and he rejoiced to think that their predecessors in office had at last taken a similar view. He would only express a hope that the House would adhere to its original decision, again endorse the views of the Government and their predecessors in office, and finally settle the long pending question by declaring in favour of the present magnificent site for the National collection of pictures.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 17: Majority 77.

THE DANUBIAN PROVINCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Porte has consented to the recognition of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Hospodar of the Danubian Provinces. He remembered the Motion which was made by the hon. Member

  1323
  for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) some years ago, and he thought that an unfair endeavour had been made to turn that Motion to the disadvantage of the Government of Lord Palmerston. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) looked upon the whole thing as a mere party manœuvre, and as one totally unsuccessful. It was not from any want of confidence in the noble Lord the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that he put this question, for the declaration which the noble Lord made the other day must have given the greatest satisfaction to the House and the country. He was sure that whatever course the noble Lord followed he would be guided by feelings of the highest probity; and that whatever office he filled would be elevated by his high character. This country had altered its views as to the course we should take with regard to Turkey, and the old traditionary policy of Lord Palmerston in reference to that country was no longer approved by this nation. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) was favourable to the general principle of the suzerainty of the Porte, especially when it was exercised in accordance with the wishes of the population immediately affected. The province of Servia, he believed, was disposed to be as favourable and friendly to the Porte as any part of the contiguous dominions. It was therefore a most absurd anomaly to encourage the maintenance of the fortress of Belgrade at an annual cost of several hundred thousand pounds. It was an easy thing to say that this country had no right to make such a recommendation; but the Porte was quite aware that in giving advice we were the only disinterested Power, and therefore any suggestions wo might offer on this or other points, though at the moment it might be inexpedient to act upon them, ultimately would always be attended to. He did not expect that the noble Lord would be able to give him a categorical answer, for he was well aware of the difficulties attendant upon this question. The late Secretary for Foreign affairs and the hon. Member for Wick took a very sanguine view of Turkish affairs, and since the Crimean war that nation, partly under our auspices and partly under our advice, had borrowed at least £50,000,000. We had led them on till at last they had ended in bankruptcy; at least, they were unable to pay interest on their Consolidés, the dividends on which had now been postponed to the 10th of October, mean-
  1324
  ing, he supposed, the Greek Kalends. He could not help taking that opportunity of referring to the festive gathering in connection with a new Liberal club held at Richmond on Saturday last, on which occasion the noble Lord the head of the late Government—his health having been very appropriately given—made some remarks which attracted considerable attention. He said—
  "It was, perhaps, natural that Austria, having by a very equivocal treaty in the year 1798 obtained the government of Venetia, should be determined not to yield it except to force. That, for my part, I can well make allowance for and forgive; but it does seem to me intolerable that, being engaged in war against Italy, the Emperor of Austria should have proposed to give up Venetia, not to Italy, but to the Emperor of the French. The Italians have felt that insult very deeply. No doubt the Emperor of the French, anxious for peace, actuated, I have no doubt, by the best motives, proposed an armistice to Italy and to Prussia; but the terms did not look promising. They could not but be distasteful to Italy; and for my part I regret that, however creditable on the part of the Emperor of the French that offer might be, the English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have gone shares in that proposition, and thus done that which must be offensive to the Italian people."
  He confessed that when, from the Moniteur, the announcement was flashed over all Europe that Venetia had been ceded to France, he did feel apprehensive that the new Government, taking office in the midst of rapidly changing events, might have been entrapped into some honest but indiscreet expression of opinion. He did not, however, suppose that any such false step had been taken on the part of the English Government. Thinking it right that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have the opportunity of making such explanation as he thought fit upon the point, he begged to put the question of which he had given notice; and he hoped that the noble Lord would be able to state that he had not committed himself to any proceeding such as the late Prime Minister attributed to him.
  LORD STANLEY: I think my hon. Friend can hardly desire that on this occasion I should go into any lengthened statement of. Foreign Affairs. The first Question of which he has given notice I can answer very briefly. He asks whether the Porte has consented to the acknowledgment of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern as Hospodar of the Danubian Principalities. The Porte has not recognized the Prince in that position; but negotiations are at pre-

  1325
  sent proceeding between the Government of the Sultan and that of the Principalities, and I have good hope—though one can never speak with certainty of a matter which is still undecided—that before long these negotiations will end, and end in a most satisfactory manner. With regard to the question relating to Servia, I can only speak as to what has occurred while I have been in office, and during that time no question whatever has come before me with respect to the relations of Servia with the Porte. Whenever such a question does arise I will give it my best consideration. With regard to the other and far more important matter to which my hon. Friend alluded, I explained as fully as it was in my power to do on Friday night what was the position in which the Government stood in regard to the recent negotiations. It is not the fact that we proposed or accepted any proposition for joint or separate mediation; it is not the fact that we agreed with the French Government as to any preliminaries or terms of peace; nor has such mediation been suggested by Austria. All we did was to support a simple proposition for an armistice in order that all parties to the Conference might have time and opportunity to consider the new position in which they stood, so as, if possible, to substitute negotiation for bloodshed. I do not think that was an unreasonable proposition; because, since the war began, in the course of a very few days, Austria had abandoned her claim to Venetia, and a great and decisive battle had been fought in Bohemia, which had completely altered the position relatively of the parties. Under these circumstances, it was only a matter of common sense that if any prospect existed of mediation being accepted, the neutral Powers should endeavour to give time and opportunity for such mediation to take place, each party recognizing the entirely new position in which it was placed by the events of the war. That proposal was not successful; but I am happy to say that an armistice for five days has been agreed to by Prussia and Austria, and I believe that the adhesion of Italy to it may be expected. It is not possible to say what the ultimate results will be; but, in my opinion, the circumstances are such as to give ground for the sanguine hope that this temporary armistice will be extended, and will lead to an early restoration of peace.
  MR. WHALLEYthought that the statement would be satisfactory to the country,
  1326
  because there was a fear that England, having intervened in conjunction with France in favour of an armistice, might be induced to go further along with the Emperor of the French. The noble Lord said on Friday night that there never was a European war in which the interests of England were less concerned than in this; but he (Mr. Whalley) ventured to think that there never was a war in which our interests were more concerned. The right of opinion, civil and religious liberty, and what was called the Protestant question, were involved, and it was singular that, however Protestants might happen to be divided in opinion, there was no doubt a remarkable unanimity of Roman Catholic opinion in favour of Austria.

  IRELAND—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIRE,in rising to call the attention of the House to a case of very great hardship which had lately come before the Roll's Court in Ireland, and which had excited considerable interest in that country, would remark that it was of the utmost importance that those who stood in the position of owners or agents of property in Ireland should administer that property in a just and equitable manner; for while good example on the part of individuals of influence and position would be always attended with beneficial results, the bad example of the same class would be attended with the worst possible consequences. Now, the parties who had given a flagrant example of injustice in the present instance were no less a body than the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were the administrators of a considerable property, the annual income of which, after defraying necessary expenses, was devoted to the purpose of erecting and repairing churches. Amongst other property under their management and administration, were the estates belonging to the suppressed sees, of which that of Dromore, in the county Down, was one. From the case, as it came before the Master of the Rolls, in the form of a petition on the part of a Mr. M'Murray to compel the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to grant a renewal of his lease, the following facts were elicited:—In the year 1793 the then Bishop of Dromore made a lease of three acres of land to Moses Bodel, in pursuance of the provisions of an Irish statute, the main object of which was to promote the linen manufacture in Ireland. This lease con-

  1327
  tained a covenant for perpetual renewal. In 1815 Bodel made a sub-lease to a person named Scott, and in 1827 the interest in this sub-lease became vested in the father of the petitioner, who expended a considerable sum in building and in machinery. On the death of Mr. M'Murray, the elder, the petitioner succeeded to the property. In 1853 he received a fee-farm grant from the original lessee, under the lease of 1793, a rent of £15 11 s. being reserved; and this rent was bequeathed by Bodel to a person named Burrowes. Mr. M'Murray was the tenant in possession, the assignee of the lease, and in fact the only one who had any interest in the land. The reserved rent of £15 1l s. was sold in the Court of Incumbered Estates during the last year, and was purchased by Mr. M'Murray for £510. The ordinary conveyance was made by the court to Mr. M'Murray, who then applied to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to grant him the renewal, according to the conditions in the lease of 1793. But, to his astonishment, the reply he received from the Commissioners was that his property was forfeited, inasmuch as renewal had not been taken out in compliance with a notice served, not on him, Mr. M'Murray, the tenant in possession, but on another person who had no interest in the estate. The Commissioners affected to know nothing of Mr. M'Murray, although he and his father had been on the property for nearly forty years; and they allowed him to purchase the interest of the lease in a public court, situate in the same city in which they transacted their business—almost within the shadow of their board-room—without affording him the slightest notice of the risk he was incurring. If the Commissioners should persist in their determination not to grant Mr. M'Murray a renewal of the lease on the faith of which a considerable amount of property had been expended, they would commit an act of the grossest injustice, by robbing a respectable man of the fruits of his and his father's industry. The case came before the Master of the Rolls on the 18th of June, when that upright and fearless Judge animadverted on it in the strongest possible manner, and expressed his extreme astonishment that the Commissioners, among whom were many eminent men, could consent to adopt so dishonest a defence as that pleaded against the just claim of the petitioner. He expressed his opinion that this was the work of the "paid officials," and not such
  1328
  men as the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Archbishop of Dublin, Mr. Guinness, Member for the city, and others; and he adjourned the case in the hope that he should hear no more of it—that the Commissioners, on having it thus brought to their notice, would renew the lease for the petitioner, and thus put an end to the scandal. But the Master of the Rolls did hear more of the case; for on the 2nd of July it was brought on again, and the Commissioners were represented by a strong bar, to defeat the claim of the petitioner. The Commissioners insisted on their "pound of flesh"—not because of any default on the part of M'Murray not because of non-payment of rent—not that any of the ordinary covenants had not been duly fulfilled; but because a certain formality had not been complied with by a person upon whom notice had been served two years before, but who had no interest whatever in the property. The Commissioners pleaded several things. They pleaded ignorance; they asserted that they had a right to do what they liked with their own; and they represented that they had a sacred trust to protect, for that all the money they had received was expended in the erection and repairs of churches. The Master of the Rolls refused to accept the plea of ignorance, and considered the alleged excuse as most disgraceful, inasmuch as it was their duty to ascertain all the particulars connected with the property which they administered. He denied that the property was theirs, or that they could do what they liked with it; and he begged to remind them of the aphorism of Mr. Drummond—that property had its duties as well as its rights. When they represented that it was their duty to manage the property in the best manner, with the end which they had in view—to erect and repair churches—the Master of the Rolls asked whether, because the money derived from the estates under their control was to be devoted to the erection of temples to God, they were, therefore, authorized to oppress and plunder the tenants? It was stated by counsel, and also in a document purporting to be a resolution of the body of Commissioners, but signed only by the Secretary, that if the petitioner failed in his application, and if the renewal of the lease were not enforced by an order of the Court, the Commissioners would take the case into their consideration, and deal with it on the principles which ought to regulate their

  1329
  dealings as landlords with their tenants. But the reply of the Master of the Rolls was most scornful and emphatic. He said, "I would as soon place a lamb under the care of a wolf as to trust the petitioner in this case to the tender mercy of persons who could act so badly towards him as these men have done." The Master refused to believe that the Commissioners, as a body, had really anything to do with what he characterized as so "iniquitous," a case, and he asked to see the book in which the minutes were inserted, so that he might learn the names of the Commissioners who had been present, and who consented to have so unjust a defence pleaded in their behalf. But that book was not produced in court, some shuffling excuse having been given for its non-production. The Master has now postponed his judgment to November, perhaps in the hope that the Commissioners would have the good sense to withdraw from a disreputable position, and perform a simple act of justice at last. The case had excited intense interest in Ireland, the people of which country loved justice and fair play, possibly all the more keenly because so little of either was usually accorded them. The wrong inflicted, or sought to be inflicted on an industrious and honourable man, was the more disgraceful from the position of the wrong-doers—not some miserable village usurer, who, having clutched a fragment of property in the Court of Incumbent Estates, exaggerated in his dealing with his unhappy tenants the worst vices of Irish landlordism—but men of high rank and repute, whose only duty was to carry out a religious purpose—the erection of temples to the honour and glory of God. And now there was a matter of importance which he desired to ascertain—namely, whether the proceedings taken by the Commissioners had been taken under the advice or with the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland? It was customary for public bodies to consult the Law Advisers of the Crown whenever they were about to take any important step; and surely in this case the Commissioners were about to take an important step, inasmuch as they were about to brave and defy public opinion in the country, and peril the honour and reputation of their body. The Law Officers were generally men of eminence in their profession, as, undoubtedly, the late Law Officers in Ireland were; and the advantage of consulting them was not only on account
  1330
  of their legal eminence, but because of their entire impartiality. They were not like the private counsel of a public body, who mutually saw with each other's eyes; but they were in a position to advise what was really for the honour and dignity of a public body to do. Had the Law Officers been consulted in the present instance, it is scarcely possible to believe that they would have rushed into court, and thus justly incurred the bitter and stinging rebuke of the Master of the Rolls, who, in this, as in all other cases of a similar kind, proved himself to be alike fearless and unsparing in his denunciations of wrong and oppression. For years that able and upright Judge had stood between the oppressor and the oppressed; and while he justly rebuked and punished the fraud of the humble wrong-doer, it was on the back of the great and the strong that he dealt with vigorous and evenomed lash. Some eight years since a case of aggravated injustice—that of "O'Fay v. Burke"—came before him in the Rolls; and his memorable remarks on that case were so forcible in their indignation, that he was mainly the cause of an attempt at legislation immediately after, with the view to bring about more equitable relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. It was to be hoped that his indignant strictures in the case of "M'Murray v. the Ecclesiastical Commissioners" would be the means of bringing about a more wholesome relation between the classes on whose united energies mainly depended the progress and prosperity of Ireland. He (Mr. Maguire) had no personal knowledge whatever of the Master of the Rolls, nor had he ever had any communication with him; but he took that opportunity of expressing for him in his judicial capacity his respect, his gratitude, and his admiration. He would conclude by asking the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland—which he did officially and formally, though that noble Lord had nothing to do with the proceedings of the Commissioners, and who was not in office at the time, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in question, and to the observations of the Master of the Rolls thereon; and as the late Attorney General for Ireland was in his place, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had been consulted in the case by the Commissioners; and if he had been consulted, would he have advised them to adopt the course which they had taken?
  LORD NAASsaid, he had never heard

  1331
  of the case to which the hon. Member referred until he read the notice of the hon. Gentleman on the Notice Paper. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as the House probably were aware, were in no degree under the control of the Government, and therefore it was not his duty to defend them or to express an opinion on the merits of the case. It would be especially improper for him to do so then, as the case was sub judice, the Master of the Rolls having reserved his judgment, he believed, until next November. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman, as to whether the proceeding of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were taken under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, he felt it his duty to read a letter which he had received from Dr. Gayer, the paid Ecclesiastical Commissioner, in reply to a communication from him (Lord Naas) in reference to this matter. Dr. Gayer stated that there was no law of custom binding the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ask the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown in such matters. They had an experienced and able advising counsel. It was only in the event of a doubt arising in the mind of this learned counsel, that they consulted the Attorney or Solicitor General; but in this case no communication had been held with either of those Gentlemen. The suit against Mr. M'Murray was not yet decided.
  MR. LAWSON: I am anxious to disclaim any connection with the proceedings to which the hon. Member for Cork has referred. They were never advised or sanctioned by me, and I first became acquainted with them through the reports in the newspapers. The case had attracted a good deal of attention in Ireland; and so far as I can judge, the proceedings savour very much of the character given to them by the hon. Member for Cork. Without adverting to the legal question upon which the Master of the Rolls has reserved his judgment, I entirely concur in what fell from the learned Judge as to the impropriety of a public body endeavouring to avail themselves of a technical objection in order to confiscate the estate of a tenant. I beg to say that I think the Master of the Rolls is entitled to the thanks of the public for the bold and fearless manner in which he condemns every dishonest attempt to defeat the just rights of tenants by taking advantage of the present state of the law in Ireland. His observations in the case of "O'Fay v.
  1332
  Burke," to which the hon. Member for Cork had referred, had been the means of calling public attention to the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, and had led to a consideration of the best way of improving it. In my opinion, a Judge does not travel out of his proper province when he comments upon the facts brought before him, as his sense of justice and his conscience suggest to him.

THE HOUSELESS POOR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DAVENPORT BROMLEYsaid, that without any intention to disparage the labours of the late President of the Poor Law Board or of the right hon. Gentleman who now filled that office, he wished to call attention to a subject which he thought of great importance—namely, the defective operation of the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act during the last two years, and the great number of professional vagrants who have lately been attracted to the metropolis. He believed that the painful, he might almost say revolting, circumstances which had been brought to light with regard to workhouse infirmaries had rather thrust aside and superseded the very important point to which he was about to refer. He did not wish to be understood as stating that the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act had done no good at all, because he was of opinion that in one respect it had been beneficial. We no longer saw the miserable crowds which we used to see on the steps of the workhouses sleeping all night in the open air. That such sights were witnessed was certainly a disgrace to any civilized town, and more especially to a wealthy metropolis like London; but although this evil had been remedied by the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act, he had been sorry to find that the tendency of the Act had been to accommodate the professional vagrant rather than the really deserving poor. This was shown by the Returns for which he had moved early this Session, setting forth the enormous difference between the numbers admitted to the casual wards of the metropolitan workhouses in 1864 and 1866, and showing a very great increase in the latter year in the casual wards and lodging-houses. In Kensington in 1866, as compared with 1864, there were upwards of 3 to 1 more male casuals admitted; in Fulham the numbers were about equal; in St. Luke's, Chelsea, the number was as 8

  1333
  to nil—he referred to the average nightly admissions; in St. George's, Hanover Square, including lodging-houses, as 8 to 1; in St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, as 3 to 1; in St. Martin-in-the-Fields, as 2 to 1; in St. James', Westminster, as 3 to 1; in St. Marylebone parish, as 18 to 1; in St. John's, Hampstead, as 2 to nil; in St. Pancras, as 23 to 1; in St. Mary's, Islington, equal; in Hackney, as 3 to 1; in St. Giles'-in-the-Fields and St. George's, Bloomsbury, as 8 to 1; in the Strand, as 8½ to 1, including lodging-houses. In Holborn Union the male casuals as 11 to 1, including lodging-houses, the female casuals as 10 to 1; in St. James's, Clerkenwell, the male casuals as 8 to 1, the female casuals as 14 to 1; in St. Luke's, Middlesex, as 8 to 1; in the East London, as 10½ to 1; in the West London, the male casuals as 16 to 1, the female casuals as 28 to 1; in the City of London, equal. In St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, the number was 15 to nil; in Bethnal Green, 5 to nil; in Whitechapel Union, 2 to 1; in Mile End Old Town, 4 to 1; in St. Saviour's Union, 3 to 1; in St. Olave's Union, 9 to nil; in Bermondsey parish, 2 to 1; in Lambeth, including lodging-houses, 18 to 1; in Greenwich Union there was no great difference, and in Lewisham no formal record. He adduced from all that that there had been a vast increase in the casual poor who were accommodated in those places, and that these casual poor belonged apparently to the class of professional vagrants. The admirable Minute of the Poor Law Board, written in 1848 by Mr. Charles Buller, stated that experience had shown that the roughness of the lodging and the coarseness of the fare, while inflicting undeserving hardship on the really meritorious destitute wayfarer, had not counterbalanced the inducement which the certainty of food and shelter held out to the dishonest vagrant. The fact was, the dishonest vagrant reaped the advantages which were intended for the benefit of the deserving, and the cost of which came out of the pockets of the ratepayers. The same admirable Minute to which he had referred, and which he would recommend to the President of the Poor Law Board, and to all future Presidents, as a text-book, stated that one of the worst results of the indiscriminate treatment of all who were commonly denominated "casuals" was, that those who were the best objects of charity were subjected to what was intended to
  1334
  deter the worst. The great difficulty attending the present system was, how to discriminate between the two classes of applicants, and he saw no other mode than that which was recommended in the same paper — namely, the intervention of the police. The police were the best discriminators between habitual vagrants and the deserving poor, for they had the best means of knowing the two, and they would be able to eliminate the vagrants with greater facility than could be done by a workhouse porter. That plan was recommended in 1848, and the Minute from which he had already quoted said that a plan which had been adopted with success in some towns in different parts of England was the employment of a trustworthy officer of police as assistant relieving officer, the effect of which was, that the habitual vagrant who had rendered himself amenable to the law for his criminal acts had been made to disappear. He felt sure that the district asylums which were proposed in 1846, and to which he took occasion to refer last Session, when he recommended the late President of the Poor Law Board to adopt the same system, would, if now established in London, and placed under the control of the police, have removed some of the very great evils which now existed with respect to the casual poor. There should be a certain amount of what he would call "semi-penal treatment;" there should be the labour test most rigorously enforced, and that would be the means of eliminating a considerable portion of those who now tried to subsist upon the provision really intended for the deserving. The greatest portion of these vagrants were as well known to the police as the Members of that House to the door-keepers, and could as easily be kept out as a stranger by one of the officers of that House. Undoubtedly the principle of the law equally required the granting of relief to the destitute and the prevention of the misapplication of public funds to those who were not destitute. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board: to resolutely set to work and separate the two classes, establishing kind and humane, though not too attractive, treatment for the deserving poor, and leaving the vagrants to be taken charge of by the police.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to call attention to the state of the vagrant poor in the provinces as well as in the metro-

  1335
  polis. Some two years ago he moved for a Return, which showed the rule applicable to the treatment of the casual poor in all the unions subject to the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board. If they looked to those rules, to the amount of work that was required, and the allowance of food that was made, they would not be surprised to find the great overflow of vagrant poor in the metropolitan workhouses. The law upon the subject was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that we must resort, in a great degree, to the old vagrancy laws, both in their humanity and in their severity, if we desired to put an end to the existing evils. The Guardians of the poor in the country were not commonly aware of the legal rights of the casual poor, and he thought it desirable that an inquiry should be made into the general condition of the casual poor throughout the country, and the mode in which they are treated.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, they were all obliged to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for calling attention to this subject. It would, however, be necessary to go a good deal deeper than the hon. Gentleman had suggested. It was easy to stick a policeman at the door of one of these places and call upon him to discriminate between the deserving poor and the worthless vagrant. But that would be only another mode of trying to scare the people from getting relief, and it was pretty. certain that if this plan were adopted a large class of the casual paupers would not come. Every sort of device had been tried to prevent the casual poor from receiving relief, and when they got the relief the great object of Poor Law Guardians was to get rid of them. Depend upon it, they would never stop this sort of vagrancy unless they took the bull by the horns, and kept the people who came to them until they found out who they were and where they belonged to, and in that way relieved the deserving poor and punished the vagrant. The question was one of much difficulty; but his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board was young and strong, and no man was more likely to grapple with it successfully. These vagrants might be very unworthy and undeserving, but they might also be in great distress—wet, cold, and destitute of food; and if too strict a hand were kept upon them they would perish, because they would
  1336
  not apply for relief. He was strongly of opinion that they would not remedy the evil complained of until they detained those who came for relief, examined into their condition, and then either sent them home, if they had one, or detained them where they were and made them work. It was easier to see the evil than to get out of it, but it never would be checked until that course was taken. All the rest was but a temporary expedient, and they might drive the casual poor from pillar to post, but they would be sure to get the better of them. They were passed on from union to union. They tore up their clothes; they were then clad in sackcloth; then they walked to the next union, and tore up the sackcloth, and so the thing went on. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able, during the recess, to do something towards remedying the evil.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that he agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley), that the recent legislation respecting casual poor had failed in many respects, and had certainly increased that class of pauperism. He would venture to quote some figures which would prove the truth of this with regard to one workhouse—namely, St. George's, Hanover Square, and the same figures would prove how impossible it was to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who advised that casuals should be detained in the workhouses where they sought refuge, and work found for them. The two workhouses of St. George's, Hanover Square, would not hold more than 700, whilst in one month shelter had been given to as many as 1,282 casual poor. The figures are as follows:—In January, 1864, there were 346 casuals relieved. In February, 1866, the number was 1,282; in March, 1,192; in April, 817; in May, 950. The workhouse being able to accommodate so limited a number, the great bulk were sent out to lodging-houses engaged for the occasion. More than one of the Guardians had taken pains to get work for the able-bodied casuals, and he had himself offered them clothes if they would go to work. In scarcely a single instance, however, had these men come to receive the clothes thus offered to them, and do the work. He thought it rather hard upon these persons that they were kept at work until eleven o'clock, a. m., in exchange for a night's lodging, for it was then too late for a man to get a day's work. The casuals

  1337
  who were relieved were charged upon the general rate of the metropolis; but if they were taken sick while they were in the workhouse, and remained in the infirmary, they were charged upon the parish. He thought it would be fairer if the expense of maintaining the casuals who thus fell ill were charged upon the general metropolitan rate. If a destitute man came and wanted a lodging he did not see how the police who might be employed could refuse him relief.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the question to which the hon Member for North Warwickshire had called attention was one of great difficulty. The discussion, however, had rather wandered from the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act, for his right hon. Friend had entered upon the question of vagrancy throughout the country generally. It was very difficult to amend the law in any given direction without causing some evil in another. The Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act was brought in to suppress a great evil—that a great number of people were in the habit of sleeping out of doors in the streets of the metropolis. It was discreditable to the Guardians and to the country that such a state of things should exist as that a number of poor persons should be unable to obtain admission into the workhouses, or to get food, and that they were found sleeping under arches and elsewhere. An Act was passed which had so far remedied the evil that none of these things now happened in the metropolis. Accommodation was now provided for above 2,000 of the houseless poor in the metropolitan workhouses, while the average number of applicants was only somewhat over 1,000. No doubt a great increase had taken place lately in the number of applicants, but whether the Act attracted the class of professional vagrants to the metropolis, or that persons applied for admission who did not go to the workhouses before, he was unable to state. Perhaps the greater care now taken to prevent disorder and dissolute conduct might explain some of the increase which had arisen; but he had not been long enough in office to satisfy himself on this point. He found, from the latest information which he could obtain that day, that there were about seventeen unions in the metropolis in which the police acted as assistant relieving officers, which would leave about twenty-three unions in which the ordinary relieving officers were employed in that service. It might
  1338
  be desirable to ascertain what was the character of the poor in those unions where the police acted in this capacity, and what was their character in unions where the police were not so employed; but as yet he had not been able to arrive at any conclusion on the subject; and, indeed, he trusted the House would excuse him if he had not yet inquired into the question of vagrancy, whether in the metropolis or the country, because the short time during which he had held office had been occupied with other subjects which, he would say, were very important, although he did not mean to underrate the importance of that question. He was sure the House would desire to distinguish, as far as practicable, between the professional vagrant and those poor persons who fell into destitution from illness, deaths in their families, and other causes which they could not prevent, so that the Poor Law might be administered in a humane and benevolent manner without any more harshness than was absolutely necessary to get rid of the professional vagrant. He would assure hon. Gentlemen that his attention should be given to that matter both in London and the provinces. He could not say that the Houseless Poor Act had failed in the object for which it was passed—namely, to remove from the streets the houseless poor who used to wander about the metropolis. That had to a great extent been done; and it now remained to be seen whether they could not accomplish the further end of deterring the class of applicants who in no sense deserved relief, but who rather, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had remarked, deserved punishment.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £140,000, Manufacturing Departments.
  GENERAL PEEL: Sir, the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate which I am now about to move has arisen from circumstances that occurred during the interval between the resignation of the last Government and the accession to Office of the present Government. But so far from being at all guilty of the charge brought against me earlier in the evening by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) for having adopted undue haste, I think that neither this House nor

  1339
  the country will be of opinion that any undue haste could be exhibited in arming our soldiers with good breech-loading weapons in the briefest possible period. On the contrary, I hold it to be a matter of great congratulation that at a comparatively trifling expense this can be effected in a very short space of time. Where the right hon. Gentleman got the figures which he gave I cannot tell. He stated that I said it would require an expenditure of £250,000 not only during the present but also during the next financial year; and I think he went on even to the third year likewise. Now, I certainly am not presumptuous enough to express any opinion as to what may take place in the financial year two years hence; but it may be a matter of great satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman, and, I trust, to the House also, to know that even of this Supplementary Estimate of £245,000 on the whole, only one-half is for conversions. When I acceded to office I found myself in this position. Two years ago the late Government came to the decision, on the Report of a Committee which sat for the express purpose, that the whole army should be armed with breech-loaders; and the delay in carrying it out only arose from their not arriving at a decision as to what pattern should be adopted. But when I came into office I found that that point also had been decided, and that a pattern had been adopted by which the Enfield rifle was to be converted into a breech-loader. And if any blame is due to me for acting with promptitude on the decision so arrived at by my predecessors, I must plead guilty of it; for I certainly lost no time in carrying out what I am sure would have been done by my predecessor had he remained in office, and in taking every means in my power to increase the number of breech-loaders to be provided during the course of the present financial year. The number that was provided for by the Estimate for the present year already before the House was only 40,000. I received the Seals of Office on Friday, the 6th of July; and instantly on my return home I directed a telegram to be sent to the head of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield that I desired to see him next morning in order to take every possible step for increasing that number. When I saw him next morning I was somewhat disappointed at learning that the factory could not furnish as great a supply as I had hoped might have been possible during the present year, and that I should
  1340
  be obliged to have recourse to the trade. I at once adopted the suggestion and instituted inquiries to ascertain what the trade would undertake to supply; and I am happy to say that on the Monday following I received a letter from the head of the Royal Small Arms Factory to this effect—
  "Sir,—After a careful examination into the existing arrangements which have been made for completing 40,000 converted Enfield rifles by the 1st of April, 1867, and after consulting with the manager and leading foreman, I find that by working late at night, turning a portion of the factory temporarily into a tool-making shop, and by making great exertions in every department of the factory, I can promise to convert 100,000 Enfield rifles into Snider's breech-loaders by the 1st of April next. In order, however, to enable me to do this amount of work not a day must be lost in giving me the necessary orders to proceed. I shall require the following additional funds — namely:— For 60,000 conversions — wages, £36,000; materials, £6,000; miscellaneous stores, £2,000; for engineer services, for foundations for new machines, and erecting furnaces, &c., £1,200. Estimated total, £45,200. I must request authority for the purchasing direct and at once of machinery to the extent of £1,460, as before stated."
  So that for an additional outlay of £45,200 in the manufacture at Enfield we can increase the number promised to be made in the present financial year from 40,000 to 100,000. I may also say that we have entered into a contract with a firm at Birmingham to furnish 50,000 more during this financial year; and we have likewise reason to hope that from the rest of the trade we shall be able to obtain another 50,000. That is to say, we anticipate that by the first of April next we shall have 200,000 Enfield rifles converted into breechloaders, and that at an expense for their conversion of about £140,000. The rest of this Estimate is for the ammunition for these converted rifles, which is different from that used for the ordinary muzzle-loader, being a self-igniting cartridge, and dearer than the common ammunition by £1 per 1,000 rounds. In other words, instead of costing £2 per 1,000 rounds, it will cost £3. Of the £140,000 proposed as the first Vote, £120,000 is for ammunition and not for conversion. That sum will provide 200 rounds each for the 200,000 rifles which we hope to get during the current financial year. I think that 200 rounds, considering the great rapidity of the breech-loader in firing, is not more than is necessary, and I am sure the House will never hesitate a moment in voting any sum which may be required to place our soldiers at all events upon an equal footing

  1341
  with those of any other country; and it is clear that this arm, when converted, is quite equal to any arm used in any other service. I do not say that a superior weapon may not subsequently be produced, but what we have to do at present is to convert our muzzle-loading Enfield rifles into breechloaders.
  MR. REARDENsaid, it ought to be borne in mind that the weapon proposed to be supplied to the army was probably not the best weapon which could be provided. He understood that there was then within the precincts of the House a breech-loader capable of being fired twenty times in a minute; and he believed the repeating Spencer rifle could carry more than twenty discharges.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he understood that the Government had only just intimated to the small arms' manufacturers throughout the country that that process of conversion was to be attempted; and the consequence was that they expected 50,000 converted Enfields from Birmingham by next April. But if the small arms' manufacturers had been informed six months ago of this intended conversion they would have turned out by this time all that were required. He could not see the object of such haste, as the country was not going to war.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, he did not consider that there had been any haste in the matter, for the subject had been under the consideration of the Ordnance Select Committee for the last ten years, and the result of their deliberations was the selection of the weapon now adopted by the Government.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, there was no charge which the people of this country were more apt to make against the Government than that they had unnecessarily delayed in availing themselves of mechanical improvements; and it was, he thought, unfair to charge the Government now with precipitation merely because their action was unusually rapid. If they were always to wait for the last invention, they would never have a weapon at all, because there would always be some newer invention than the last discovered. Repeating carbines might be used by cavalry, but repeating rifles were not suited for infantry, on account of the enormous quantity of ammunition which the soldier would require. The converted Enfield would put us on a par with any other nation, and he considered the course adopted by the Govern-
  1342
  ment on the present occasion was deserving of praise.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he did not believe that the converted Enfield was the best weapon which they could procure. He had on the preceding day been talking to an officer who was himself a musketry instructor, and who had been in America during the war, and that gentleman told him that the Enfield was one of the worst weapons in existence and barely safe, as the metal of which it was composed was so soft that the least blow upon it destroyed it. The Americans adopted steel in the construction of their new weapons, and that seemed to be a wonderful improvement. He thought there was no necessity for a panic in the provision of arms; England was at peace with all the world. He hoped that the Continent, even, was now at peace. We were constructing armourplated turret ships. But where was the enemy? We were adopting the Enfield rifle modified, which the War Minister said was the very best arm, but which he (Mr. Maguire) regarded as being only a makeshift.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that the late Government by ordering 40,000 converted rifles had committed themselves to the principle that the converted Enfield was to be the future arm of the British infantry, and he gave them the highest credit for adopting that weapon. It might be that by making inquiries and experiments extending over a couple of years the Government would at length obtain a paragon weapon; but it would be a disgrace to the country if, in the event of any emergency occurring in the meantime, the army was found to be armed only with the old-fashioned muzzleloader. It was impossible for any one who studied the Return giving an account of the experiments carried on by the Ordnance Select Committee in reference to the converted Snider Enfield rifle to doubt for a moment that the British troops would possess in that arm as formidable a weapon as a soldier could carry, both for the accuracy and rapidity of firing, and for the durability of the weapon. The country ought to be grateful to the Government for furnishing our soldiers with a weapon which would be superior to that possessed by any other European army.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he regretted that the work of improving the arms of our soldiers should be taken up in a panic. He, however, hoped our Volunteers would also receive the benefit of the improved

  1343
  arms, for a complaint had been made on the part of Volunteer Artillery on the south coast, that they were drilled with arms which did not qualify them so that they might be able to afford that service to the country which might naturally be expected considering the expenditure of time and of zeal to which they were put.
  GENERAL PEELdenied that the work of improving the arms of our soldiers had been undertaken in a panic; for no less than two years ago the late Government decided that the whole army should be furnished with breech-loaders. He had never said that the converted rifle was the best breech-loader that could ever be produced. He himself had mentioned the Henry rifle; but the Snider pattern was the best to which the Enfield could be converted. The object was, at a moderate expense, to convert our muzzle-loader rifle into the best breech-loader that could be made of it. There need be no fear that the French would have a gun superior to ours, for the very weapon they had adopted was submitted to the Ordnance Select Committee. As to the repeating rifles, it was not possible to convert the Enfield into an arm of this description. He would supply the Volunteers with the new weapon as fast as he could, but the intention naturally was to supply the regular army first. The navy also would require their proportion; and he feared it would not be possible to supply the Volunteers with the converted rifle during the present year. With regard to the Volunteer Artillery, and the guns with which they were exercised, he had already taken measures which, he thought, would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was plain from what had lately occurred at Wimbledon that this improved rifle could not be the permanent arm of our troops, and he considered it very questionable prudence to continue supplying our soldiers with a weapon which might need re-placing with one of another construction next year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £105,000, Warlike Stores, &c.
  (3.) £520,530, to complete the sum for Public Education in Great Britain.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he was sure the Committee would agree with him in thinking that he would be open to the imputation of indiscretion if, after having held his present office for so short a time, he were to express any opinion respecting the
  1344
  various educational questions which had, of late, been the subject of so much controversy. And there was an additional reason for reserve on his part on this occasion, because the whole question had been under the consideration of a Select Committee for the last two Sessions, and their Report, delivered only on Friday last, while it expressed no definite opinion, left it to the House to determine whether it should be re-appointed next year for the purpose of considering the draft Report proposed by their Chairman, the First Lord of the Admiralty. The question was therefore still sub judice, and under these circumstances, he thought he should best perform his duty by merely laying before the House as shortly as possible an account of past expenditure, and some of its results, together with an Estimate for the service of the ensuing year. Before doing so, however, he hoped he might be allowed to tender his grateful acknowledgments to his right hon. Friend and predecessor in office for his kindness in placing his time ungrudgingly at his (Mr. Corry's) disposal, and in giving him the information he required respecting these Estimates. He should always entertain a grateful recollection of the assistance which his right hon. Friend had thus afforded him, and of which he stood much in need. He believed it was usual in proposing the Vote for Education to give an account of the expenditure of the two preceding years, and, in accordance with this practice, he would state that the total expenditure for Great Britain in 1864 was £655,041, and in 1865 £636,810, being a decrease in 1865 of £18,231. This expenditure occurred under four principal heads—for building, enlarging, and improving schools; for maintenance of training colleges; for annual grants; and for the salaries and expenses of inspectors; and the cost of the Department in London. The expenditure for building, enlarging, and improving schools, which in 1864 was £28,305, was in 1865 only £18,882, showing a decrease under this head of £9,423. He was informed that this considerable decrease arose from two causes—in the first place, the number of schools now provided in many parts of the country had diminished the demand for new schools to be erected by Government aid; and secondly, the operation of the conscience clause was to deter in many instances the managers in the small rural parishes from availing themselves of the grant. The sum of £18,882 granted by

  1345
  the State for building, enlarging, and improving schools in 1865 had been met by voluntary contributions to the amount of £62,274. In 1864, the expenditure on the maintenance of training colleges was £96,166, and in 1865, £75,624, showing a decrease of £20,542. The decrease was owing to the operation of the Revised Code, under which the maximum grant to any college was limited to three-fourths of the whole expenditure. Under the old system the grant was higher, sometimes equalling the whole cost. The annual grants in 1864 amounted to £455,826; and in 1865, to £467,357, being an increase of £11,531. This was owing to a larger attendance of children, and better results of examination. The expense of inspectors and of the London office was in 1864, £74,744; and in 1865, £74,947, being an increase of £203. This small increase was occasioned by the progressive increase of salaries to officers. He would now compare the number of schools in the two years. In 1865 the number of schools built, enlarged, and improved was 111, and additional accommodation was thus provided for 15,300 children. The number of schools inspected in 1864 was 7,891; in 1865 it was 8,438, showing an increase of 547. Of these, the number receiving annual grants was 7,273 in 1864, and 7,883 in 1865, being an increase of 610. The increase in the course of the last year alone was more by 101 than in the whole of the three preceding years, in which the increase was only 509. The number of school-rooms, or separate departments under separate teachers, in 1864, was 11,818, and in 1865, 12,950, showing an increase of 1,132, and, of course, a corresponding increase of efficiency. The number of children present at inspections in England and Scotland was in 1864, 1,133,291, and in 1865, 1,246,055, being an increase of 112,764. The number of such children in schools receiving annual grants was in 1864, 1,094,632, and in 1865, 1,203,422; so that nearly the whole of the above increase took place in schools receiving annual grants. These figures did not show the total number of children attending the schools, since many were absent on the day of inspection. In England and Scotland, the total number might be taken at 1,500,000. With regard to teaching power, in 1864 the number of certified teachers engaged was 10,809, and in 1865, 11,510, showing an increase of 701. In 1864 the number of assistant
  1346
  teachers engaged was 688, and in 1865 912, or an increase of 224. The total teaching power, excluding pupil-teachers, was in 1864,11,497, and in 1865, 12,422, showing an increase of 925. The number of pupil-teachers was in 1864, 12,161, and in 1865, 11,221, showing a decrease of 940 resulting from the operation of the Revised Code. Formerly, when the pupil-teachers were paid directly by the State, it was the interest of the managers of schools to have as many pupil-teachers as possible; but now, under the Revised Code, when payment is made on the results of examinations, they were employed only so far as to avoid a deduction from the grant. The place of pupil-teachers was in some measure supplied by monitors, who were of a superior class, being under certificated teachers. It was the interest of the managers that they should be equal to their work; but, notwithstanding, monitors were not looked upon as efficient substitutes for pupil-teachers. The number of students in training colleges was in 1864, 2,739, and in 1865, 2,482, showing a decrease of 257, resulting from the smaller supply of pupil-teachers and from the growing demand for educated men in other walks of life. Now, with respect to attendance and examinations. The average attendance in day-schools in England and Wales was in 1864, 794,387, and in 1865, 848,044. In Scotland the number for 1864 could not conveniently be given; in 1865 it was 159,000. Of these there were individually examined, over six years of age, in England and Wales in 1864, 523,713, and in 1865, 561,326, or 66·19 per cent on the whole; and in Scotland, the number for 1864 could not be given, but in 1865 the number was 96,432. The number of children under six years of age in England and Wales, examined generally but not individually, was in 1864, 133,621, and in 1865, 146,600; and for Scotland the number for 1864 could not be given, but for 1865 it was 11,979. These might earn 6s. 6d. each for the school on general results. The average attendance at night schools in England and Wales was in 1864, 25,981, and in 1865, 33,904; in Scotland, 2,645 in 1864, and 1,806 in 1865. Now, as to those individually examined, the failures in reading for England and Wales were in 1864, 11·87 per cent, and in 1865, 11·23 per cent; for Scotland, 10·89 per cent in 1864, and 7·64 per cent in 1865. The failures in writing for England and Wales in 1864 were 137·98 per cent, and in 1865, 13·09 per cent; for Scotland 28·06

  1347
  per cent in 1864, and 20·13 per cent in 1865. The failures in arithmetic for England and Wales were in 1864, 23·69 per cent, and in 1865, 23·58 per cent; for Scotland in 1864, 33·04 per cent, and in 1865, 28·04 per cent. Thus in Scotland the standard in writing and arithmetic was lower than in England, but the improvement had been greater. The reading in Scotland was always better. He now came to the Education Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1867. The grand total for 1866–7 was £694,530, as against £693,078 last year. showing an increase of £1,452. The Estimate for Scotland (annual grants) for 1866–7 was £75,900, against £73,000 last year—an increase of £2,900. The original code still regulated the payment of grants in Scotland. A Royal Commission had been sitting to investigate the question of Education in Scotland, and was understood to have expressed its opinion in the form of a draft Bill. Pensions to schoolmasters in Great Britain for 1866–7 stood at £650, the same as last year. No new pensions were now granted. The annual grants for schools in England and Wales amounted this year to £431,694, against £430,450 last year; showing an increase of £1,244. This Estimate was calculated on an average attendance of 916,722 day scholars at 9s. ld. per head, and of 50,000 night scholars at 6s. The total number of children on the books in Great Britain was 1,500,000. For building, enlarging, and improving schools the Estimate for this year was the same as that for last year—namely, £30,000. The actual—expenditure under this head last year was, as he had already stated, only £18,882, but he was informed that an increased demand equal to the difference was anticipated by the late Government. The grants for the maintenance of training colleges were this year estimated at £75,000, against £80,000 last year; the reduction of £5,000 being due to the gradual operation of the Revised Code to which he had already adverted. For administration in London and inspectors the sum this year estimated was £78,656, against £76,478, showing an increase of £2,178, owing to the appointment of two new inspectors and the progressive increase of salaries in the officers. The last item in these Estimates—namely, that of poundage on post office orders, stood this year at £2,630, against £2,500 last year. He believed he had now gone through all the figures of gene-
  1348
  ral interest; and, as he stated at the commencement of his observations, he would not at present trouble the Committee with any general remarks. He was aware that the statement he had made was very dry and uninteresting, as was, indeed, almost unavoidable within the limits he had prescribed to himself; but he felt that, considering the short time during which he had held office, a simple narration of facts such as he had offered was the most appropriate statement that he could make. In conclusion, he could assure the House that he entered on the duties of his office with a deep sense of the responsibility which attached to it, and with an earnest desire to promote the great cause of public education by every means in his power.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he wished to make a few remarks on the subject of this Vote, which involved no less an expenditure than £700,000. It was a misfortune that a question so important, so grave, and so deeply affecting the prospects of the country, should, at the same time, be one of so much detail as to render its discussion comparatively dry and uninteresting. He should not do justice to his own feelings if he did not on this occasion venture to express the sense he entertained of the manner in which the late Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education had conducted the business of the Department—the knowledge he always displayed of a wide and comprehensive subject, the zeal he observed for the extension of education, and the sympathy be evinced towards those who had borne the burden and the heat of the day in the various districts of England. He hoped they should hear some account of the success of the great change which had been introduced last year, which was known as Miss Burdett Coutts' system, showing that the expectations entertained in regard to it were not altogether futile and without issue. The first thing to cause regret to one engaged in reviewing the system of education was the decrease in the supply of male teachers. The Committee which had sat upon the subject spoke in their Report of the great difficulty of mending the system, and said that it was inexpedient to deal with the questions raised unless it was fairly to be presumed that a satisfactory conclusion would be come to, because otherwise discussion would only disturb the minds of those engaged in carrying out the present system. One very substantial cause

  1349
  for a decrease in the supply of male teachers was the great inducement offered to young men to enter more lucrative, though, perhaps, not more honourable, fields of labour. It was necessary to deal with education on sound commercial principles; and if the inducements at present offered to young men to become teachers were insufficient, they should be increased. Formerly it could be said that a young teacher could compare favourably with others of the same station, but differently employed; now, however, his equal in birth seemed to be in a better monetary position, and had also more spare time at his command. If the lack of male pupil-teachers resulted in unfilled colleges, he recommended that one of them should be devoted to the education of teachers for girls. Some time ago there were great complaints that in the schools assisted by Government grants the children were taught far beyond the necessities of the case. So far from this being the case now, it was said that the superior class of children were leaving the schools in consequence of what he might call ornamental teaching having been largely dispensed with; he was sorry the more substantial education which had been substituted for it was not appreciated. He was pleased, however, to hear that the number of scholars generally had increased, and promised to move for a Return showing what accommodation was afforded in the schools now existing. But it was not merely a question of school accommodation in proportion to the population; the extension of the Factory Acts to other trades than they at present dealt with was, in his opinion, an essential preliminary to a large extension of educational machinery. He would not enter into the question on districts which were now neglected, but he believed that many districts described in blue books were not neglected, and that schools of an inferior class were established in them. It was the duty of the House to raise the character of those schools, and to give to those who were willing to adopt the rules a share of those liberal grants which were year by year made by Parliament for the purposes of education. He might, as an illustration, mention the mode in which education had been extended in Manchester. In that city there was a society known by the name of the Free School Society, the object of which was to visit the people from house to house, and wherever
  1350
  it was ascertained that from poverty children were not instructed, to pay the pence necessary for their instruction. He wished to see local philanthrophy meet local deficiency and the central Government grant applied to aid those philanthropists, for by that means education would be diffused throughout the country in a more efficient manner than it would be by any system of local rates. Then, as regards the building of schools, he thought the Council too strict. Opinions might be expressed upon the subject of their size and other matters, and possibly the promoters of local schemes might be induced thereby to modify their plans; but he was sure that a greater desire to bend to the wishes of promoters on the part of the Council would prevent many heartburnings, and often do much service to the cause of education. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the present system would not be lightly interfered with, but that it would be permitted to expand. He was fully convinced that such a policy would result in the setting up of most excellent schools in every town and village of Great Britain, sufficient to supply the educational wants of the population.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished that the hon. Member for Leeds had been present to propose the doing away with this Vote for Education altogether, for in his (Mr. Whalley's) opinion the education of children would be more efficient if it were left, not to State grants, but to the natural feelings of parents. The danger was that the State grant—especially when not properly administered — discouraged voluntary contributions. He was sorry to find that the present Government had adopted the scheme of the late Government for a large extension of the system as regarded industrial and reformatory schools. A portion of the Education Vote was expended under an Act of Parliament which actually took out of the hands of parents the determination of the religion of children between the ages of seven and fourteen, and left it to the magistrates to say in what religion these children should be brought up. Through the operation of this Act the Roman Catholic priests throughout the country were enabled surreptitiously to re-baptise children, and to obtain magisterial recognition of the re-baptism, and in that way they superseded entirely the religious influence of the parents. He observed that there was an item of £26,000 for Roman Catholic

  1351
  Schools. Was it within the scope of the Education Department to ascertain the nature of the education given in those schools? The results of the education were manifested in the Fenian conspiracy, which was chiefly sustained by persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. He also found that £360,000 was given to the Church of England for the purposes of education, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had inquired into the nature of the education for which the money was given? He believed that nearly half the amount went towards educating children for the service of Rome.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSrose to order. The remarks of the hon. Member were scarcely relevant to the subject before the House. If other hon. Members entered into so wide a discussion their debates would run to a most inconvenient length.
  MR. WHALLEYwas proceeding when,
  MR. POWELLsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Chairman to the observations of the hon. Member for Greenwich.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he could only describe the interruption of the hon. Member for Cambridge as impertinent.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Peterborough must withdraw that expression.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would withdraw the word in obedience to the call of the Chairman, but he adhered to the sentiment it expressed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member had only withdrawn the expression in one form to repeat it in another.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would withdraw the repetition, but wished to be permitted to retain his own opinion upon the subject. Did the right hon. Gentleman regard it as a part of his duty to inquire into the character of the education given to children in Roman Catholic schools and also in Church of England schools?
  MR. BRUCEthought that his right hon. Friend and successor had exercised a wise discretion in confining himself to a bare statement of facts and figures. It would have been premature to raise a discussion on these controverted points, which had been fully inquired into by the Committee over which the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) had presided with so much impartiality, and the two volumes of evidence taken before that Committee, and the Report of that right hon.
  1352
  Gentleman, would be found to contain matter which would worthily occupy the attention of the Department during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman had abundantly appreciated the little assistance he had been able to give him since he entered upon his office, and he could not refuse himself the pleasure of thanking hon. Gentlemen opposite for the uniform consideration and kindly spirit with which they had judged his own acts and opinions during his tenure of office. He trusted that the same spirit would continue to animate the House, and that the subject of education would ever be kept out of the arena of party contest. The progress made during the last year showed that the country was recovering from the state of alarm and uncertainty into which they had been thrown by the Revised Code. The increase in the number of schools receiving annual grants was greater during the single year 1865 than that of the three preceding years in the aggregate, and the addition of 108,000 scholars in one year was as large as that made in any one preceding year since the Education Grant had been made. Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would regard that circumstance rather as a misfortune than as a subject for congratulation, inasmuch as these children now receiving their education in schools aided by the State had formerly been educated by purely voluntary efforts. The difference, however, was that they would in future, as a general rule, be educated in good instead of indifferent schools. An indifferent school left the population as it found it, torpid, stationary, contented in its ignorance. The good school, dealing with a similar population, soon introduced the elements of hope and progress, and enabled the more gifted and energetic children to rise to posts of honour and profit. How was it that so many Scotchmen of humble parentage had risen to positions of trust and consideration? It was because the very poorest could command a good education for their children. The Report of the Committee of Council for the year ending July 1865 was the first which gave the matured view of the inspectors on the operation of the Revised Code. The battles fought over that Code seemed now so remote that it was difficult to believe that it had only been in complete operation for two years; for although its operation commenced in July 1862, it only became general in July 1863. Each Report contained the experience of half of the

  1353
  whole number of inspectors, and therefore extended over two years. The financial results of that great experiment were remarkable. The highest expenditure on National education was in 1861, when it reached £813,000. Since that time the number of aided schools had increased by 1,119, or from 6,764 to 7,883; the number of scholars present at inspection by 234,000, or from 969 to 1,203,000; the increase of the number of children on the books being about 300,000; while the expenditure had fallen to £636,810, being a diminution of £1 76,632. The greater part of this decrease had occurred in the building grants, which had fallen from £106,451 in 1861, to £88,569 in 1865. The grants to training colleges had fallen in the same time from £101,865 to £75,624. The decrease under these two heads amounted, therefore, to £114,810. This diminution in the grant must not, however, be taken as a proof of diminished activity in the cause of education. Since 1839 the building grants voted by Parliament amounted to £1,602,808, to meet local contributions of no less than £2,972,258, making a total of £4,575,066 spent on the mere erection of schools. It was impossible to estimate how much, in addition to this enormous sum, had been expended by private liberality unaided by the State; but undoubtedly it was a very large sum, probably not less than £2,000,000. A large portion of the country had thus been supplied with schools, and some considerable diminution of expenditure under this head was therefore inevitable. That the accommodation thus provided was not insufficient was proved by the fact that at the last inspection only 1,246,000 children were present in schools capable of containing 1,616,000. Such were the financial results of the Revised Code; as to its effects upon education there was considerable difference of opinion. The Reports of the majority of inspectors were decidedly favourable to its operation; but some inspectors, while not denying some good results, attributed to it also some mischievous ones. Two inspectors reported in terms of unmixed condemnation. He would endeavour to present to the Committee a fair estimate of the practical effects of the new Code. In the first place, there had undoubtedly been effected a considerable reduction of unnecessary expenditure. Under the old Code the grants had frequently been in excess of the wants of schools, and it was within his knowledge that in some cases an annual
  1354
  saving had been made out of the grants, and carried to a capital account. It had also diminished the number of pupil-teachers, which had been extravagantly great. It had reduced the number of students at training colleges, many of whom had been educated at the public expense, without any intention of devoting themselves to the profession of teachers. It had at the same time so arranged the system of payments to the training colleges, that grants were only made on account of those pupils who had given some proof of their intention to devote themselves to the work of teaching. The system of individual examination had secured to all the children throughout the school an equal degree of care and instruction, and had thus removed an important defect in the former system of education. Another valuable result was that the direct dependence of teachers on the State had ceased. They now made their own arrangements with the managers. Such were the principal good results. On the other hand, the sudden reduction in the scale of annual payments undoubtedly involved many managers of schools in great difficulties. The average payment on each child under the old Code had been 11 s. 6d. The estimated payment under the Revised Code was 10 s. per child; but it actually amounted to only 8s., being a reduction of 3s. 6d. a head. It would easily be understood how heavily this large and sudden decrease of receipts had fallen upon managers of schools, especially in the poorer districts, and in small schools. The clergy, already heavily taxed in proportion to their resources in maintaining these schools, were the principal sufferers by the change, to which, therefore, they naturally objected. Some improvement had taken place in the rate of payment, which reached 9s. a head last year, and was estimated at 9s. ld. for the present year. Then, again, the reduction in the number of pupil-teachers and students at the training colleges, although salutary and desirable within certain limits, had perhaps been carried too far. The increasing number of annual grant schools was necessarily leading to an increased demand for certificated teachers, the supply of whom it might soon be difficult to furnish. It was urged, too, against the Revised Code that, while it undoubtedly secured greater equality of instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, it operated injuriously in checking the useful

  1355
  study of history, geography, and grammar. He did not wish to dispute the validity of any of these objections. The means of obviating them had been much considered by the Department; but it would have been inexpedient to propose any changes, while so much of the subject of public education was still under the examination of the Select Committee, and before their Report had been received; but he believed that remedies to these defects might be applied, and in fact his noble Friend (Earl Granville) and himself had been quite prepared to suggest them. The financial difficulties of the smaller schools, and the diminution in the number of pupil-teachers, might be met by allowing a higher rate of payment for the first 100 children in every school, and by coupling with that concession the obligation of providing a larger proportion of teaching power than is insisted upon by the Revised Code. There was another alteration which might be advantageously made. Although a large portion of the country was well supplied with schools there was still a deficiency in our agricultural parishes, where the value of property was inconsiderable, and in the outskirts and suburbs of our populous towns, where, although the property might be very valuable, the resources of the resident population, consisting chiefly of the labouring classes, were small. The building grants had been successively reduced from 6s. and 4s. to 2s. 6d. per foot of internal area, while the cost of building had greatly increased. He thought, therefore, that the building grant might be advantageously restored to its previous amount of 4s. He believed that these alterations would give an important stimulus to education in the poorest and most neglected districts without entailing any considerable addition to the expenditure. The Returns for the last year showed some improvement in the quality as well as in the quantity of the education given in our elementary schools. Of the children subjected to individual examination 40 per cent were of or above ten years of age. If the schools did their work well it would not be unreasonable to expect that all children of this age should pass a successful examination in one of the three upper standards. In the first year of individual examination, however, the number who presented themselves were only fourteen, of whom ten passed successfully. In 1864 sixteen presented themselves, and eleven passed. In 1865 the numbers had increased to
  1356
  twenty presenting themselves, of whom thirteen passed. Much ground had, therefore, been gained, although there was room for considerable improvement. The Minute passed about a year ago for facilitating the examination of night schools had had a great effect in encouraging attendance. The numbers presented in 1865 were 33,904, as against 25,981 in 1864; and so rapid was their rate of increase that provision had been made in the Estimates of this year for 50,000. He had been asked how the scheme known as Miss Burdett Coutts', permitting the union of five small schools under one certificated teacher, had worked. He regretted to say that but little success had attended that experiment. Only three such groups had yet been formed. But it took a long time to make the knowledge of such changes penetrate the country, and although he did not believe that this arrangement would afford much aid to the spread of education, he did not despair of seeing some further extension of the experiment. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had asked what sort of education was given in Roman Catholic and Church of England schools. The State did not prescribe any form of religious education, nor did it dictate or control the choice of books employed in such instruction. It only required that religious instruction should be given, and in Church of England schools the sufficiency of the religious teaching was inquired into by Her Majesty's Inspectors, who were invariably clergymen of the Church of England approved by the Archbishop of the province in which the school was situated. Considering that the great majority of children left school at or under ten years of age, his hon. Friend, he thought, expressed needless alarm as to the propagation of unsound doctrinal knowledge. The hon. Member had blamed the Vice President for not discussing the provisions of the Industrial Schools Bill and Reformatory Schools Bill; but he was either too late or too early in his criticisms. He should either have taken his objections when his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary proposed the Home Office Estimates, or he should have deferred them until the Bills were before the House. In conclusion, he might confifidently state that the education of the country was in a healthy and progressive condition. The promoters of education and the managers of schools had recovered from the alarm and uncertainty caused by

  1357
  the introduction of the Revised Code, and the country, he hoped, would gradually be covered with an increasing number of schools imparting as sound an education as the elementary schools of any people in the world.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was sure that the whole Committee felt much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his very fair and clear statement of the various pros and cons of this difficult question. There could be no doubt that of the various educational efforts that had been made the night schools had proved the most successful; and he should be glad if it turned out that the other observations of the right hon. Gentleman as to the improved state of education throughout the schools of the country generally were equally well founded. The alleged improvement rested solely on the Reports of inspectors and results of examinations, as to which he could not help feeling somewhat sceptical, knowing that by the time a man came to examine a school a second or third time, both masters and scholars were familiar with the groove that he ran in, and answered better than they did upon his first visit. It was capable almost of being demonstrated that if the number of pupil-teachers had gone on accumulating in the former ratio, there would very soon have been an excess. Whether the large diminution which had now taken place went beyond what the circumstances of the country and the waste which naturally took place required, time alone would show. Allusion had been made to the Report of the Committee. As it happened, there was no actual Report from the Committee, but a draft Report drawn up by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had been circulated. Among Members of the House the circumstances were very well known, but as three or four Members of the present Cabinet had been Members of that Committee, it was well that the country should know that they were not in any way pledged to that Report, which was simply the Report of his right hon. Friend the President of that Committee. He wished he could agree with the sanguine view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, as to the mode in which the educational system was likely to develop itself. There was a decrease, however slight, in every item of the payments except that for Establishment charges. That fact did not look like a great development of the system; and he believed that it
  1358
  had not developed in proportion to the continued increase of the population. They knew that a great number of young children were counted in at these examinations. In fact, they had got the name of "blessings," being what persons called "certain money," as the payments were made on their account, whether they passed the examination or not. All the assistance which the State could give ought to be given to education; but dependence, in the main, must be placed on the voluntary exertions of the people, and State assistance must be managed so as not to shock the feelings, and especially the religious feelings, of the various parties who contributed by far the greater portion of the educational expenditure of the country. He could assure the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, that considerable interest was felt in the subject throughout the country; and though they all knew what sort of a thing a draft Report was, yet from the circumstance that it was proposed by a Member of Her Majesty's Government, and that three others of the Committee at least were in the Cabinet, a significance had been attached to it which it did not deserve.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he only rose to confirm what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford. The draft Report to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was not sanctioned, or even for a moment discussed, by the Committee over which he had the honour to preside. The discussion of the Report had been prevented by the accident of the moment, when a change of Government was taking place, and five Member of the House were likely to become Members of the present Government. It was impossible, under the circumstances, at that time to take into consideration a Report of considerable length, and embracing, as hon. Members were aware, a considerable number of subjects, all of them of importance as bearing upon the subject of education. He had had the honour for the last two years of presiding over the Committee, and at the end of that period he had been requested to frame a Report founded upon the evidence which had been adduced, and this he had done to the best of his ability. It was not for him to say whether that Report would have been adopted or rejected. Most probably some portions would have been adopted, while others would have been

  1359
  rejected. Seeing, however, how impossible it was from the position in which they then were to give the matter the necessary consideration, it was agreed, and he was a party to that agreement, to circulate the draft Report.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to call attention to the reduction in the Building Vote, the difference between that Vote for the present year and for the past year amounting to over £9,000. For the last seven years, the Votes had ranged as follows: — 1859, £137,000; 1860, £118,000; 1861, £106,000; 1862, £66,000; 1863, £42,000; 1864, £28,000; and the last year, £18,800. It might naturally be asked whether such a continued reduction arose from the fact that the demand of education had been satisfied and that applications were not so numerous as heretofore. But that the reduction did not arise from such a cause would be shown from other statistics. The National Society, working in connection with the Church of England, had granted aid in 1859 in building 146 schools; in 1860, 146; 1861, 193; 1862, 148; 1863, 149; 1864, 173; and in the last year, 184. The buildings had, therefore, evidently been on the increase. The cause of the reduction in the amount of the grant was therefore to be looked for in another quarter, and it plainly arose from the operation of the conscience clause, into the results of which he hoped some investigation would be made. By the conscience clause any parent could claim for his child a purely secular education, and Her Majesty's Privy Council had attempted to introduce it into building grants. This circumstance naturally lessened the number of applications made by conscientious builders and by the clergy. He desired to call the attention of the Vice President of the Board of Education to the fact that the conscience clause tended to obstruct instead of to promote the cause of education, and he wished also to urge the adoption of some system of education more in harmony with the religious feelings of school builders, and more in harmony, too, with Resolutions which had been passed by that House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had to complain that a large sum of money was annually enpended in circulating Roman Catholic publications in some of our Church of England schools. He should never enter into any question of doc-
  1360
  trine, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of this Department would not ignore any part of our political history. There were some things to be taught even under a religious system, and some systems of religion were antagonistic to the social well-being and polity of the country. The History of England which was employed in the Government schools was one which justified the punishments inflicted by Queen Mary, and which extolled the heroism of Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators, much after the fashion that was adopted even by some hon. Members of praising the heroism of the Fenians.
  MR. POWELLasked when the Report of the Commission on Education in Scotland would be published; and whether it would be accompanied by the evidence?
  MR. KINNAIRDasked whether it was intended to continue the grant to the night schools. It had been productive of much benefit, and it would be satisfactory to know if it would be continued and increased according to the demands?
  MR. CORRYsaid, it was intended to continue-the grant to the night schools, which he believed were very valuable, and the Report on Scotch Education would, he was informed, be ready by next Session, and would be laid on the table along with the evidence.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reply to his inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman was about to answer his question, but was restrained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, however, had himself once stated that the whole energies of the Roman Catholic priesthood were directed to the destruction of the polity and, as far as necessary, of the Empire of England, and had said, "this foreign priesthood is the sirocco breath under which the fame and influence of England are fast withering."
  MR. CORRYsaid, he had merely to observe that he did not think it was a part of his duty to inquire into the description of religious education given to Roman Catholic children, or to children of any other religious denomination in the schools receiving public grants. The matter was one for the inspectors, who are alone responsible.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) TEMPORARY ADVANCES BILL— [BILL 220.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Naas, Mr. Hunt.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This Bill is one to enable the Treasury to make temporary advances to Railway Companies in Ireland. The character of the measure is fully described in a Treasury Minute which has been laid on the table. Very briefly I may say it is this—a number of railway debentures are becoming due at the severest moment of the monetary distress, which unfortunately still prevails. It is totally impossible for the Railway Companies to meet those debentures at the present time, and as the holders have power to seize the railways—to seize the rolling stock—there was every prospect of the general railway communication in Ireland being stopped. This is a matter of convenience of the highest order, and, consequently, it had to be considered by the Government. The late Government very wisely decided on affording temporary assistance in the manner which is described in the Minute on the table. Under this Bill the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will have the power of advancing, through the Loan Commissioners, a sum of not more than £500,000 for a period of three months, with a power of extending the time to twelve months, but not to any longer period. The Bill contains all the necessary clauses usual under such circumstances—namely, clauses authorizing the appointment of receiving in case of default, and the fixing of interest at not more than 4 per cent. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. SYNANsaid, he regretted to observe the limited character of the Bill. A sum of only £300,000 would be required to meet the debentures now falling due, but the whole sum would be required to meet them and the collateral securities which would be due within the next three months on debentures that would not be due until after that period. He wanted to know if the Government would assent to an alteration of the Bill in that respect?
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he was glad the Government had brought in the Bill. He had recently been in Ireland, and he could state the rolling stock was in such a bad condition on some of the Irish railways, that if some assistance were not given to the companies, travelling on their lines must soon come to an end. He was also glad that the remedy was only a temporary one, because if public money was to be carried from this country to Ireland, the whole railway system in that country should be revised. He thought the public ought to reap some advantage in the way of a reduction of fares or a compulsory carriage of the mails, or a better arrangement of trains in return for the assistance which the State afforded to those railways.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought it would be very improper to introduce into a temporary measure clauses of a permanant nature which would open up the whole question of Irish railways. As to what the hon. Member for Limerick called collateral securities, the state of the question was this. The money was secured upon certain primary securities, and if these securities fell due either three months before or twelve months after the passing of the Act the first section would enable the Public Loan Commissioners to make an advance. If the securities were good and duly issued under the powers of the company, there would be no objection, provided the Commissioners were satisfied. If the securities were not duly issued, the House would be slow to assent to any proposal to advance money on them.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the fourth paragraph of the 4th clause, which required that the Commissioners should not make any loan unless the security offered was in their opinion sufficient and proper, would go far to neutralize any good effect which could be wrought by the Bill. If the Treasury threw on the Commissioners the responsibility of seeing that the security was ample, that circumstance would stand very much in the way of the measure. The Treasury ought to take that responsibility upon themselves.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Bill was brought in to meet a temporary purpose and under exceptional circumstances, the Irish railways having suffered in consequence of the Fenian disturbances. The fourth paragraph alluded to by the hon. Member for Peterborough was framed in the ordinary way, which required that the

  1363
  Loan Commissioners should see that the security was right and proper. With respect to the proposal to extend the operation of the Bill, he could not hold out any hope that the wish of the hon. Member for Limerick could be complied with.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, there was no foundation whatever for the assumption that the Railway Companies had suffered from Fenian disturbances. Long before the Fenian conspiracy the Railway Companies themselves complained of the falling off of traffic, and attributed it not to any political cause, but to the diminution of the population.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the matter would require to be watched or it might form a dangerous precedent. When Parliament was beginning to authorize the advance of money in that way, they ought to see whether it was not likely to lead to any inconvenience if pushed to a great extent, and whether they might not be unjust to other parties who might be equally deserving of assistance.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  VACCINATION (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Bruce, Mr. Baring.)
  [BILL 173.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTexpressed a hope that the Government would not proceed further with this important measure this Session, as the House could not have an opportunity of fairly discussing it.
  MR. CORRYhad been very anxious that the law relating to vaccination should be amended during the present Session, because it was impossible to read the able Reports of the medical officer of the Privy Council without seeing that the present state of the law was very defective. But he had ascertained from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the measure was likely to meet with great opposition, and it was, therefore, very doubtful whether it could be carried through Parliament at so late a period of the Session. Moreover, in the opinion of his noble Friend the President of the Council, as well as of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, some of its provisions required further and careful consideration; and,
  1364
  under these circumstances, it was not his intention to proceed with the Bill.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  COLONIAL BRANCH MINTS BILL.
  (Mr. Hunt, Mr. Adderley.)
  [BILL 215.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HUNTstated that the Bill was a general one, enabling Her Majesty to make the gold coins of the colonies legal tender in any part of her dominions.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  ABERDEEN PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," relating to the burgh of Aberdeen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 237.]

  INCLOSURE (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Bill to authorise the Inclosure of certain Lands, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 238.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the districts of Ramsgate, Leominster, Stalybridge, Lincoln, Maidstone, Banbury, Tonbridge Wells, Bedford, and Southampton; and for other purposes relative to districts under the said Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 236.]

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUNT, Bill to amend the Bills of Sale Act (1854), ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 235.]

  PARISHES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1848) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Bill to amend the Act of the seventh and Eighth Victoria, chapter forty-four, relating to the erection of new Parishes quoad sacra in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 232.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament The Earl of Gainsborough after the Death of his Father: The Earl of Harrington after the Death of his Uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Hundred Bridges* (210); Straits Settlements*(211); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries*(212); British Columbia*(213); Thames Navigation*(214).
Second Reading—Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)*(205).
Committee—National Gallery Enlargement*(171); Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons)*(178); Postmaster General*(75); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No.2)*(187); Extradition Treaties Act Amendment*(200).
Report—Postmaster General*(75); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)*(187); Extradition Treaties Act Amendment*(200).
Third Reading—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Act (1860) Amendment*(57); New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government *(195); Revising Barristers' Qualifications*(196); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation*(185), and passed.
Royal Assent—Prosecution Expenses [28 & 29 Vict. c. 52].
John Baron Wodehouse having been created Earl of Kimberley in the County of Norfolk—Was in the usual Manner introduced.
John Baron Henniker, in that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created
1268
Baron Hartismere of Hartismere in the County of Suffolk—Was in the usual Manner introduced.

INDIA—GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal a Question upon a matter which had been frequently the subject of Petitions to that House, both in this and in previous Sessions, and which related to the wrongs suffered by Indian officers on the amalgamation of the Indian with the Queen's army. His question was, Whether the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbourne) had found, on taking office, any scheme which he was prepared to adopt with regard to the claims of those Indian officers who alleged that they had suffered by an amalgamation of the Company's and the Queen's services; or whether he had yet had an opportunity of considering those claims? The case of these officers had already been inquired into by a Royal Commission of officers, whose conclusions upon the several points brought under their consideration he now held in his hand. Upon points 1 and 2—the retention on the cadres of Native regiments of the names of officers transferred to new line regiments, and arrangements for promotion to the rank of General Officer—the Commissioners reported that the measures taken by the Government were effectual and sufficient. Point 3 was "the filling up of one-half the vacancies occasioned by the retirement of lieutenant-colonels and retention of their names upon the regimental gradation lists;" and upon this point the Commissioners considered that a few promotions were required in completion of the reduced establishment from the 1st of January, 1862. On point 4—"the rule fixing twelve years' service in the rank of regimental lieutenant-colonel for promotion to colonels, with colonel's allowance"—the Commissioners stated the period of twelve years to be, upon the whole, about two years in excess of a fair period for lieutenant-colonels promoted prior to the 1st of January, 1862. On point 5—"the supersession of regimental officers by officers of the Staff Corps"—they considered that the measure adopted by the Government had not been effectual and sufficient, because of—first, the non-removal from the cadres of regiments of the officers transferred to the Staff Corps

1269
and the new line regiments, as indicated by the committee assembled by the Secretary of State, of which Lord Hotham was President; secondly, the consequent withholding of promotion; thirdly, the disturbing effect of the brevet. Whether rightly or wrongly, these Indian officers were under the impression that they had cause to complain of great grievances. His own opinion was that their claims were not to be judged merely on legal or technical grounds, but should be dealt with in the generous spirit in which a great country like this ought to treat the claims of its old servants. Their Lordships ought not to separate without having some assurance upon this subject.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that he had been instructed to say that the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Indian Office had been directed to this subject, but that he had not yet had time to consider any scheme. His noble Friend was perfectly aware of the pressing nature of the subject, and in a few days hoped to be able to inform the House of his intentions respecting it.

DOVER HARBOUR BOARD.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLEasked, Whether there was any truth in the rumour that two gentlemen who were members of the Dover Harbour Board—one of whom was nominated by the Admiralty and the other by the Board of Trade—were to be removed from their office and two others to be appointed in their stead? One of the present members was a large importer, and the other the agent of Lloyd's; both rendered great assistance to the Board by their knowledge and experience, and as Chairman of the Board he should regret greatly to lose their services.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had communicated with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), and found that the rumour to which the noble Earl referred had no foundation whatever. In fact, the first intimation which his right hon. Friend had of the existence of the rumour was the inquiry which he (the Earl of Derby) addressed to him.

FOREIGN POLICY—THE WAR IN GERMANY.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to ask a question of his
1270
noble Friend at the head of the Government on a subject on which it was necessary that Parliament and the country should be accurately informed—he wished to ask his noble Friend, What steps the Government had taken in reference to any negotiations with or any propositions made to any of the belligerent Powers, either as to a cessation of hostilities, or as to preliminaries of terms of peace. He gathered from the speech of the noble Earl on Friday night last, that the Government had acted in entire conformity with the announcement they had made of their policy not to interfere so as in any way to compromise this country, or to pledge themselves to any propositions whatever, unless they had reason to think that the propositions would be acceptable to the belligerent Powers, and would lead to the establishment of peace. Upon reading the speech made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on Friday night, he understood that speech also to indicate the line of policy which had been announced by the noble Earl. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said—
"The sole diplomatic act they have taken—and it was almost the first they had to perform—was that of supporting at Florence and Berlin the proposition for a temporary cessation of hostilities. It seemed to us that to support that was on our part simply an act of humanity and common sense."
He did not gather from the reading of those words nor from anything said by the noble Earl that the British Government had given any opinion as to the terms upon which peace was to be concluded. He understood that that question was left entirely open. But it appeared that the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary (Earl Russell), speaking on Saturday night at the dinner by which the Cobden Club was inaugurated, expressed regret that the British Government should have been a party to terms which he considered were offensive to the Italian people. Without going into any other question, he thought it was right that they should understand as a matter of fact how the case stood. Had the British Government proposed or supported any terms for an armistice or for a peace, and how far were we committed by the expression of any opinion upon the conditions or provisions which it would be desirable to adopt in the present position of affairs? He would be glad if the noble Earl at the head of the Government would give them some explanation.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should have thought that the noble Marquess ought to have addressed himself, in the first instance, to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) by putting a question founded on the speech said to have been made by the noble Earl on a recent occasion, and as to which I shall be glad to ask the noble Earl whether he is correctly reported to have made use of these words—
"No doubt the Emperor of the French, anxious for peace—desirous to restore peace to Europe—acted, I have no doubt, with the best motives when he proposed an armistice on that occasion to Italy and to Prussia. But the terms did not look promising; they could not but be distasteful to Italy, and, for my part, I regret that, however commendable on the part of the Emperor of the French that offer might be, an English Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have gone shares in that proposition, and should thus have done that which must be offensive to the Italian people."
Perhaps the noble Earl will have the goodness to say whether that is a correct report of what he said.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, that is a correct report of what I said. I may as well state, in explanation, that I did not understand at all that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had said the Government were parties to any proposed terms of peace, but only to proposals for an armistice. The words used by Lord Stanley clearly expressed the meaning that the Government, while assenting to the proposal that they should join in asking for an armistice, did not pledge themselves with regard to any terms of peace.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I confess I can hardly reconcile the interpretation given by the noble Earl with his statement that what has been read is a correct report of his speech. He therein expresses his regret that a British Secretary of State should have given his sanction to terms which he knew must be offensive to the Italian people. Under the circumstances in which this speech was made, I should not have taken notice of it, notwithstanding the high authority from which it comes, if it had not been for the question put by the noble Marquess. That speech was made at a species of political picnic, which was held on Saturday last, for the purpose, in the first instance, of doing honour to the memory of the late Mr. Cobden, and, in the next place, of inaugurating a club to be called the Cobden Club. From the names of those who were present, and more especially from the names of those who were to form the committee, it appeared to
1272
me that the Club consisted, in conjunction with Mr. Gladstone and the noble Earl, chiefly of the most advanced section of Liberal politicians. By that audience the noble Earl's health was drunk; and in returning thanks he thought it necessary to deal with the matter with regard to which the noble Marquess has put his question. The circumstances of the case are briefly these:—On the first day upon which we accepted office—even before we had returned from Windsor from accepting office—the French Ambassador called at the Foreign Office, and had communicated to the Under Secretary of State an arrangement which had been made between France and Austria and gave him copies of the letter which the Emperor of the French had addressed to the Kings of Prussia and Italy, communicating to them the fact of the cession of Venetia to France. That was accompanied by no observations at all. Later in the day Count de Latour d'Auvergne called at the Foreign Office and stated that he had received a telegraphic communication from the Emperor, in which he requested that we would unite our good offices to his through our Ministers at Berlin and at Florence, for the purpose of obtaining an armistice and stopping the effusion of blood. That telegram was communicated to us immediately after our return from Windsor on the first day we took office. In conformity with the determination we had come to not to interfere in any manner with regard to any terms, we simply complied—as we thought it was our duty—with the application made on the part of the French Government, and instructed our Ministers at Berlin and Florence to co-operate with the French Government to obtain, if possible, an armistice, and endeavour to ascertain whether any terms of ultimate peace could be agreed upon. I need not say that, in dealing with the proposal of an armistice, we expressed no opinion whatever with regard to any political questions; but, having received the simple intelligence that the cession of Venetia to France was a fait accompli, we did not think it was consistent with our duty to make any representation to Austria or France that Venetia ought to have been ceded to Italy or that France ought not to have accepted it from Austria; nor did we consider whether the mode adopted by Austria of ceding Venetia was or was not likely to be agreeable to the Italian people. I do not hesitate to say I can easily imagine that the mode which was adopted of ceding Venetia by

1273
giving it to France and not to Italy, was not likely to conciliate the people of Italy, and that they may feel their amour-propre considerably wounded at finding that they have obtained that which they desired to obtain by their own arms rather by the aid of the arms of Prussia and the diplomacy of France. But that was a question into which, as it seemed to us, we had no right to enter. Our object was simply and solely, if possible, to stop the effusion of blood and to prepare the way for a peaceable agreement between the belligerents. It is perfectly well known that that endeavour on the part of France and ourselves failed in its object—an armistice was not agreed to; and from that time to the present the whole attempt at mediation has been solely and entirely in the hands of the Emperor of the French. We have taken no part whatever in the proposition of any terms nor in the giving of any advice. We have not been asked for advice, and we have not offered any. We have taken no part whatever in the negotiations which have taken place between the Emperor of the French and the various belligerents. We have simply stood aloof, waiting for any opportunity which might occur to interpose our good offices, if they should be required, towards the restoration of peace; but we have had nothing whatever to do with any terms which may have been offered or accepted between any of the belligerents. That is the state of the case at present. The Emperor of the French has taken upon himself to mediate between the contending parties; at one time his mediation did not seem likely to be successful; but it affords me the greatest satisfaction to be able to say that we received a telegram last night which said that, since the five days' armistice had been agreed upon, preliminaries of peace had been accepted both by Prussia and Austria. The telegram, however, did not state precisely what were the terms of those preliminaries of peace. This morning we have a fresh communication which states that Baron Ricasoli had returned perfectly satisfied and ready to accept the conditions offered to Italy. I, therefore, think we may venture to entertain the sanguine expectation that the horrors of the war are now over. I can only hope and trust that diplomacy may effect, upon whatever terms, at all events a peaceable if not an altogether satisfactory solution of a question which at one time threatened to involve Europe in a very long and a very sanguinary war.
EARL RUSSELL: I must repeat that what I said on Saturday night had reference to the statement made by Lord Stanley respecting an armistice, and had no reference whatever to the terms of peace. Venetia had been ceded to France, and an armistice was proposed; but it seems to me it is illusory to propose an armistice without preliminaries of peace, and it is not likely that the King of Prussia would stop in his victorious career upon a mere request for an armistice without any agreement as to the preliminaries of peace. If I have understood the noble Earl correctly, that the preliminaries of peace have been so far accepted as to give hopes for the restoration of peace, no one can rejoice more that I shall at the event.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The authority upon which I state that preliminaries of peace have been accepted is a telegram received from Lord Cowley after direct communication with the Emperor of the French. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl, I confess I do not see their force. I do not understand how, if it were commendable for the Emperor of the French to offer these propositions it can be a matter for regret that the English Secretary of State should have endeavoured to give effect to the views of the Emperor.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl will perhaps permit me to explain somewhat further. I think that the Emperor of the French having made a proposition for an armistice it was very natural and proper for the King of Prussia to reply, "I cannot accept this armistice, which is merely to give time to my enemy to recruit his forces and recover strength; but if the proposal for an armistice were coupled with other proposals, to serve as satisfactory preliminaries of peace, I could then agree to an armistice." I have just read, before coming down to the House, an account of the proceedings of the Emperor Napoleon the First, after the battle of Austerlitz. It states that the Emperor of Austria and Napoleon met, and, after conversing for two hours, they agreed at once to an armistice, and the result was that peace was concluded in a few days. It is perfectly conceivable that, preliminaries of peace having been agreed to, an armistice was possible, in the hope that peace would be concluded in a few days; but it is not conceivable that two belligerents, one being victorious over the other, should have agreed to an armistice without preliminaries of peace having been arranged.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERasked the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill at present before the House?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Bill had not been brought forward by the present Government, and they were not in any way responsible for it. He believed that it contained provisions which were likely to lead to considerable controversy; but if the noble Earl would consent to strike out those clauses which gave compulsory power to deal with the lands of Deans and Chapters, and would confine the measure to its less disputable provisions, the Government would give all the assistance in their power with the view to insure its passing in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he had no objection to limit the Bill to its working clauses, and he should be glad to see those clauses passed during the present Session.

SALE OF ESTATES BY AUCTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS,according to Notice, rose to draw the Attention of the House to the present State of the Law upon Sales by Auction of Estates; and to give Notice that he shall once more introduce the Bill amending the Law on that Subject. The noble and learned Lord said, he had introduced and passed through the House this Session a Bill on this subject; a Bill which, according to his best judgment and consideration, was calculated to place the law upon a proper footing. The measure would have protected the interests both of owners and of purchasers of estates. It gave to owners every opportunity of preventing the sale of their land at too low an amount, and it protected the purchaser against being compelled to pay an excessive sum in consequence of biddings unfairly made by auctioneers. The Bill was sent down to the House of Commons on the 1st of May; but no notice was taken of it until the 17th of the present month, when it was sacrificed with a number of other "innocents," and the order for the second reading was discharged. At present there was a conflict between law and equity upon the point. The rule
  1276
  in equity was, that if a bidder were employed for the purpose of taking advantage of the ignorance of a purchaser and running up the value of property, the sale was void; but if a bidder were employed to prevent an estate being sold under its value where the price was limited, that which in law was illegal was perfectly legal in equity. This conflict in the law was a disgrace to the country, and the great object of his Bill was to put an end to it. He wished to give a warning to solicitors and auctioneers as to the course which they might pursue in conducting sales during the recess. If, acting as they had hitherto done, they gave biddings without the knowledge of purchasers, and without any security to protect them against biddings simply to run up the price, every one of those sales would be void. The duty of an auctioneer was to take biddings, not to make biddings, and nothing but mischief could ensue from their adopting the opposite course. Two cases had been decided in Courts of Justice, one of them by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Cranworth), showing that Courts either of law or equity would not hesitate to interfere where the auctioneer had acted as a puffer to the disadvantage of the purchaser. It was with the utmost surprise he had learnt that the system existed even in the Court of Chancery, where, if anywhere, a perfectly fair and open sale might have been looked for. From the interest he took in the matter, from his long experience of sales and means of information, he had been as likely as anyone to know what the practice was in such transactions, but till he introduced this Bill he had not the slightest conception that any auctioneer was in the habit of bidding at a sale where, by order of the court, there was a reserved price. If he had been aware of the practice whilst in office he should at once have put a stop to it. As long as attention was not called to the matter a purchaser was ignorant of his right to relief; but now, after the discussions which had taken place, a purchaser wishing to get rid of his bargain would feel no hesitation in repudiating the contract where this had been vitiated by the conduct of the auctioneer. This would throw upon the owner the necessity of bringing an action or filing a Bill, either of which courses must fail when the fact transpired that the auctioneer had made bids without the knowledge of the purchaser. The Bill as it stood at present was mere

  1277
  waste paper; but he should take the earliest opportunity in his power of again bringing it forward, and, meanwhile, he advised the attorneys and auctioneers to work its provisions fairly, and next year they would be able to tell practically whether these provisions ought not to be adopted.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, his noble and learned Friend did good service in warning solicitors and auctioneers of the actual state of the law; but he had no scruple in telling his noble and learned Friend and the House that since the Bill had passed through their Lordships' House the public feeling in its favour had not increased. Many professional men had warned their clients that this was a buyer's, not a seller's Bill. He did not dispute the great experience of his noble and learned Friend; but he was unable to see the great evils of which his noble and learned Friend had spoken in the circumstance that the auctioneer became also the agent of the seller, bidding up to a certain reserved point and thereby preventing the estate from being accidentally and suddenly sacrificed.

REGISTRY OF NORFOLK ISLAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what Conditions the Diocesan Registrar of Sydney holds the Registry of Norfolk Island? He had been informed that this officer treated the registry as his private property, and was unwilling to allow extracts to be made except by personal friends, or on payment of a heavy fee. From this cause great inconvenience was felt, and he himself had suffered from the conduct of the registrar. He believed that this officer held mistaken views as to this matter, and he was, therefore, desirous of information upon it.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONstated that the Question had been very properly asked, although he was not in a position to give all the information his noble Friend desired. When the convict establishment on Norfolk Island was broken up, the island was transferred to the Government of Tasmania, although it still appertained as aforetime to the diocese of Sydney. According to a local Act passed by the Legislature of Sydney, in the sixth year of the reign of Geo. IV., it was enacted that every clergyman should keep registers of the births, deaths, and marriages, and make
  1278
  them available for public use. These registrations were to be forwarded to the registrar of the Archdeacon's Court at Sydney, who was to show them to any one for a shilling, or make an extract for half-a-crown. This court had been subsequently abolished, and the diocese subdivided. He apprehended, however, that the Act 6 Geo. IV. was binding upon the present registrar of the Bishop of Sydney. He would make a communication to the colony, and call the attention of the Colonial Government to the Act in question.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.