Sitting of 5 April 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Middlesex, v. Robert Culling Hanbury, esquire, deceased.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [April 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—National Debt Acts—(£24,000,000) Consolidated Fund.
Ordered—Arrest for Debt (Ireland) *: Education of the Poor.*
First Reading—Arrest for Debt (Ireland) * [110]; Education of the Poor* [111].
Second Reading—Marine Mutiny: Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) [104], Debate adjourned.
Committee—Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act (1851) Amendment * [87].
Report—Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act (1851) Amendment* [87].
Considered as amended—Canada Railway Loan * [99]; Criminal Law * [8].
Third Reading—Canada Railway Loan * [99] Sale and Purchase of Shares * [103], and passed.

LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESmoved that the Standing Orders of this House, Nos. 18, 38, and 40, be suspended in the case of the Petition for this Bill. He said, that the Standing Orders Committee had objected that the promoters of the Bill, a section of the debenture-holders of this company, had not given proper notice to the parties whose interests this Bill affected: but the circumstances which gave rise to the Bill did not originate until after the proper time for giving such notice had expired. The case was one of urgency, and a compliance with the Orders ought not to be insisted upon. There were twenty-four debenture-stocks in this company, twenty-nine share-stocks, and three special share-capitals charged on specific funds. The consequence was that every one of these bodies had rights which conflicted more or less with the rest of them, which made it impossible for more than one set to join together in suits for having their rights established. A large number of suits had been already instituted of a most expensive description, and many more would be instituted unless the House would think it right to allow the present Bill to go before the Committee which was sitting upon other Bills relating to the company, and would find out some way of enabling the company to go to compulsory arbitration, for that was the object of the Bill to which this Motion referred. The object of the Bill was well described in its title—to transfer all litigation respecting the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, and all matters arising out of the Act constituting and defining the powers of the company, and out of the Acts of other companies over whose line the company's line now runs, to the decision of a tribunal of arbitration which should have special power to prepare a scheme to relieve the company from its present embarrassments. The House was aware that a railway company could not commit an act of bankruptcy in ordinary form, nor could it be wound up in the Court of Chancery. The House, therefore, would admit that to allow a great railway company in the con-
1170
dition of this company to go to arbitration was the only just way of dealing with it. Unless arbitration took place there would be hopeless and endless litigation.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Standing Orders of this House, Nos. 18, 38, and 40, be suspended in the case of the Petition for the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that the company had come before the Standing Orders Committee on the 27th of March without having given due notice to the several parties who were interested in the passing of the Bill. It was the duty of that Committee to take care that persons who were likely to be affected by the legislation of the House should have in such cases ample notice, and they had in the present instance, therefore, come to the conclusion that they could not, in the absence of such notice, recommend the Standing Orders established to secure that object to be dispensed with. The House itself or the Government, of course, might decide that the case under discussion was one which warranted a departure from that rule. If the Government thought that this was a question worthy of being settled by a Special Committee to be appointed for the purpose he would offer no opposition to a proposal to that effect; but the Standing Orders Committee were bound to act as they had done, or they would have lost the confidence of the House.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the question was, whether there was any good ground for dispensing with the rules of the House, which ought not to be set aside without full and sufficient cause shown. The promoters said that non-compliance with these rules was not their fault; that the circumstances which induced them to bring forward this measure did not arise before a period at which it was impossible for them so to comply with those rules. It seemed to him that this was a strong argument. He quite agreed that the object of Standing Orders was to give full notice to all parties whose interests might be affected. This notice, no doubt, had not been given in this case: but the dissentient parties could not be said to be taken at a disadvantage, as they were fully represented. In fact, they had the start, and had their own measure advanced several stages. It was possible, no doubt, for the promoters of this scheme to be heard against the one already before Parliament,

1171
but the Committee could not take cognizance of the alternative scheme unless it was before them, and, if the promoters proved their point, could only reject the first Bill, by which much time would be lost, and the great object of staying ruinous suits unattained. Upon these grounds, while carefully refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits, he could not help thinking on the whole that it would be advisable to let this Bill go before the Committee, and that it would be a harsh measure to reject this Motion. With regard to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten), it was, he confessed, one which had often occurred to himself, and which, in his humble opinion, the House should seriously consider. Apart from the weight justly due to the hon. and gallant Member's authority, and without wearying the House with arguments which must suggest themselves to every one, he thought that an exceptional case like this justified and required exceptional treatment. He recommended that both Bills be referred to a Committee to be carefully selected by the House, in order that, if possible, some useful measure might be passed and come into operation at the earliest possible moment.
Question put, and agreed to.

TIPPERARY ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That the Honourable Charles White is duly elected a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Tipperary.
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That no such case of general riot at the last Election for the County of Tipperary has been proved as would make the said Election altogether null and void.
That it was proved to the Committee that, previous to the last Election for the said County, divers of the Roman Catholic Clergy exercised their influence upon their congregations in a manner calculated to prejudice the free choice of the Electors, but that such conduct on their part did not in the opinion of the Committee amount to the offence of undue influence as defined by law.
That serious disturbances took place at the last Election for the said County, at the polling places and in other localities, which materially interfered with the Electors tendering their votes.
That the Committee have no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the said County.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.—(Sir Philip Egerton.)

INDIA—CLAIMS ON OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement made by his predecessor on the 23rd of July last, that the claims against the late State of Oude, which have been investigated and reported upon by a Commission in India, "were claims of a moral character;" and to the fact that a notarial Copy of the Bond granted to Captain Thomas Edwards by the Vizier of Oude, as admitted in the Report of the Commission, was produced before it from the archives of the Supreme Court at Calcutta; What arrangement he proposes to make with a view of coming to a settlement of the amount due under the Bond, in order to carry out the pledge which was given to this House by the President of the Board of Control, on the 12th May 1857, "that all the public and bonâ fide claims against the State of Oude would be paid out of the revenues of the country."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, the Question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman was a peculiar one, and he thought unusually argumentative. The only answer he could give to it was, that this question was considered by his predecessor and his Council on the Report of the Commission to which the Question referred, and that the Report of the Commission had decided that it was not a case in which, from the evidence, there was any claim on the part of the representatives of Captain Edwards against the late State of Oude. His predecessor in Council had approved the Report of that Commission. He need not inform the hon. Member that in matters of finance the Secretary of State had no power to act without the assent of the Council. The matter had not been brought before him officially; but he had looked into the evidence, and he was perfectly disposed to believe that in the form in which it was presented to the Commissioners, and afterwards brought under the notice of his predecessor and Council, the conclusion arrived at was right. But he had been told privately that there was certain evidence not brought before the Commissioners which might have affected their opinions. If

  1173
  that was the case, and if his attention were called to the fact of any evidence not brought before them, he should be perfectly willing to refer that evidence to them and ask them if it would have made any difference in the conclusion at which they had arrived. But he might just say that, as this was described to be a "claim of a moral character," he understood that moral claims against the British Government arose in this way—when we took possession of Oude, and prevented the Sovereign from paying any debts that might be due from him, the Government considered itself liable for any debts that would otherwise have been paid; but this was a claim in respect of a very old debt, incurred seventy years before the annexation of Oude, which had been repudiated by the Sovereigns of Oude, and which, if the annexation had not taken place, in all probability would not have been paid. In that case he could not think there was any moral claim for payment out of the revenues of this country.

TRANSPORTATION TO WESTERN AUS- TRALIA.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the recent chartering of a ship to convey convicts to Western Australia, How soon transportation to that colony will finally cease; and, whether the supply of convicts for Public Works in connection with the Dockyard extensions in this country has been represented to the Home Office as inadequate?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that transportation to Western Australia would cease at the end of the year. One ship had been chartered to go out now, and there would be another chartered to take out between 200 and 300 convicts more. That was the extent of our engagements, and we were bound to fulfil them. With regard to the deficiency in the supply of convict labour in the dockyards, there was no particular information at the Home Office, but he would make inquiry upon the subject.

STORM SIGNALS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, When the Returns relating to the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade, ordered by the House on the 12th day of February last, and the Returns
1174
relating to Memorials on the subject of Storm Signals, ordered on the 7th ultimo, will be laid upon the table?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in reply, said, he had already that evening laid on the table of the House the latter Returns: he hoped to lay the former on the table next week.

VOTING PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SYNANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he proposes retaining and moving in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill the Clause for the use of Voting Papers?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir, it is my intention to retain in the Representation of the People Bill the clause for the use of voting papers, and I hope it may be adopted by the House. I hope also it may be adopted in Ireland. That, I think, is a country in which it would work very advantageously.

IRELAND—COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the Second Report of the Irish Law and Equity Commissioners, it is the intention of the Government to fill the vacancy in the office of Master of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland?
  Lord NAASreplied, that he had not heard that there was any vacancy in the office of the Master of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. In fact, he rather believed there was no such vacancy. Of course, if such a vacancy should occur it would be for the Government to consider whether it should be filled up or not.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If the Second Reading of the Marine Mutiny Bill would be taken that evening? He understood it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce certain alterations in order to bring it into harmony with the Mutiny Bill. He (Mr. Otway) had the Paper showing the alterations to be introduced into the Marine Mutiny Bill of the present Session, but the alterations to which he referred were not comprised in it. He wished therefore to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether this Paper

1175
contained a correct list of the alterations proposed to be made?
MR. CORRYsaid, the Paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been printed before the Mutiny Bill had passed through Committee, and therefore did not comprise the alterations necessary to make the two Bills in conformity with each other. It was his intention to take the second reading of the Marine Mutiny Bill that evening.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to know what regulations Marines would be subjected to in future?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that Marines on shore were in exactly the same position as soldiers; but when afloat they were subject to the ordinary naval discipline.

ITALY—THE MINISTRY.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information that the Italian Ministry, presided over by Baron Ricasoli, had resigned; and, if so, whether the noble Lord concluded that that resignation was definitive?
LORD STANLEY: I have heard, Sir, that the Italian Ministry has resigned; but whether that resignation is definitive or not, is a question that I am not able to answer.

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

ARMY—THE WAR OFFICE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, in referring to the Notice that stood upon the Paper in his name, announcing his intention of calling the attention of the House to the necessity that exists for a reorganization of the War Office, in order that the efficiency and prompt action of all the subordinate departments may be increased, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of accomplishing that object, he had to state that when he put that notice upon the paper some days ago, he was ignorant that the right hon. Member for Inverness had a previous Motion upon the same subject upon the paper. Having since been informed of that fact,
  1176
  he begged to withdraw the notice that stood upon the paper in his name.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. LOWE: Mr. Speaker—I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given notice—
  "That this House dissents from so much of the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education as provides for an increase of the Grants now made to Primary Schools."
  I have to preface what I have to say upon this subject by congratulating the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu)—and I must also congratulate Her Majesty's Government—upon his accession to the place of Vice President of the Committee of Council. I beg further to congratulate his party and the country upon the appointment to such a position of a nobleman who holds such enlarged and liberal principles upon the subject of education. I read with the greatest pleasure the speech that the noble Lord delivered at his re-election, from which it would appear that we are at last in a fair way to have settled a question which has proved most irritating, vexatious, and difficult. I saw with much pleasure that the noble Lord intends to adhere to the Conscience Clause, which he intends shall be not only the condition upon which building grants to schools are to be made, but also the condition upon which the annual grants are to be made. I read that declaration with the most sincere pleasure, and I hope that when the noble Lord rises to take part in this debate, he will inform us what measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to give the utmost effect to that most wise and auspicious declaration. I must entreat the patience—which I will endeavour not to exhaust—of the House while I draw its attention to this subject, which is of a very abstract and technical character, though I think the issue before us is one that we can all understand. The question we have to determine is, whether the Education Estimates shall be increased by the sum of ¢70,000, and I ask the House to dissent from that increase being made. I beg not to be misunderstood in making that observation. I would not grudge the sum of £70,000 per annum, or a much larger sum, for the education of the people, if I believed that the money would produces beneficial effect. I have assisted on more than one occasion in reducing the amount of the grant for public education: but on

  1177
  those occasions I saw that the reductions were consistent with—nay, I believed would be the cause of—the greater efficiency of the system. Therefore, I beg that the House will understand that, although I am a friend to economy, I only uphold economy when combined with efficiency. I think that no sum that this House would grant would be too large if by its aid the education of the people would be rendered more efficient. But the House should recollect that our system of education is a voluntary system, and that it is quite possible to spend large sums upon a voluntary system, not only without increasing, but actually diminishing its efficiency. A voluntary system depends not so much upon grants of public money as upon the spirit of those who volunteer, and if you overload the system by grants of public money you merely clog the efforts of those who are endeavouring to carry it out; you deaden the action of the system rather than enliven it. Now, Sir, in 1862, those who had then the charge of public education saw by the light afforded them by the Report of the Royal Commissioners that the grants were given in such a way, that they were obtained by schools, whether they deserved them or not, that they were given in such a mannner as to impede the control that the manager ought to have over his school; that vested interests were being created which it might be difficult to get rid of, that the system was altogether one of great complexity, and that it could not be expected that any ordinary person who did not devote his time to the subject could really understand it. Acting upon these views, we introduced very large and sweeping changes; we reduced the grants from a large number of heads to two. We allowed 4s. on every child for average attendance, and 2s. 4d. for every child who could satisfy the inspector in reading, the same for writing, and the same for arithmetic, making in all 8s. on each child. By this means we reduced the system of grants to something like simplicity. We did away altogether with grants to teachers, thus avoiding the creation of vested interests, and we also did away with the very pernicious practice of giving bounties to pupil-teachers. This latter part of the system then in force was likely to have had a very bad result, because while the Government paid only one-third of the salaries of the adult assistant teachers, they paid the whole of the salaries of the pupil-teachers, thus giving a premium upon the
  1178
  employment of pupil instead of adult teachers. It is necessary that I should state these facts in order that the House may fully understand the state of things with which we had to deal. The alterations of 1862 created a great panic among the managers of schools, who succeeded not only in frightening the public but themselves also—
  "Scared by the noise themselves had made,"
  and no doubt for a year or two that panic had a most injurious effect upon the extension of the system. Since that period, however, the advance that the system of education has made has shown that the plan of 1862 has worked most satisfactorily. The increase in the number of schools since 1862 has been 1,035, while the number of pupils has increased by 110,000, and this increase in efficiency has been effected with a saving of expenditure, as calculated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce), of £400,000, but which I am inclined to place at £100,000 higher. We are now asked to add £70,000 to the expenditure, and I should be only too happy to assent to that proposal if I thought that the public would receive a quid pro quo for their money; but I am afraid that by this additional expenditure we shall not be extending the advantages of the present system or giving any real impulse to education. On the contrary, I believe that this additional grant will be wasted where its effect is not mischievous. These certainly are strong assertions, but I will endeavour to prove their truth. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) in proposing this Minute said, that there were three faults in the present system—the first was that the smaller schools were unable to comply with the conditions of the Revised Code—that is, that the conditions were too hard and too stringent for these small schools to comply with them, and that they therefore lost the grant. The second objection was that too much attention was given to reading, writing, and arithmetic—the subjects beyond them of geography, astronomy, grammar, and history being much neglected, and that the pupils were not thoroughly well taught, and, in proof of this allegation, he showed how few pupils passed through the three uppermost examinations. The third objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman was that, under the present system, the number of pupil-teachers had declined very much indeed, and this he considered to be

  1179
  a very great blow to education. [Mr. CORRY: Hear, hear!] I gather from that expression of assent from the right hon. Gentleman that I have stated his objections correctly, and I need scarcely say that it is my desire to state them as accurately as possible. Now, with regard to the first of these objections, I am not sure that the fact upon which it is founded can be considered an evil. I believe that whatever grants are made they should be uniform, and that if the grants are to bear hardly upon any schools, it should be on the smaller ones, as there is a tendency in the denominational system under which education in England is regulated to make schools small. Each denomination likes its own school. Where there should be only one school there are two or three. I cannot think that that is an evil which counteracts this spirit of subdivision and dispersion, and induces the denominations to coalesce in schools where the education will be better, and where the money will go much further. For the sake of argument, however, I will admit that the regulation upon this point is an evil, and I will presently proceed to show how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remedy it. I do not see that there is any force in the right hon. Gentleman's second objection, which alleges that reading, writing, and arithmetic are attended to, to the neglect of higher branches of study. This system of education is not intended to apply to the upper or the middle classes, hut to those who are too poor to pay for education themselves. It is a very anomalous system to say the least of it, and I think that we cannot too firmly direct our view to its essential portions, disregarding that which I may, perhaps, describe as its ornamental features. There can be no doubt that an enormous number of children leave school before they are twelve years of age, and if we can teach them to read with facility, to write legibly, and to cast accounts, I think we do a great deal. It is more than we have been able to do up to the present time. My right hon. Friend, however, while complaining of neglect in this direction, complains also that the higher subjects are not sufficiently well taught; but it seems to me that one objection answers the other, for if they cannot teach children to read and write during their school life, what chance have they of teaching them grammar or geography? Then, as to the decline in the number of pupil-teach-
  1180
  ers. The number of pupil-teachers was artificially increased by the determination of the Privy Council to pay the whole of their salaries from the public money, while a third only of those of the adult teachers was so paid. That policy, of course, gave an enormous bounty upon the employment of pupil-teachers, and it always appeared to me that that was a false principle, contrary even to the very rudiments of political economy. It must also be remembered that until 1862 the teachers received a grant in augmentation of their salaries. This augmentation was then withdrawn, and it was determined that the money should be paid to the managers to do as they pleased with it—a course by which the Government and the teachers were no longer brought into contact with each other. That course was, no doubt, necessary, because vested interests, which would have been intolerable, were growing up under the old system. Having taken the teachers, however, from the hands of Government, and having handed them over to the iron laws of political economy, we now, when the bitterness of grief is past, begin again to tamper with those laws of political economy in a contrary direction, and after throwing the teachers upon the market we now proceed by our bounty to create an artificial supply of competitors. I have been no advocate of certificated masters; it has been my misfortune before now to give them great displeasure; but I cannot conceive greater injustice to that class than to send them into the market, and then artificially to glut that market with competitors, who but for our conduct would not be there. I entirely dissent, therefore, from my right hon. Friend's statement of grievances; and, so dissenting, I cannot be expected to assent to the remedies he proposes. I will, however, for the present, waive all question of assent, and proceed to inquire how far his proposals will remedy the evils of which he complains. I will state what I regard as a crying evil. The crying evil is not, I think, the inevitable fact that while small schools are more expensive to maintain than large ones we are obliged to apply the same measure in all cases. That fact is inseparable front the principles of rendering Government assistance, and the adoption of any other course would give rise to endless disputes. That is not the difficulty of the system. The difficulty is that, being a voluntary system, it is liable to break down for want of volunteers. There

  1181
  are many parishes in the country where persons will not come forward to assist schools. Consequently those parishes whose inhabitants contribute to the taxes, as well as others, and who have children to be brought up by the State, see this golden river of the Privy Council flowing past them without leaving any of its wealth on their shores. If my right hon. Friend had come forward to supplement what has been done without destroying the system as it exists, I should have thought £70,000, or even a much larger sum, a very small amount to pay for such an object. But the fault of the system does not lie in the direction that my right hon. Friend, from the short time that he has had experience of the office, has not unnaturally supposed it to lie. Now, I come to see how far the remedies which my right hon. Friend proposes are calculated to attain the object for which they are intended. He lays substantially two minutes before us—the one addressed to the question of pupil-teachers, and the other to the question of capitation. At present the school has to employ one certificated master or assistant teacher for every eighty children after the first fifty, and in the new grant he proposes to reduce the number of pupils from which you are to take the departure from fifty to twenty-five. He then proposes to give a grant of £8, I think, for every pupil-teacher who passes a first-class examination in a training college, and £5 for every pupil-teacher who passes a second-class examination. I may inform my hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart Mill) that this ungallant minute refers entirely to the male sex, excluding the female pupil-teachers altogether. Now, this grant will, no doubt, be very acceptable to those schools which by means of capital, energy, and enterprise have done well, and which are well furnished with pupil-teachers, but it will not afford any stimulus to schools which do not possess these advantages. This is a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. The cost of a pupil-teacher we assumed to be £15 a year, and consequently those who do not already employ the pupil-teachers will not be induced to do so by this grant, because by doing so they will sustain a heavy pecuniary loss. They will have to advance the salary of the pupil-teacher for several years, amounting to perhaps £50, and will receive perhaps £8 at the end of them, perhaps nothing. Now, a grant of that kind I call a waste, because it will be given to
  1182
  those whose present arrangements will entitle them to it, while, owing to the great discrepancy between the amount of the grant and the expense which would be incurred to obtain it, it will not stimulate the employment of fresh pupil-teachers. Even admitting, therefore—a thing that I entirely dispute—that it is right and proper to spend the public money in turning the market against the certificated masters whom we have deprived of their augmentation, the money would, I believe, still be wasted. I now come to the more important and the more complicated part of the matter. At present 2s. 8d. is granted to the managers of the schools for every child who passes in reading, writing, and arithmetic. This grant my right hon. Friend proposes to increase by 1s. 4d., but he attaches to the payment of the grant to a school the condition that the passes in reading, writing, and arithmetic must exceed 200 per cent of the annual average number of scholars in attendance who are over six years of age—a condition which I take to mean that the passes must be twice as numerous as the pupils above that age, or that each pupil above six years old must pass in two subjects. He then says that the school must have at least one-fifth of the scholars above six years of age passed in the three upper standards, and he says, moreover, that there must be one subject besides reading, writing, and arithmetic in which the inspector shall report the children to be proficient. Now, I would not grudge this or any larger increase if I thought it would do good; but let us take my right hon. Friend's own showing that this is intended to benefit the small schools. Observe, we begin by paying to all schools, small or great. My right hon. Friend will not dispute for a moment, I am sure, that the larger schools are amply paid under the present system. The large schools already get quite as much as we should wish, and perhaps in some cases more. Where a school is in a town and is attended by the children of respectable people who can pay, and pay handsomely, it is in a prosperous state and can afford that tuition which enables it to obtain large grants; but where a school is small and in a remote locality it cannot afford to do so. What, then, does my right hon. Friend propose? He says he wants to help small schools, and in order to help them he gives a grant, 99–100ths of which will go to the large schools which do not want it, while

  1183
  the small schools can only get the remainder by complying with very strict and difficult conditions which they are notoriously unable to comply with, for they are the very schools which, as he himself admits, are unable to satisfy the existing requirements of the Privy Council. So that the course we are asked to pursue is to make a grant for the aid of small schools, the lion's share, and much more than the lion's share, of which shall go to the large schools, which do not want it: and as to the remainder, to clog it with conditions which shall prevent the small schools getting even that. And that is what is called stimulating and assisting small schools! Sir, if that is not a waste of public money, I do not know what is. It is doubtless desirable to assist small schools if possible, but the difficulties are great. In assisting small schools there are two principles upon which we may proceed. If we are to give grants for efficiency, it is impossible to assist small and poor schools to the same extent that we do large ones. If we are to give it for need, we may indeed do that, but it will break down the whole system. Between these two alternatives we are placed, and what I submit is that my right hon. Friend has not extricated himself from either. He has not broken down his system by giving to poor schools, but what he has done is this—while he has had in view giving assistance to small schools, poorly supported and weak in their staff, he has really given a quantity of prizes to large schools that do not want it. I do hope, therefore, that the House will pause before they grant £70,000 to be expended in this manner. As I said before, it is not here that the shoe pinches; it is in a different direction—it is in the inability of the voluntary system to extend itself all over the country. I think my right hon. Friend has turned his attention in the wrong direction. The problem he had to solve was not to give more grants to schools that do not want it, in the vain hope of giving it to those which do, but to extend the system and make it pervade the country. Education I know has an all-atoning sound, and it appears very invidious to refuse anything that is asked for in its name. If my right hon. Friend can show us that this money will do any substantial good to the cause of education, by all means let us vote it; but, till I am answered, I shall maintain that I have shown the House that the objects which my right hon. Friend wishes to attain are not objects which it is
  1184
  peculiarly desirable to attain, while even assuming that they are desirable his means entirely miss the end he has in view. They would not in reality largely increase the number of pupil-teachers, they would not give any impulse to studies beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, and would not do anything worth speaking of towards helping small schools; for, while my right hon. Friend makes grants and spends an enormous sum of public money to be able to include them, he annexes conditions which would effectually exclude them. It is like the old story of the man who could not think of any way of roasting his pig except burning down his house. I beg to submit this also—that having got a system which works efficiently and economically, we should do wisely for the present to let it alone; and for this reason—that such is the feeling of nervousness and anxiety all over the country from the changes that have been made, and made under the compulsion of the Report of the Commission, that even a beneficial change—a change by which more public money finds its way to managers of schools—will be looked upon with jealousy, because it will shake the feeling that this matter is not likely to be tampered with. I think managers of schools are entitled to this security as long as the system under which they act does really perform what its projectors contemplated. As long as schools go on increasing, and the attendance of children becomes larger year by year—as long as the grant is kept within reasonable proportions, we should not interfere with it and alter the conditions, because the inference is obvious, that the same interference which in a hot fit adds to these grants, may, in a cold fit, take away from them. Nothing is more desirable than that those on whose money we count to support the schools should feel that they have something permanent and definite on which they can count, and adapt their arrangements to it. I am quite sure that the changes which were made in 1862, however much they were repined at at the time, have given the present system a new lease and a new chance. I do not regard that system as abstractedly right, and I have never concealed that opinion; but I should be most unwilling to see it swept away, because before a new system could be organized on its ruins—and it has struck deep roots into the country—the education of one generation of Englishmen would be nearly lost in the course of the transition from the old to the new. Try, therefore,

  1185
  by all the means you can to extend the system where it has not yet reached; keep it economical, that it may be popular and tolerable; above all things, look carefully to its efficiency, and then I think we shall be in a condition, when some few years have passed, to see whether the system can be moulded or extended so as to be worthy to be a national system, or whether it must give way to something more logical. Of this I am quite sure, that those are the worst enemies of the system who, for whatever reason, tamper with it—whether from feeling the difficulties which managers have to contend with, or perhaps from a feeling of the great popularity to be gained all over the country by undoing changes which were wrought out with so much unpopularity to those who made them. If once it is understood that he who tries to economise the public money and to secure efficiency is only labouring to give some one else a douceur to give away and so acquire popularity, the death knell of the system is sounded, and it must make way for something which, whether more efficient or not, will be more in accordance with the feelings of Parliament and the reasonable wants of the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House dissents from so much of the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education as provides for an increase of the Grants now made to Primary Schools,"—(Mr. Lowe.)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. CORRY: Although I am no longer connected with the Department which this Minute concerns, yet as the author of the plan on which it is founded, I think it right to say a few words in its defence. My right hon. Friend has stated that while he regarded it as a great mistake to add £70,000 to the Education Vote, he would not complain of that large expenditure if he believed it would conduce to any useful purpose; but that not believing it would do so, he felt it his duty to oppose it. I quite agree that if this additional expenditure would not serve any useful end the House ought to refuse to grant it; but I am convinced not only that it will be usefully employed, but that the state of education in some of the schools receiving a public grant is becoming such as to render it absolutely necessary. My right hon. Friend has remarked that one of the objects of the Minute is to give assistance to
  1186
  small schools, which is quite true. But he has added that he does not look on the exclusion of small schools from sharing in the grants as an evil. My right hon. Friend stated on a recent occasion that his position was one of isolation, and that he could not get any one to agree with him. But in this instance he does not even agree with himself; because in 1862, when he explained the Revised Code to the House, after having enumerated 964 parishes, in five counties only, having a population of less than 600, which derived no assistance from the State, he said—
  "These districts contribute to the revenue equally with others; and it is exceedingly desirable, on the ground both of justice and policy, that they should receive back some share of the money."—[3 Hansard, clxv. 199.]
  Yet my right hon. Friend now thinks the exclusion of small schools is not an evil.
  MR. LOWE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? What I said was, that I thought the exclusion of small schools was a great evil; but that it was not a great evil that small schools should be more expensive to maintain than large ones.
  MR. CORRY: I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend admits the exclusion of small schools to be a great evil. It must, therefore, be desirable to give them some assistance. My right hon. Friend went on to state that although it had been complained that under the existing system the education given in schools was almost exclusively confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic—grammar, English history, and geography being neglected—he did not think that that was an evil, because the great object in educating the children of the poor was to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic. On a former occasion I quoted the opinions of some of the most intelligent of the inspectors of schools, who agreed in regretting the practical exclusion of higher subjects. I do not want to introduce any very ambitious system of education; but I certainly think it desirable that children should know something of the country in which they live, and something of what its history has been. During the autumn I happened to be in a country town, in which there were several Protestant schools and one Roman Catholic school. I happened one day to meet a respectable looking boy and got into conversation with him. In answer to my questions he told me he was eleven years old, and had lately left

  1187
  school, that he had never learnt anything of geography, and had never heard of such places as Dublin, or Edinburgh. I then asked him whether he had been at the Roman Catholic or at a Protestant school? He said a Protestant, and when I further inquired if he knew the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, he said, "Oh! the Roman Catholics are people who burn candles in the daylight,"—which this intelligent youth considered a convincing proof of the errors of Popery. I am not quite certain whether the boy's answers may not have put it into my head that this was a common case of neglect in all schools, and so have led to the inquiry which resulted in the framing of this Minute. My right hon. Friend alleges that if the reading, writing, and arithmetic are not in a satisfactory state it affords a conclusive argument against teaching boys grammar and history; but I remember quite well that when I proposed my Minute, some weeks ago, my predecessor in the office of Vice President of the Council (Mr. Bruce)—for whose ability and judgment everything that I saw when I was in that office inspired me with the greatest respect—agreed with me, and disagreed with my right hon. Friend; for he stated that, in his experience, in whatever schools the higher subjects were successfully taught, there also reading, writing, and arithmetic were also found to be most carefully attended to. Therefore, my right hon. Friend (Mr Lowe), I think, fails to make out his argument that teaching the higher subjects tends to weaken the instruction in the elementary branches. With regard to the number of children examined and their proficiency, I will again state what the latest statistics show. The average attendance of children in England and Wales for the year ending the 31st of August was 863,240, of which number 566,371 were presented for examination. 284,027 of these passed the three lower standards, and upwards of 80,000 in the fifth or higher standard. But the number of those who passed Standard VI, or the highest standard, was 13,000 only, out of a total of 566,000. My right hon. Friend stated, not in a speech, but in a much more formal manner—that is to say, in the Report of the Committee of Council for Education for the years 1861–2, drawn up by himself and by my noble Friend Lord Granville—
  We regret that our first proposal to examine
  1188
  children for grants according to their age had to be withdrawn. We cannot think that the opposition which this measure, adopted upon the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, encountered rested upon good grounds. The school itself, for the purpose of instruction, must, of course, have continued to be organized according to proficiency; but age and proficiency coincide, in fact, far oftener than not. The change of arrangement for examination (supposing such a change to be necessary, which it is not) would have been partial only. The reason for examining according to age was this; the amount of proficiency required by Standard VI. represents the minimum of book instruction which can be put to practical use in life. Less than this is almost sure to be forgotten, because it cannot be used with pleasure or profit."
  Only 13,000, therefore, out of 566,000 have attained the standard which my right hon. Friend thinks the minimum amount of book learning that can be of practical use to a child. When it became my duty to consider these things I came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to give some further encouragement to education, and to raise it from the state of stagnation in which I found it. With that view I recommended to Her Majesty's Government, by whom it was adopted, the Minute which I had the honour to propose some weeks ago. My right hon. Friend refers to pupil-teachers, and considers there is no necessity for encouraging an increase of their numbers. But men who know as much of education as my right hon. Friend himself—Mr. Tuffnell, for instance, in his evidence before the Education Committee, and nearly the whole of the twenty-three inspectors of schools in England, whose general Reports are appended to the last Report of the Committee of Council—allude not only to the decline in the number of pupil-teachers, but express the greatest alarm at the growing deficiency. I will not trouble the House with quotations; but the deterioration in the character of the education given in some of our schools is almost universally attributed to the falling off in the number of the pupil-teachers. My right hon. Friend talks of this attempt of mine to increase the number of pupil-teachers as inconsistent with the principles of political economy. I do not care what the principles of political economy may be; but this I will say, that, as the Minister charged with the education of the people of the country, when I found a great falling off in teaching power, and by the reduction in the number of pupil-teachers a great injury resulting to the education of the children, and when

  1189
  I found, moreover, a great diminution in the supply of candidates for the certificate, threatening to break down the whole system of certificated teachers, it appeared to me that my duty was clear to take immediate action, and I lost no time in submitting the outlines of the Minute for the consideration of the Cabinet. I do not care whether I violated the rules of political economy or not; my object was to improve the quality of the teaching in the schools by increasing the number of pupil-teachers; and, notwithstanding the sinister auguries of my right hon. Friend, I have no doubt that the Minute will effect the object at which it aims. My right hon. Friend says that before the introduction of the Revised Code, the salary of a pupil-teacher was £15 on the average of the five years of apprenticeship. But at that time the State paid the salary of the pupil-teacher, and the State always pays more than persons in private life. I inquired a short time ago from a very intelligent diocesan inspector what was the average rate of payment to pupil-teachers in his district, and he told me about £9 a year. That was in a rural district; in an urban district it would undoubtedly be higher. But, at all events, the rate of £15 put by my right hon. Friend is far above the present average even in large towns. As to the cost of an extra pupil-teacher, you must remember that additional teaching power can hardly fail to produce additional results of teaching; and that it must, therefore, be assumed that the number of passes would be increased by the employment of a greater number of pupil-teachers. In looking over one of the Inspectors' Reports recently received, but not yet presented to the House, I found a particular school mentioned, in which a pupil-teacher having been dismissed, through the poverty of the school, there had been a falling off of 30 per cent in the number of the passes, and, of course, the payment on results to which the school was entitled was diminished in proportion. It may naturally be inferred that if, under this Minute, a pupil-teacher is again employed in this school, the payment on passes would be restored to its former amount, which would be a further contribution towards the salary of the pupil-teacher. My right hon. Friend is of opinion that the educational conditions required by the Minute are too stringent, and that few schools will be able to fulfil them; but they were very carefully con-
  1190
  sidered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), by Mr. Lingen, and by two of the inspectors of schools, and they all came to the conclusion that they were not too severe. In point of fact, the conditions, in general, require less than what the average of schools now accomplish—our object being to place the increased rate of payment within the reach of indifferent schools, and thus lead to their improvement. One of the points made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) was that this additional grant of £8 would be mainly for the benefit of large schools which did not want it, to the exclusion of others by which it was really more needed. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that he is quite wrong in that respect. He says all these large schools are very rich. I believe a great many of them are very poor. A clergyman—the incumbent of a parish in London—told me some time ago that the managers of the school in his district were obliged to work it at the minimum cost possible—which he explained to mean that, whenever the limit as to numbers prescribed by the Code was reached, they suspended the further entry of children, as their funds could not afford the expense of an additional pupil-teacher. That is a state of things far from satisfactory. The effect, then, of this Minute will be not only to give assistance to necessitous small schools, but also to such large schools as may require it. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been the very last person in the House to object to the Minute, because its objects are in strict conformity with the views which he himself expressed in the year 1862, but which the Revised Code has in some respects failed to realize. It offers some assistance to small schools with the view of helping them to fulfil the conditions which would entitle them to a public grant—and this my right hon. Friend stated to be in accordance with every principle of policy and justice. It holds out inducements to improved teaching, and I have shown that, under the existing system, the results fall far below the minimum which my right hon. Friend considers indispensable. It encourages the employment of a pupil-teacher where there are sixty-five children in average attendance, instead of ninety, as at present, and the original draft of the Revised Code, as prepared by my right hon. Friend, pro-

  1191
  posed that there should be a pupil-teacher for every thirty children. If you are of opinion that one unassisted teacher can be capable of instructing eighty-nine children of various ages, vote with the right hon. Gentleman—if not, vote with me. If you consider the results of the examinations, as shown by the statistics I have quoted, to be satisfactory, vote with him—if not vote with me. In short, if you wish to discourage education you will vote with him, but if you wish to encourage it, you will vote with me.
  MR. POWELLsaid, that on former occasions he had made complaints of the continual changes of the system, on the ground that they produced uncertainty and prevented its extension and expansion. But the difficulty arose to a great extent from the fact that all the changes had been in the direction of economy. It was rather surprising, in the present state of politics, to find the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) such a persistent advocate for fixity and permanence of system. The right hon. Gentleman looked upon the Revised Code with the view of some ancient law-giver, who desired that his laws should remain in a state of fixedness. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated, before the Committee on Education, that he—
  "Considered the Minutes as they then existed did very well, and felt like Lycurgus did when he made the Spartans promise to keep his laws until he came back again."
  But even Lycurgus was a benevolent man, and would have had no objection to an improvement of his laws to meet an altered state of society. He (Mr. Powell) hoped that means would be found to improve our educational system which would be consistent with perfect efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to underrate the difficulty of school management; and he had not borne in mind the necessity for a high standard of teaching. The children of the working classes came from homes where books were rare, and the faculty for using them with advantage rarer still; and this rendered it necessary that they should have a much more powerful teaching staff. No doubt there was a great diminution of pupil-teachers. This would cause in time a reduction in the number of masters. Therefore, the Government were bound to take into consideration this state of things. The deficiency existed more with
  1192
  regard to males than females; and therefore he thought that the Government had done right in giving the greater stimulus to male teachers. No doubt with regard to small schools the great difficulty had been that they did not receive sufficient assistance from educational grants. In many small parishes there did exist schools; but the education was of a very defective character, and he understood that it was the intention of the Government gently to draw these schools within their influence, and to supply them with a higher class of teachers, in the hope that education might receive a corresponding advance. He believed that under the proposed system a considerable number of small schools would be drawn within Government influence. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to consider that as schools increased they would require an increased number of pupil-teachers; that they must increase the number of pupil-teachers to supply the place of those who passed into training colleges; and that inducements must be offered to managers to effect these objects. He (Mr. Powell) thought that it was a wise and just provision that children must pass a higher standard in a greater proportion before the schools could derive advantage from the increased grant; for there was reason to suppose that the children were too often kept within the lower standard. He believed that the absence of teaching in the higher subjects was a great deficiency of our present system, and that they should teach reading and writing with a double object—first, that of merely teaching it; and secondly, that of impressing the minds of the pupils with higher knowledge. In some parts of the Continent education had been narrowed, as with us, to its very elements; but last year a proposal was made to improve education in France, and part of the plan was to teach geography and the history of the country. The Minute appeared to him to be beneficial.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) had divided his attack on the Minute into two parts. In the first place, he said that nothing was required; in the second place, he argued that if anything was required the present attempt to overcome the objections to the Revised Code was ineffective and futile. Great as had been the exertions of his right hon. Friend, great as had been his courage, and great as had been his public virtue in passing that Code, still he (Mr. Bruce) was far from saying that

  1193
  the system was perfect and could not be improved. What had been the immediate effect of the Revised Code? All must agree that it had pressed very heavily on the resources of the managers. He had stated the other day, and he adhered to the calculation, that the schools were now receiving two-fifths less than they would have received under the old Code—namely, £622,000 instead of £1,000,000. Economy was a great advantage; but his right hon. Friend had himself said that if it could be shown that the schools had suffered by an excess of economy he should be the first to sanction a larger grant. His right hon. Friend had referred to certain defects as being inherent in the voluntary system.
  MR. LOWEsaid, his remark was that the proper course would be to try whether that system could not be supplemented.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, his right hon. Friend in his last speech on the subject had warned the House against the patching-up of the system. It was, indeed, a defective system; but whose fault was that? Over and over again Parliament had been asked by statesmen of the greatest eminence to endow the country with a system which would be adequate to its wants, and to supply it with a really national system of education. Earl Russell had asked Parliament to lay down the principle that every district should be obliged to supply itself with schools. A proposal had also been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) that such districts should be at liberty to levy rates to defray the cost of schools. The House, however, refused to adopt either principle, and the result was that the Committee of Council on Education were compelled to adopt the present system, which, he admitted, was a wasteful one. He stated the other day that a small school ordinarily cost from 35 s. to 45 s. per head on the inhabitants of the place, whereas a large school could generally be conducted at a cost of between 18 s. and 25 s. per head. Those figures showed plainly enough that, if possible, more assistance should be given to small schools than to large ones. But when the attempt was made to remedy the defects of the system, which was less generous to the poor than to the rich districts, it was met by the opposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe). The practical difficulty was to define what were large and what were small schools. At present about 9s. per head was given to all scholars alike by the Government,
  1194
  and the consequence was that the small schools laboured under difficulties unfelt by the larger ones. Unfortunately, too, financial difficulty meant imperfect teaching. Nobody had been more strenuous than his right hon. Friend in asserting the principle that a school depended upon the teacher, and that a certificated teacher was essential to a good school. He (Mr. Bruce) went even further than that, and maintained that a sufficient staff of masters was more especially essential in small schools. The difficulties encountered by small schools in reference to the subdivision of classes were very great indeed. Having but few masters it became necessary for them to group together children of very different attainments, and the consequence was that the progress made by the pupils was less than in the large schools. When he held office in connection with the Committee of Council on Education, he felt that the small schools were suffering on account of their not possessing a sufficient amount of teaching power, and his noble Friend (Earl Granville) and himself accordingly tried to devise means for remedying the evil. Without saying that the proposals which they would have brought under the notice of Parliament were identical with those submitted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), he must at least admit that they would have been similar in principle. In regard to this matter he felt bound to say that the Revised Code was partly to blame. Under the old Code, after the first fifty children a pupil-teacher might be employed for every forty children, and, being paid by the State, he always was employed. The result was that there was always a staff of teachers adequate to, and sometimes in excess of, the requirements of the school. Under the Revised Code it was not necessary to employ a second teacher until the number of children reached ninety, and the result was that the minimum number of teachers required to obtain the grant were almost invariably engaged, to the manifest injury of the school. No doubt great benefits had been derived from other parts of the system, such as the scheme of individual examinations; but those benefits had been diminished in consequence of there not being sufficient teaching power. In 1861 the number of pupil-teachers was about 16,000; but now, when there were about 350,000 more children in the schools than there were then, the number of teachers was reduced to about 11,000. Yet at this very

  1195
  time Parliament was engaged in considering measures to compel children to go to school under the half-time system, the effect of which would be to send hundreds of thousands to schools. Should it, then, be to good or to bad schools? In his judgment, it would be well to insist that children employed on the half-time system should be sent only to such schools as were provided with certificated masters. When they were about largely to increase the number of schools there was no fear, in this country at least, that the position of the certificated masters would be injured by an excess of supply. The evidence of the representatives of the British and Foreign Schools, before the Select Committees which sat in 1865 and 1866, was in favour of certificated masters, and they said that the reason why they were debarred from receiving assistance from the State was because they could not get a sufficient supply of such masters. Such being the case, was it not the duty of the State, which had undertaken so much for the education of the people, to provide also for the supply of sufficient and competent masters? His right hon. Friend had said that if any schools were to suffer it was well that the small schools should, because their smallness was owing to the denominational system which multiplied schools unnecessarily. But surely his right hon. Friend must be aware that the fact of a school being small was generally owing to the thinness of the population, and that the small schools were ordinarily to be found in the rural districts. Therefore, they had a primâ facie claim for a special amount of assistance. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of giving increased assistance would be not that the small schools which required it would receive it, but that some large schools which were already more than sufficiently paid would receive in most cases this assistance, without wanting it. It was undoubtedly true that large schools in flourishing districts might often do without State assistance at all; but that was the result of the existing system, and Parliament had over and over again refused to adopt a wiser and more elastic one. At the same time there were many large schools, for the maintenance of which the necessary funds could not be at all easily raised. In the East of London, for instance, and in the outskirts of all our populous towns, it would almost be impossible to obtain the requisite funds without raising
  1196
  the fees, and the effect of raising the fees would obviously be to keep the poorest children away from the schools. He was far from finding fault with the Minute of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), because it was too liberal; indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken the task of dealing with these defects in our system, he wished he had been more liberal. Instead of the 800,000 or 900,000 now at school in England and Wales, there ought to be 2,000,000. A great many schools were kept from receiving State assistance because they were unable to comply with the pecuniary conditions required by the Government. By the proposals of the Government the grant to a school of 100 children could not exceed £8, and this could not be earned except upon conditions which, however wholesome in themselves, were difficult to comply with. It was proposed that an additional grant, which certainly would not have the effect of choking and overwhelming the voluntary system, should be made to all schools with an average attendance of sixty-five children. Even that additional grant, however, could not be made without conditions. It was certainly right and desirable that every child on leaving school should know reading, writing, and arithmetic, and, indeed, in his opinion, they ought also to know something of geography, history, and other subjects. He repeated the assertion he had made on another occasion, that where these subjects were taught best the lower branches of instruction were also best taught. The results desiderated could be attained only by increasing the teaching staff; and vast numbers of schools were at present unable to employ certificated masters. The new Minute had in view the double object of increasing the teaching power in our schools and of raising the standard of elementary education. Whether the measures proposed were sufficient or not, time would prove. But they were in the right direction, and had therefore his sympathy and support.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had listened with great interest to what fell from the right hon. Member (Mr. Lowe) in the attack he made on the Minute. Having heard the answer, he could not say that the attack had been sustained. There could be no doubt that when the Revised Code came into operation, there was a tendency to a great redundancy of pupil-teachers: but that tendency had been checked. It would be interesting to learn

  1197
  from figures, which must be accessible, the number of certificated masters that would probably meet the wants of the country; and the average yearly number of pupil-teachers it would take to supply that want. The matter was one calling for nicety of calculation, which, perhaps, Do one official person alone could make. He would not venture to express an opinion as to whether a surplus was being created; but he was quite disposed to bow to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry), who had the best opportunities of forming a judgment; and both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Bruce) seemed to consider that there was a falling off, and that something was required to bring the number up again. There could be no reasonable objection to that part of the Minute which related to the aiding of the smaller schools. He hailed it as a pleasing symptom, and as an evidence of an indisposition to be bound by cast-iron rule. It must be remembered that the Privy Council really aided the voluntary effort of the country; that there was no system apart from that effort; and that the Government simply afforded in grants a limited amount of public money, to supplement the still greater voluntary contributions of the public. Sometimes the Privy Council was disposed to look too closely into the circumstances of a case which might greatly need their aid, and which their system did not reach. He had never spoken on this subject without expressing his regret that the Privy Council did not think that it came within the scope of their duty to endeavour to reach many of those forlorn children which in all great centres of the population were left untouched and without any assistance at all. They were the most needy, and yet they never had anything. He was consoled, however, by the fact that the Privy Council, taking a step towards those whom hitherto they had not reached, were in the right path. Therefore he would be sorry to express an opinion hostile to what the Privy Council were doing, and would give his support to the Minute as far as it went. The subject was a difficult one, and no doubt involved an enormous amount of official trouble. It was a great advantage in a public office to lay down a strict rule, and not to deviate from it; but the consequence of that must be that while spending enormous sums in aid, those who most needed aid were not reached. The
  1198
  Minute evinced a disposition to act upon rule, because it had been framed to meet the wants of the smaller schools only; but if some of the larger schools reaped any advantage, he, for one, should not grudge them it. He hoped that those for whom it was primarily intended would be able to take advantage of it.
  MR. PUGH,who rose amid cries for a division, said, he would be very short. He knew what time it was, and what hour it struck last—
  "Uteroque recusso
  Insonucre cavæ gemitumque dedêre cavernæ."
  He wished to state briefly that he cordially supported the policy of the Government as indicated in this Minute, because it showed their desire to remove some of the difficulties of the rural districts, and to render assistance to their schools. He had no wish to undermine the Revised Code, of which the principle was good—namely, payment for results, and he did not believe the Government wished to undermine it. They were too wise in their generation; but it could not be denied that, while the old Code had ignored the rural districts, the Revised Code had, from the difficulty of the subject, or from other causes, continued the ignoramus. The rural districts had long reminded him of a celebrated character of former times, of mournful celebrity, who said that he came asking but little, and getting less than little, and that sufficient for him; and he went on to say—and the parallel still held good—that his adversities, his antiquity, and the nobility of his nature taught him to be contented. The rural districts had not murmured, had not made themselves heard, had sounded no note of expostulation; but they thought that, in comparison with towns and other highly favoured regions, they were to a certain extent left out in the cold.
  "Unconscious they in waste oblivion lie—
  In all the world of busy life around
  No thought of them."
  And yet it would be unjust to say that their case had not often engaged anxious attention. After a diligent consideration of the question for many years, he was unable to point out any party, or any section of any party in that House, from which there had not at some time proceeded a cordial admission that the Codes, however beneficent in their action in other quarters, had failed to benefit the rural districts.
  "Quæ regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?"

  1199
  But he had a confidence in the wisdom and justice of Parliament that induced him to believe that for Parliament to know of a grievance, to be conscious of its existence, was, sooner or later, effectually to redress it. He believed that the Government were anxious to take a step in that direction, and he thanked them for their good intentions.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, it would have been far better to have left the question of education in the hands of the people and intrusted it to their voluntary action, than to have deranged the taxation of the country by the making of grants in aid. Many of the young persons who had been trained as pupil-teachers at the expense of the State had turned clerks or adopted some other profitable occupation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had done himself great honour by his attempts to stem the flow of money from the Public Exchequer for the purpose of education. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would take the sense of the House; and, sooner or later, it would be proved that he was right.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 40: Majority 163.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

WRITS FOR RE-ELECTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he rose to call attention to the practice of not issuing a Writ for a vacancy in this House if the Seat which has been vacated be claimed on behalf of another Candidate; and to move—
  "That whenever a Member of this House shall accept an Office of Profit under the Crown a Writ for a new Election may issue, notwithstanding that the time limited for presenting a Petition may not have expired, or that a Petition praying for the Seat may have been presented."
  This was a matter of considerable importance as affecting the general interests of the public. According to the practice of the House, when a petition praying for the seat was presented against any person who had been appointed to an office of profit under the Crown no writ could issue until the petition had been decided. According to the old practice no writ could issue if a petition was merely presented against the return. But in 1852 it was decided by the House, in the cases of
  1200
  Southampton and Carlow, that the writ should issue in those cases where the seat was not prayed for. He could see no difference between the cases where seats were prayed for and where they were not. By the present practice no writ for a reelection could be issued at the commencement of a new Parliament until after fourteen days of the meeting of the House. If on the death of Lord Palmerston Earl Russell had not been able to form a Ministry, and Earl Derby had been called upon to form a Government, the consequence would have been that the Members of the Government could not have taken their seats in the House until three weeks after the meeting of Parliament, fourteen days being required to elapse before the writ could be moved to see whether petitions against their return would be presented. Last year, at the commencement of the first Session of the new Parliament, matters of great public interest came before the House—namely, the Cattle Plague and the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. What would then have been the result if the Members of Her Majesty's Government having seats in the House had been petitioned against and the seats prayed for? If therefore they balanced any supposed personal advantage under the present system against public convenience, private feeling should give way to the latter. That a seat was prayed for was no ground for preventing a dissolution of Parliament by Her Majesty's command; why, then, should it be a reason for preventing the issue of a new writ when it might be for the public advantage that a writ should be issued? The present practice was also liable to abuse. On that ground also it required to be altered. Any person wishing to keep a Minister out of his seat for the purpose of gratifying a malicious feeling, might, at the last moment, present a petition praying for the seat, and thereby keep a Minister out of his place in the House for some months. On the last day for presenting petitions at the beginning of the last Session, a Mr. Wellington Shegog presented a petition against the return of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), then Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the ground of intimidation, and praying for the seat. Now, it appeared, according to a Return which he moved for, that from 1832 to 1866 not one person had been seated on petition on the ground of intimidation solely. The petition against the right hon. Gentleman was presented on the 20th February, and he was actually

  1201
  kept out of the House until the 12th of March, and might have been for a much longer period had not he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) made a similar Motion to the one then before the House, when the petition was withdrawn. The petition against the return of Mr. Morris was presented on the same day, and was not disposed of until May, and if the petition against the right hon. Gentleman had been tried he would have been kept out of the House a similar lengthened period. That, too, during the discussion with reference to the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and other questions of importance relative to Ireland, at a time when his presence was most required. The only ground upon which the present practice could be defended was some supposed interest the person might have in the seat he prayed for. But that was not to be considered for a moment in opposition to the public inconvenience it occasioned. He moved—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that by the rules of the House the hon. and learned Member could not then make a Motion, inasmuch as an Amendment had already been moved and negatived on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out no sufficient case for altering the rules of the House on the subject to which he had called attention. That which might turn out to be the property of one person ought not to be given to another. In the very rare event of Cabinet Ministers not being able to take their seats for a fortnight or three weeks as had been described, the Secretary to the Treasury or some of the subordinate officers of the Government who did not vacate their seats might very well discharge the necessary business in their absence.

THE CONVICTS BURTON AND HAY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the sentence passed by Mr. Baron Bramwell, at the recent Kingston Assizes, upon two prisoners, Burton and Hay, aged twenty-three and twenty-nine, who were indicted before him for burglary, and sentenced to eight and ten years' penal servitude, respectively, and who having been removed from the bar by the police were ordered to be brought back by the Judge, who there upon sentenced them each to a further
  1202
  term of five years' penal servitude. If, when on a recent occasion he had put a Question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) he had been able to inform him that he was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and that the learned Judge had not proceeded beyond the limits of his authority, he should have abstained from mentioning the matter a second time. It appeared from the accounts which had been given in the newspapers that the two prisoners named had immediately after sentence was pronounced upon them become exceedingly violent in the dock, and had used most outrageous language towards the Judge. From those accounts, not only he himself, but many others supposed that the additional sentence which had been passed upon them was a punishment for their insubordinate conduct in Court. He had since learnt from the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the penalty of five years' penal servitude had been inflicted as part of the original sentence, and that it was perfectly within the discretion of the Judge to impose that increased penalty. Under those circumstances, disclaiming all intention of unnecessarily impugning the sentence of a Court of Justice, or of making, directly or indirectly, a personal attack upon the learned Judge, than which nothing could be further from his views, he should not press the right hon. Gentleman for any further explanation on the subject.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that as a member of the Home Circuit, and an intimate friend of Mr. Baron Bramwell's for many years, he could not allow the subject to drop without making a few observations. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend had withdrawn the Question, and so far had made the amende honorable; but he must say it was rather a hasty course of proceeding in giving notice of the Question. Such questions brought forward without sufficient inquiry and information of the facts had the effect of shaking the authority of the Judges of the land. [Mr. GILPIN: No, no!] Such was their practical effect; and therefore it was desirable that they should be very cautious before they called attention to judicial sentences in that House. There was not a more upright or humane Judge on the Bench than Mr. Baron Bramwell, and he would be the last man to be induced from a spirit of anger or ill-judged feeling to aggravate a sentence on a fellow-creature. Such insinuations were worse than direct charges. He, however, accepted the hon. Gentle-

  1203
  man's disclaimer on behalf of Mr. Baron Bramwell and the profession generally.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that nothing could be further from his intention than to make an attack on Mr. Baron Bramwell, and no one was more alive than he to the necessity of upholding the dignity of the judicial Bench, but he could not help thinking that the occurrence in question was unfortunate. The conduct of the prisoners had undoubtedly been most disgraceful, amounting as it did to a very gross contempt of Court. There was no doubt that it was open to the Judge in point of law to increase as he had done the punishment which was originally inflicted upon them. It was not the mere passing but the recording of the sentence which was the decisive act. At the same time it might, he was afraid, appear to the public that the Judge having felt himself insulted by the conduct of the prisoners had lost his temper, and sought to punish the insult offered to his dignity. He thought the incident unfortunate, for anything wearing the appearance of personal feeling on the part of a Judge had a tendency to impair the dignity of the Bench, though there might be no personal feeling in the matter.

CASE OF JOHN TOOMER.—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that it was with great reluctance that he felt compelled to call attention to an error and exceptional case in the administration of justice, by which he believed that an innocent man had sustained a grievous wrong. He quite acceded to the general proposition laid down the other night by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), that it was not desirable for that House to interfere with the ordinary course of the administration of justice and to erect itself into a tribunal of criminal appeals. But he was unable to subscribe in the full extent to the doctrine enounced by the right hon. Gentleman that the application for papers in this case was wholly unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the House was entitled to an explanation of the grounds on which he had acted; but questioned the right of the House to require the production of documents and papers, without which it would be difficult for the House to form a judgment as to whether the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was satisfactory or not. The House had over and over again obtained that
1204
information, the request for which was designated by the right hon. Gentleman to be unprecedented, had acted on it, and had addressed the Crown on the subject of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. He would not dwell on the numerous instances in the reign of Charles II., in which the House had addressed the Crown to obtain the pardon of a criminal; but would refer to one or two precedents in modern times, for he should be sorry if the House supposed that he was leading it into a new and unconstitutional course. In 1814, Lord Ebrington, then a conspicuous Member of the House, moved an Address to the Crown praying for a revision of the sentence passed on Lord Cochrane. In that case the evidence of the trial and the Reports of the Judges were before the House. To show that that was the case, he would read some extracts from Hansard. The following passage was from the speech of the Solicitor General of that time:—
"Having read and attentively examined the report of the trial, including the evidence, the address of counsel on both sides, and the Charge of the Judge, he should have felt himself bound, were he on the jury, to find Lord Cochrane guilty, were that noble Lord his own brother."—[1 Hansard, xxviii. 768.]
The Solicitor General then went through the whole of the evidence which had been laid on the table of the House; and the feeling being in favour of the Motion, the Government announced that that portion of the sentence inflicting the punishment of the pillory should not be put in force. In the case of Frost, Williams, and Jones a Motion for an Address to the Crown was made. It was true that the Motion was negatived; but there appeared in the list of the minority no less a name than that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli). It was not to be supposed that the high authority of that right hon. Gentleman would have sanctioned an Address praying for mercy if such an Address had been unprecedented and unconstitutional. Upon that occasion Mr. Fox Maule, then Under Secretary for the Home Department, was reported in Hansard to have read to the House the letter of Chief Justice Tindal communicating to the Secretary of State the decision of the Judges on the point reserved; and the reply given by the three Judges who presided at the trial to the memorial presented to them by Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Kelly.—[3 Hansard, lii. 1140.]

1205
In the case of Jessie M'Laughlan the whole of the evidence was laid on the table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a peculiar case, but only peculiar cases came before the House. In the case of Townley, no less a person than the present Lord Chief Baron, Sir FitzRoy Kelly, applied for papers, and put precisely the same question to the then Home Secretary as he (Sir Robert Collier) had put to the present Home Secretary. He thought that he had stated enough to show that there was no novelty in the application he had made the other night, though there might be some novelty in the position assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. It behoved the House to investigate the manner in which the tribunal of appeal in the Home Office was worked, not from idle curiosity, but with a view to practical legislation. If many cases occurred, such as this, which he believed to be a case of mistaken severity (and there had been other cases of, he believed, mistaken and disastrous leniency), it would be for the House to consider whether it could not devise some better tribunal of appeal. He would now call attention to the facts of the case which he desired to bring under the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had been courteous enough to inform him that he would produce the memorial sent to the Home Office on behalf of Toomer; but that he did not think it consistent with his duty to produce the notes of the evidence given at the trial. That being so, he must refer to the best sources he could for the evidence, and if any portion of his statement should be incorrect, all he could say was that he had done his best to be accurate. He was at issue with the right hon. Gentleman in limine, for the right hon. Gentleman treated this matter as a question of conflicting evidence; whereas it appeared plain that, according to the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, there ought to have been no conviction. It appeared by that evidence that the prosecutrix having advertised for a situation as governess, Toomer engaged her to teach his daughter music, she having previously, at his request, sent him her photograph, which was approved. When she went to Toomer's house she found that she had been deceived, for there was no daughter or daughters in the house, though she had been led to expect the contrary. She, nevertheless, remained for weeks in the house, and on familiar terms with Toomer, who kissed
1206
her and asked her to marry him. The prosecutrix also stated that on one occasion Toomer dragged her through the passage into a back room, undressed her, put her in bed, remained with her all night, and finally effected his purpose. During the whole of the time she was unable to make any alarm, because Toomer prevented her, and, though there were servants in the house, none of them heard any cry. It further appeared that she remained in bed, and in the morning took her breakfast, Toomer going out as usual to his business. She said that she wrote home on that day, and gave the note to the servant to post; but the servant denied that she received any such note, and no such note arrived at the place stated. She said that Toomer came home in the evening, and as he expressed himself penitent she forgave him. On the next day, by her own account, she walked out with him, was on the most familiar terms with him, took tea with him, and remained in the house. Three or four days after she said she was sleeping alone (why she did not explain, for she had been in the habit of sleeping with a servant), and for some unexplained reason she left the door of her room open. During the whole of that night she said that Toomer remained with her, again effected his purpose, but that she was unable to give any alarm, and that at some time next day she made a complaint. He put it to those who were conversant with the administration of justice—to those accustomed to criminal trials—whether even if that evidence of the prosecutrix stood alone, any jury would have convicted. But the case did not stop there. Medical evidence was called in behalf of the prosecution, and it distinctly negatived the possibility of a rape. So strong was the opinion of the medical man called on the trial, that he wrote a letter to the editor of the Berkshire Chronicle, from which he would read an extract. He had been called for the prosecution, and if he had any bias it might be supposed to be on the side for which he was called. Mr. Maurice wrote—
"After examining Miss Partridge I gave evidence before the magistrates that the result of the examination did not support the charge. Your medical readers will know that in consequence of certain rare and exceptional cases I was compelled to be thus guarded; but after Miss Partridge had sworn to prolonged resistance, I was enabled to affirm that the medical evidence disproved the charge."

1207
The case did not stop there. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, of course, unintentionally, had led the House into a misunderstanding when he referred to the evidence of the two maid-servants. These two maid-servants were called on the part of the prosecution; and what was their evidence? It was to this effect, that if a rape had been committed and the prosecutrix had called out, they must have heard it, because they were in the house; but they heard nothing. That the prosecutrix had not written to her mother, as she said she had. That on the night of the alleged second rape she had made some excuse for the purpose of sleeping alone. That she had requested the maid-servant who was in the habit of sleeping with her to sleep with her niece, and on the maid-servant drawing her attention to the fact that she had left her door open, she made some trifling excuse. She slept alone therefore that night by her own contrivance. It further appeared, on the part of the prosecution, that she said she expected £20 from Mr. Toomer. He did not pay her that sum, and afterwards she went and gave information. That was the case in substance for the prosecution. Under these circumstances the counsel for the defence, a very eminent and able counsel, his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Huddlestone), called no witnesses; and for this reason, it never entered into his imagination to conceive that there could be a verdict of guilty. And he (Sir Robert Collier) did not hesitate to say he was right. He should have done the same thing. The jury retired to deliberate. They came into Court, and said they could not agree. They again retired, and remained in deliberation five hours. Finally they found a verdict of guilty, but coupled with a recommendation to mercy on the ground that the girl had been indiscreet and had encouraged Toomer.
MR. WALPOLE: The jury said there were extenuating circumstances. The Judge asked what were the extenuating circumstances, and the jury replied that the prosecutrix had been indiscreet?
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he thought that amounted to pretty much the same thing. The jury had been locked up five hours. He was not speaking against trial by jury; but he did not agree with the principle of keeping a jury in durance vile, and no doubt in this, as in many other cases, the verdict was the
1208
result of a compromise. They were hungry and anxious to get away, and a compromise took place under the idea that only a slight sentence would be passed. He could not help thinking that the verdict almost amounted to this—that Toomer had committed a rape with the girl's consent. The learned Judge passed a sentence of fifteen years' penal servitude—a sentence which, he understood, astonished everybody in court, astonished the counsel on both sides, and astonished the country. That was the case so far as he understood it; and he was bound to say that in the whole course of his experience—and it had not been short—of criminal trials he had never known a conviction for rape founded upon evidence like this. He had conversed with a number of lawyers in Westminster Hall and out of it, and he had not met one—not, indeed, one man who approved the verdict. The public were against it, the Press was against it, it was condemned by public opinion. No doubt his right hon. Friend wished to do justice; but he venturned to think that this was one of those cases in which the prerogative of mercy, vested in the Crown, exercised under the advice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ought to have been exercised. There had been many Motions made in that House to the effect that a court of criminal appeal ought to be established; but the usual answer was that we had already a court of criminal appeal in the Home Office, which performed the function of the Courts in granting a new trial. He quite appreciated the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's position, and he knew that only one motive actuated him which was to do his duty; but, in his humble opinion, this was a case in which it was the duty of the Home Secretary to set aside a verdict which was manifestly wrong. There were many cases in which it was extremely difficult to decide between conflicting evidence; but here there was no balance of conflicting testimony. The case was comparatively simple. On the evidence of the prosecutrix there could be no conviction for rape. The whole case for the prosecution had broken down. The verdict was wrong, and should have been set aside. A memorial had been presented to the right hon. Gentleman, stating very shortly the facts of the case, and laying before him affidavits of persons who would have been called as witnesses at the trial had counsel thought it necessary. The effect of their evidence was shortly this—

1209
the next-door neighbours gave their evidence. It appeared that the room in which Toomer slept was separated by so thin a partition that what was said on the other side of the wall could be heard. That affidavit was sworn by a nurse who sat up with a sick person in the room adjoining. She said she could hear conversations which passed in Toomer's house, but on the night in question she heard nothing. That was the night during which the supposed rape took place. It was further shown that the girl had stated that she did not write home to her parents, though she swore that she did. It was shown that she had walked out with Toomer in the country, that she was seen with him, hanging on his arm, grasping both hands together, and playing with his whiskers, and all this between the occasion of the first and second rape. With respect to these affidavits, he did not attach very much weight to them, because the parties who made them might have been examined on the trial, and the affidavits did not contain their cross-examination. What he ventured to affirm was this, that on the case of the prosecution the man ought to have been acquitted. He would now call attention to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the memorial. He stated that he could not advise a pardon to be granted to the prisoner, from the perusal these documents, unless he was satisfied that the prosecutrix had committed wilful and corrupt perjury. He ventured to say, with all respect for the right hon. Gentleman, that he had misconceived the whole subject. The question was not whether he was bound, upon those affidavits, to determine whether the prosecutrix had committed perjury; but, putting aside those affidavits altogether, whether upon the evideuce a just and proper verdict had been returned? There were many instances in which Home Secretaries had determined the question whether upon the case for the prosecution there ought to have been a conviction. If it was not to determine such a question, what was the use of the tribunal of the Home Office? But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"Upon no other ground could he be justified in setting aside a verdict given after long deliberation, and entirely approved of by the learned Judge. It appeared to Mr. Walpole that it would be extremely unjust to form such an opinion upon statements which may without any difficulty be made in open court, subject to the test of cross-examination, and in the presence of the jury, who is to judge of the credit to which they are entitled. Mr. Toomer is bound, in the judgment of Mr.
1210
Walpole, to indict Miss Partridge for perjury, upon his own evidence and that of the different persons who now make declarations in his favour, but were not brought forward upon his trial. Unless Mr. Toomer pursues this course, he cannot reasonably expect the Crown to interfere with the decision which has already been pronounced in his case by a competent tribunal."
He wished to say a few words upon the two grounds put forward by the right hon. Gentleman for refusing to interpose in the case. The first ground was that the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Slice) approved the verdict. He desired to speak with the utmost respect of that learned Judge; and he quite admitted that the opinion of the Judge who tried the case must, and ought to, have weight with the Home Secretary. But he altogether denied that the opinion of the Judge was to be taken as conclusive; for if the Home Secretary was bound to act upon the opinion of the Judge, what became of his appellate functions? It came to this, that they substituted the Judge for the Home Secretary. But the Home Secretary was the Constitutional adviser of the Crown in respect to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; and his responsibility could not be thrown upon the Judge. It was the duty of the Home Secretary to form his own opinion, giving the weight which was due, but not more than was due, to the opinion of the Judge; and if he saw that, on a review of the whole case, the conviction was wrong, he was bound to disagree with that learned person. Unless, therefore, he was much mistaken in his reading of the facts, he could not help thinking that that was one to of those cases in which the Home Secretary was bound to exercise his discretion, and on a review of the whole case, to come to a conclusion different from that of the learned Judge. But, in the next place, the right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Toomer ought to indict Miss Partridge for perjury. That was throwing on Mr. Troomer an unreasonable obligation. What would be the result of a prosecution against Miss Partridge for perjury? He appealed to any man having experience of the criminal courts whether such a prosecution was at all likely to be successful. Toomer had no doubt behaved badly; and he would in come before the, jury with a certain prejudice against him as a man of loose morals. There would be no prepossession in favour of a man—an ironmonger's assistant. Would it not have been suggested by counsel that Miss Partridge had not stated what was wilfully false; that,

1211
at the worst, she had only exaggerated; that she had resisted, but had not resisted quite so much as she had stated; that she had not surrendered her virtue at the first attack, but had only capitulated after a certain amount of resistance; and that therefore it could not be said she bad committed perjury. That assuredly would have been the line of defence adopted; and no one could doubt that she would have been acquitted. What, then, would have been the position of Mr. Towner? His case would have been hopeless, and he would have had no chance of the remission of any portion of his sentence. Mr. Toomer therefore exercised a wise discretion in not taking that course. It therefore appeared to be a case peculiarly calling for the intervention of the Home Office; and it seemed to him that the grounds on which that intervention had been withheld were altogether untenable. He would venture to express a hope that, in deference to what he believed to be the public opinion and the opinion of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would give them the assurance that he would now, on re-consideration, advise the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy in the case. He was sure that such a statement would be received with great satisfaction by both sides of the House. If some assurance of that kind were not held out, it might become his duty on a subsequent occasion to take the opinion of the House on that subject. But he did not desire to follow that course; and he trusted that what he had now said would have the effect of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation which might be satisfactory to the House.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, there is one observation which I wish to offer before I enter upon the remarks just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and it is this, that whatever may be the responsibility of adjudicating upon a case like this, that responsibility rests exclusively with myself. The hon. and learned Gentleman need not have adverted to the fact that the Judge had given an opinion in confirmation of the verdict pronounced by the jury, as if he thought that I was going to shelter myself behind the opinion of the Judge. At the same time, I must observe, from all the experience I have had of what has taken place at the Home Office, that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to hear what the Judge has to say upon the case, and to give great attention to his opinion upon it. In
1212
fact, he is the person who can give a better opinion than anybody else as to what were the impressions left upon his mind at the time by the evidence adduced, and by the conduct and demeanour of the witnesses, and also as to what are the impressions still remaining on his mind when he has seen any subsequent declarations. The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone into a very long disquisition upon the facts of this case; but he will forgive me for saying that I do not think it would become me to enter into his argument at any great length. The position which I have to take up, the position which I think I am bound to take up with reference to such a case as this, is one of neutrality and impartiality. I might traverse a vast number of the facts which the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated to the House. I might point out how he has collected together and put forward all the facts bearing upon one side of the case, as counsel would do in addressing a jury, without adverting to a single fact which weighs materially on the other side. I might point out that when he referred to the first assault, which was made upon the prosecutrix on the Wednesday preceding the Sunday, he entirely omitted all allusion to the struggles which took place, all allusion to the prisoner's producing a revolver and threatening in effect that her life might be in danger if she did not yield to him. I might advert to the night when the distinct crime was committed with which he was charged, and to the fact that the reason why she did not cry out was because the way in which he was alleged to have treated her, made it impossible for her to do so. I might still further refer to the circumstance—which the hon. and learned Gentleman wholly omitted—of her going to her room at night with the full belief that the maid-servant was to sleep with her, as she had done before, and of her being asleep in the room when Toomer came in and took her by surprise, and subjected her to these assaults. I should not have even alluded to these facts except for the purpose of showing that there may be two sides to a case, and that the opinion arrived at by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not inevitable. And here I may observe that I have never given any opinion upon this case, except to my able Under Secretary. I knew that it might be brought before me in every kind of form. I should have to consider whether, under all the circumstances, although the prisoner had been found guilty by a jury

1213
which had been approved by the Judge, and there would be no possibility of a rehearing or cross-examination of witnesses, it was my duty to recommend the Crown to exercise its prerogative of mercy. It is said that this man is entirely innocent. But, at all events, he has been convicted by a proper and competent tribunal. The Home Office never is, and never was, a Court of Appeal—that is to say, it is not a tribunal appointed to re-hear cases of this kind. If the Home Office were to attempt to exercise such a jurisdiction, and were to re-hear cases depending upon the testimony of witnesses, without the possibility of judging how far that evidence was to be depended upon, the course of justice in this country would be greatly interfered with. Do not let it be supposed that I think that the Home Secretary has not a very large power vested in him of advising the Crown to exercise its prerogative of mercy. I think there is such a power vested in him, not for the purpose of re-hearing a case which can only be properly re-heard before a Judge and jury, but for the purpose of taking into consideration not only the facts proved at the trial, but any other facts and circumstances that may be brought to light subsequently, of weighing them, and of determining whether, under all the circumstances, it is his duty to recommend the Crown to exercise its prerogative of mercy, and to mitigate the severity of the punishment. In no case, however, should he interfere against the decision both of Judge and jury, unless the case is so plain as to leave no reasonable doubt on the mind of any intelligent man that a great injustice had been done. There was one case which was very similar to the one now under discussion. I refer to the case of Mr. Hatch, a clergyman, who was accused of an assault upon two young girls. Mr. Hatch was charged with that assault, he was tried, and convicted, and his case then came before the Home Secretary. The representations made to the Home Secretary in that case were as strong as those which have been made in the present instance; but in that case the Judge himself had great doubts about the justice of the verdict. Affidavits were made and were presented to the Home Secretary, and what action did the then Home Secretary, Sir George Lewis, take upon these representations? The identical course that I have taken the liberty of following. He pointed out to Mr. Hatch that he ought to indict the persons upon whose
1214
evidence he had been convicted of perjury. He said, "Either you must convict these persons of deliberate perjury, or the sentence must stand." What was the result? Mr. Hatch indicted the persons for perjury, the verdict was in his favour, and he received—as most undoubtedly he ought to have done—a free pardon. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there are reasons which prevent Toomer from coming into court to prosecute the person upon whose evidence he has been convicted. I will not go into that question; but I say that if Toomer is an innocent man he need not be afraid to go into a Court of Justice. Had he gone into court as soon as the opportunity was afforded him the case would have been tried, and by this time the question would have been settled. He declined to go into court. He has never indicted the prosecutrix for perjury. And not only has he not done this, but he has never by himself, or by his friends, or solicitor, made a single application to the Home Office to have his case practically—though, of course, it would not be formally—re-heard. Sir, every person who knows the practice of the Home Office knows perfectly well that such cases as these are heard and re-heard over and over again; and therefore I am unable to understand why that course has not been adopted in the present case. I ask the House what course, under these circumstances, was the wisest for me to pursue? There were two points raised in this case for my consideration—the question of guilt or innocence, and the question of excessive punishment. The first question has been determined by a jury under the direction of a Judge, and the case could not possibly be formally re-heard unless there were some kind of tribunal to re-hear and determine the case afresh. The second point, the question of excessive punishment, has never been brought before me. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman I have to say that I have carefully avoided forming a judgment upon this case in any way as regards the guilt or innocence of Toomer; but I may add that this very evening an hon. Friend of mine now in the House asked me whether I was prepared to receive a memorial from the friends of Toomer, praying that the case might be reconsidered in order that the punishment might be mitigated. I replied, as I have stated to many hon. Members during the present Session, that if such a memorial came before me it should have my best consideration. I have no bias in

1215
the matter. I have no desire whatever that any undue punishment should be inflicted upon Toomer. I cannot disguise from myself that the opinion of the Press and the opinion of the country—perhaps generally, although upon that point I could say a few words—is against Toomer's conviction, or, at all events, is against the extreme punishment to which he has been sentenced. Perhaps upon this point I shall not transgress my duty by saying that from the very beginning I thought the punishment to which Towner was sentenced was so severe that it ought not to stand. I never had the slightest hesitation upon that point; but that question has never been brought before me. The reason why I thought that the punishment ought not to stand was, because I felt that the jury's recommendation to mercy, founded probably upon some indiscretion of the prosecutrix, should have been attended to. The case has been a very painful one to me; and all I can say is that whenever it is brought before me in a proper shape, I shall be ready to endeavour to exercise the best judgment I can upon the matter. And now one word as to another Question which has been put to me this evening. I could not, in consequence of the forms of the House, answer the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) when he made the inquiry; but I may now state, with regard to the case tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell, that that learned Judge did not only not exceed his duty, but he did that which every honourable and upright Judge would have done under the circumstances. The law of the case is perfectly clear. Until the record is made up, which is not until the end of the assizes, the sentence may be either mitigated or increased, according to the circumstance that may arise. In the case alluded to, the conduct of the prisoners after sentence was passed upon them was of such a ferocious and murderous character, and indicated such depraved dispositions, that had the occurrence taken place before the sentence was passed, the Judge would have doubtless sentenced them to as severe a punishment as he afterwards did. I believe that the Judge was perfectly justified in all that he did; and I can only conclude by saying that a more able, upright, and honourable Judge than Mr. Baron Bramwell does not sit upon the Bench.
MR. CLIVEsaid, there was a difference between the case of Toomer and that of
1216
Hatch. In the latter a conviction for perjury was possible; in Toomer's case it was out of the question. The evidence depended altogether upon the statement of the woman herself; and there was not only no corroboration of her evidence, but every circumstance was opposed to the truth of her statement. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to receive a deputation; but Toomer's friends looked upon it as a question of guilt or innocence. They denied the guilt, but not the immorality. He never could understand which was the most marvellous, the conduct of the jury who convicted the prisoner, the Judge who sentenced him, or the Home Secretary who did not take the first opportunity to interpose. He could only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would go to the Home Office to-morrow with the determination to read the whole of the evidence over again. When he had done so, he was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would find it to be a case either for the entire remission of the sentence or the infliction of a merely nominal punishment.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that as he represented the town of which Toomer was an inhabitant, he was anxious to explain that the reason why there had been no deputation to the Home Secretary from Reading was, that there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the question of the convict's guilt. There was no difference of opinion whatever as to the propriety of remitting part of the sentence, but Toomer claimed to be altogether absolved. No further light could be thrown upon the case by indicting the woman for perjury. The opinion of the town was that the disproportion of the offence to the punishment was absolutely monstrous. The rape—if rape there were—was reduced to the very minimum to which an offence could be diminished. The woman was evidently one of those who—
"Of her long resistance half repented,
And, saying she would ne'er consent, consented."
He trusted that the result of the further consideration which the right hon. Gentleman would give the case would be that, if he did not advise the Crown to remit the sentence altogether, he would inflict only a nominal punishment.
MR. NEATEsaid, he had been in communication with the family and friends of the convict, and they considered him strictly entitled to an acquittal. In that feeling he entirely concurred. They were

1217
willing, however, to accept a remission of part of the punishment. As the question had been raised, he must express his most decided opinion that a more atrocious or absurd verdict was never given, or one which more called for the immediate interposition of the Home Secretary to set aside. If there had been more than one such verdict under the same Judge, he should maintain that there never was a case which more called for the constitutional interposition of the House to pronounce that a Judge who had encouraged—who had more than encouraged, who had compelled that verdict—was disentitled, by his manifest and notorious incapacity, to exercise his functions as a Judge. ["Oh, oh!"] That was his opinion, and he believed it was the almost universal opinion of the Bar and of the country. ["Oh!"] It was the opinion of every man to whom he had spoken on the subject. However, he did not wish to insist on this. The right hon. Gentleman wished to screen the office of Judge from the contempt and disrespect which might arise from cases of this kind. So far as he was entitled to represent the feelings of Toomer's family, they were willing to leave the case to the justice and humanity of the Home Secretary.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that unlike his hon. Friend (Sir Francis Goldsmid) who represented Mr. Toomer, or his hon. Friend (Mr. Neate) who represented the prisoner's family, he represented no one in this matter. A most extraordinary doctrine had been enunciated by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been of opinion from the very beginning that the sentence awarded to Toomer was excessive, and that it was one which ought never to have been passed upon him, yet he had told the House that he took no steps to mitigate it, because no memorial had been presented to him.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the only question brought before him was one of free pardon to Toomer, and not one of mitigation.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wanted to know whether that was not special pleading on the part of the right hon. Gentleman? What were the appellate functions of the Home Secretary? Toomer's case was in all the newspapers; everybody was talking about it; and was the Home Secretary to be the only person in the country who was to ignore the case? He thought it was the duty of the Secretary of State to take cognizance of such cases. If he had a sufficient cognizance of this case to justify
1218
him in forming an opinion from the beginning that the punishment was excessive, he ought to have taken some steps to mitigate that punishment, and not to wait until some formal memorial was presented to him. He would ask, supposing the right hon. Gentleman to occupy his present office for the next fourteen years, whether this unfortunate man would remain in prison until that time, unless the right hon. Gentleman in the meanwhile received a formal memorial? Such opinions showed, he was almost inclined to say, such an absolute incapacity for understanding the duties attached to the office of Home Secretary, that he was astonished to hear such a doctrine enunciated in that House.
MR. DENMANsaid, he could not permit the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) to pass without notice. There was no Member of the Bench for whom the whole Bar entertained a higher respect or a more affectionate regard as a man of justice and humanity than the learned Judge who tried this case. Even if there had been a miscarriage of justice in this case, he was at a loss to understand how such remarks could have been uttered by a member of the same profession as that to which the learned Judge himself belonged. Judging from the newspaper reports, there appeared to have been good ground for leaving the question to the jury. And when the jury had convicted the prisoner, there were circumstances in the case which fully warranted a sentence of great severity. The man had inserted the most artful advertisements in the newspapers. [Sir ROBERT COLLIER: The advertisement emanated from the prosecutrix.] Well, she had advertised; and he replied and offered her the situation of governess to his children. It must be assumed that the jury believed her story in finding him guilty of rape; and the learned Judge, in passing sentence, could not but take into consideration the fact that Toomer had taken the young lady as a governess for his children into his house upon the implied understanding that he would treat her as a lady, and abstain from any kind of improper conduct. If therefore it was a rape at all, it was a bad case; and the learned Judge might well feel that it was one deserving a heavy sentence. He might himself, perhaps, think that the sentence was somewhat severe; but still, what the Home Secretary was asked to do was to release Toomer before even nine months of his

1219
sentence had expired—a course which would be exhibiting as great a lenity as the non-remission of any part of the sentence would be a severity. The Home Secretary was under no necessity to consider the question of remitting the sentence until the time came when he might consider that Toomer had undergone sufficient imprisonment. The manner in which this case had been brought forward had shown a departure from the course usually adopted on such occasions. He did not believe that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to constitute himself a court of appeal, to all intents and purposes, against the sentences of Courts of Justice. If a Home Secretary felt convinced that he could conscientiously reverse, without hearing the evidence or observing the demeanour of witnesses, the verdict of a jury and the opinion of a Judge, he was, of course, justified in overruling the decision. But he apprehended that it was no part of the duty of a Home Secretary from the perusal of newspaper reports or even of a Judge's notes to place himself in that position. It would be a dangerous doctrine to lay down that on all occasions when the verdict of a jury was distasteful to some persons in the country or in the House, it was the duty of the Home Secretary to act as a court of appeal, and revise that verdict upon written documents to suit the current of popular feeling. After the explanation of the Home Secretary, he saw no reason to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from his duty. The right hon. Gentleman had told them fairly what had passed in his mind respecting the severity of the sentence; and he trusted that, after a certain period of time, the right hon. Gentleman would feel it consistent with his duty to recommend the clemency of the Crown to be extended. He must confess that he believed with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Robert Collier) that an indictment for perjury would not lead to a settlement of the case, because he thought no light would thereby be thrown upon Toomer's guilt or innocence. The woman's mouth being shut every presumption would be raised in her favour; and, whether guilty or innocent, she would be acquitted almost as a matter of course. He thought, however, the case might be left safely in the hands of the Home Secretary.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I thought, Sir, this debate could hardly come to a conclusion without some hon.
1220
Gentleman on the opposite Benches rising to vindicate the learned Judge from the cruel attack of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate). As the hon. and learned Member appears for so long a time to have been in communication with Mr. Toomer's friends, I should have thought that he would have taken some other means of bringing into question the conduct of the learned Judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken no such course; and now, sitting here in judgment on the conduct of the learned Judge, he says that his decision was a disgrace to the system of administration of justice in this country. [Mr. NEATE: What I said was that such a decision might justify the interference of the House.] I should, at all events, have thought that the hon. and learned Member would have adopted some other method of raising the question of the learned Judge's conduct instead of attacking him in this House, where he can offer no explanation or defence. I will, however, pass that by, and proceed to make a few observations upon what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Robert Collier), The question, as I apprehend it, is, was the Home Secretary wrong in not pardoning Toomer at the time the application was made for his pardon? Now, this offence charged against Toomer was deliberately sworn to. But my hon. and learned Friend suggests that the jury were hungered down, and were thus induced to return a verdict against the prisoner, which is by no means probable. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, who appears to have almost confined his conversation on this subject to Toomer's family and friends, says that he has heard nothing but disapproval of the verdict and the sentence; but the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) states that he has met with expressions of approval as well as of disapproval. You have the verdict of the jury and the opinion of the learned Judge who heard the whole of the evidence—not merely so much of it as my hon. and learned Friend has laid before the House to-night. The learned Judge, upon the calmest reconsideration of the evidence, states his belief that the verdict is a justifiable one, and that it is one from which he cannot dissent. What course was the Home Secretary to take under these circumstances? My hon. and learned Friend says that the Home Secretary may listen to the opinion of the Judge; but that he is

1221
not to be guided by that opinion. So that, although the Judge is convinced of the justice of the verdict, the Home Secretary is to take upon himself to say that that verdict is wrong; he is to set it aside, and to act upon his own opinion. That, I think, would be a very dangerous doctrine. My hon. and learned Friend might have told the House, what perhaps legal Members only are aware of, that when a case which has been tried at Nisi Prius, and a motion is made to disturb the verdict, if the learned Judge who tried the case assures the four Judges before whom it comes afresh that he is not dissatisfied with the verdict, it is allowed to stand, although the evidence may appear to preponderate against the decision of the jury. But my hon. and learned Friend says, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury and the opinion of the learned Judge, that the Home Secretary should take upon himself to Ray, "I think this a case in which no crime has been committed, and I at once recommend Her Majesty to exercise mercy and order the immediate release of the man." The suggestion made by the Home Secretary was a very fair one. It was open to the friends of Toomer to prosecute his accuser on the charge of perjury; and it is no answer to that suggestion to say that it would have been impossible to obtain a conviction. I pass by the question of possibility of conviction and offer another more important consideration. It is perfectly clear that from the time the Home Secretary suggested the prosecution of Toomer's accuser on the charge of perjury no answer has been made to the suggestion, nor has any mention been made of the difficulties in Toomer's way as a prosecutor on that charge, nor, indeed, has any further application been made to the Home Secretary in the case. The first position taken up by Toomer and his friends was that he was not guilty. The Home Secretary says in reply that he cannot act on that assertion; and I think he was right. If you can prove Toomer not guilty, do so; but, while the jury's verdict stands, and the Judge himself thinks the conviction can well be supported, I think the Home Secretary would have exceeded his duty if he had set all that aside, and had advised Her Majesty to grant a pardon. The question of a modification of a severe sentence is a very different one, and such as may be properly entertained. I cannot help thinking that when the facts are
1222
brought before him, the Home Secretary will find ample ground for considering whether a portion of the sentence may not be remitted. With respect to the sentence of Mr. Baron Bramwell at Kingston, I think the remarks made upon it to-night have arisen from a misapprehension of the facts. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) suggested that the increase of punishment awarded in the case was possibly ascribable to a personal feeling on the part of the Judge with reference to the conduct of the prisoners. If he will look at the reports of the case, he will find that it was nothing of the sort. The men made a murderous attack on the Governor of the prison, and the learned Judge told the prisoners that it was not because of any abuse of him or of their violence in the dock, but because he saw from their manner that they were men of cruel and fierce dispositions, that he passed a severe sentence.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that what he had stated was that there was a difference of opinion among the inhabitants of Reading in the Toomer case.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he questioned the allegation of the Solicitor General that if Toomer's case could have come before the Judges in banco they would have adopted the opinion of the Judge who tried him, and have confirmed the verdict. He desired nothing more than that the case should be considered as if it were a civil action, for if a verdict in a civil action were against evidence it would be set aside by the Judges in banco, even though they had to override the opinion of their colleague who tried it. He was a stranger to this case, except that he had read in Ireland a report of the trial, and when he did so it struck him, as it had other lawyers, that the verdict was bad, and ought to be condemned. The circumstances showed that the sentence could not be supported, but must be reformed. The Solicitor General had asserted that a rape had been sworn against Toomer on the trial; but he (Mr. Sullivan) dewed that. There was a line between what was and what was not rape. If a woman committed an indiscretion, it could not be rape, and in this case the jury said that the prosecutrix had been guilty of indiscretion. This was a case where the dispute was not about the facts, but about the intention, and therefore no prosecution could be instituted. In Hatch's case the simple question was whether the witnesses for the prosecution were truthful, because,

1223
if so, the charge was indubitably proved; but here the evidence for the Crown was consistent with there having being no rape at all, and this would be Miss Partridge's defence if she were prosecuted. He thought the Home Secretary had approached the question that night in a very fair spirit, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in mitigating the sentence would substantially reverse it. He would thus take from the administration of the law one of the severest reproaches it had ever incurred.
MR. BAGGALLAYsaid, that he might be disposed to come to the conclusion that though Toomer was technically guilty the sentence pronounced upon him was more severe than necessary; but he must remind the House that there was another person besides Toomer who might be said to be now on her trial, and that was the unfortunate prosecutrix. If the right hon. Gentleman were to consent to the appeal now made to him, and at once to grant a free pardon to Toomer, how could he do that without branding Miss Partridge as a harlot and a perjurer, though she had undergone the ordeal of a public trial and been subjected to cross-examination. He put it to the House whether that would be either fair or just. He had listened with great attention to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan), who said he wished to treat this question as substantially a new trial. But his right hon. Friend had taken that very course of obtaining for him a new trial when he gave him an opportunity of instituting a trial for perjury. It was objected to this that there was a probability the prosecution would not be successful. That might be so; but if it were not, still his right hon. Friend would have another opportunity of knowing the demeanour of Toomer and the other witnesses on both sides when they were brought into court and subjected to cross-examination. He thought the course which his right hon. Friend proposed was the only real test of the truth.
MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was an eminent member of the Equity Bar; but it was evident he had been too busily engaged in his own courts ever to set his foot inside a criminal court, for he was entirely unacquainted with their mode of procedure. There could be no prosecution for perjury instituted in this case, because there was no dispute as to the facts. All that the prosecutrix had sworn might be true; but the
1224
crime did not consist in the facts, in the mere thing done, but in its being done in spite of the most resolute opposition and by the forcible overpowering of that opposition. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), whose intense anxiety to do right was admitted on all sides, that there had been in this case a miscarriage of justice; because, when the jury found the prisoner guilty, but recommended him to mercy on the ground that the prosecutrix had been indiscreet, there was an obvious attempt to make a compromise between guilt and innocence where no such compromise was possible. The question whether the act was committed against the will of the prosecutrix was eminently one for the jury to determine; but the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The counsel for the prisoner exercised a wise discretion in not calling witnesses, for he was entitled to argue that upon the evidence for the Crown the balance of probability even was against the commission of a rape, and that there was therefore no case for a conviction. There was no technicality involved; the whole point at issue was whether what was done was done, not in the face of modesty, reluctance, and some kind of resistance, but whether it was done forcibly, feloniously, and against the final will of the party complaining. That forcible connection was rape, and nothing else was. The difference between Toomer's case and that of Hatch was, that in the latter case it was possible to prove that what the girls alleged to have occurred could not have taken place at the times and places and under the circumstances to which they swore; but not so in the present case, where nothing was in issue but the force. He did not complain of the sentence on the supposition that the verdict had been justified by the facts, for then it would, no doubt, have been a very aggravated case, and one calling for severe punishment, for the prosecutrix was under the prisoner's roof in an honourable capacity, and entitled to his respect and protection; and criminal violence under such circumstances would have been more than ordinarily atrocious, and deserving of more than ordinary punishment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must remind the House that they were pursuing an argument that was utterly irrelevant, and one that could lead to no useful end, inasmuch as there were no papers on the table of the House. Some hon. Gentlemen had read the trial in the newspapers;

1225
others, including himself, had not done so, and they had no means of judging of the guilt or innocence of Toomer. But the facts of the case, as admitted in the discussion, appeared to be these—Toomer had a fair trial in open court, before a jury of his countrymen; was convicted to the satisfaction of the learned Judge who tried him, and received a heavy sentence, There must have been something in the demeanour of the witnesses, and the manner in which their evidence be was given, to impress the learned Judge. Without discrediting anything which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Robert Collier) asserted of his own knowledge, he certainly could not accept as accurate the narrative which he had given, from the report others, of what occurred in court. It was irreconcilable with the sentence.
SIR, ROBERT COLLIERsaid, that in absence of the best evidence he had procured the best within his power.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not able to follow in the wake of his hon. and learned Friend. Even if he had enjoyed the opportunity of reading the newspapers on this subject, he should not have taken upon himself to represent to the House that what he had there seen amounted to a narrative of facts. It had been admitted, after all that had taken place, and after the public mind had been excited by discussion, that opinion in the town of Reading was even now divided upon the point. The conduct of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) accordingly was entirely vindicated. Had he yielded to the prayer urged upon him in the the first instance, to declare the innocence of Toomer, and entirely to remit the sentence, he would have been guilty of neglect of duty. At the same time, the matter was one in which the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in giving, as he had promised to give, his careful consideration to the question of the propriety of mitigating the severity of the sentence. It should be borne in mind that while it was important that the Secretary of State should not neglect the duty of the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy vested in the Crown, it was not less important that he should vindicate the law, and uphold, instead of treating as nullities, the verdicts of juries, and the decisions of Judges. To say that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to be considered for all purposes, and to all intents, an appellate
1226
tribunal in every case in which discussions might be raised as to the guilt or innocence of a prisoner, was to introduce a most dangerous doctrine. Nothing more calculated to bring into disrespect the administration had of justice could be imagined than the creation of such an appellate jurisdiction without a single incident essential to the due administration of such functions. No doubt, it was of great importance that the Royal prerogative of mercy should exist and be administered with judgment and moderation; but it was of equal importance that the interests of justice should be upheld. A year or nine months had elapsed with out any application being made for a modification of the sentence. At first, Mr. Toomer and his friends would accept nothing less than a declaration of innocence. His right hon. Friend had expressed his entire willingness to receive and consider any application which might be made to him; but it certainly was not for his right Friend to review and to reverse the whole of the previous solemn proceedings. Had he taken upon himself to adopt such line of action under the circumstances of this case, he would have committed a mistake greater than any which had yet been imputed to him.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he wished to explain. His hon. Friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General appeared to have understood him as saying that the Secretary for the Home Department ought to disregard the opinion of the Judge. But he had never intended to make any such statement. On the contrary, he had expressed his belief that the opinion of the Judge ought to have great weight in such cases, while it ought not to be considered conclusive.
MR. REARDENsaid, that the circumstances of the present inquiry afforded the strongest proof of the necessity for establisting a court of appeal before the close of the Session.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he thought the House of Commons was going beyond its province in re-trying a case which had been already heard before a Judge and jury. He submitted that was not one of their functions. They had not the proper materials on which to found their judgment, but merely newspaper reports. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Baggallay) had truly remarked that they were not merely trying Toomer, but also Miss Partridge, who had gone before a jury and subjected herself to a rigid cross-

1227
examination, after which the jury convicted the man whom she accused. The re-trying the case really meant that the House questioned the rectitude of trial by jury, and the propriety of decisions of juries when they were contrary to the notions of hon. Gentlemen. They had been trying this unfortunate woman, and saying that she was guilty of perjury. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might cry out "No, no!" if they pleased; but, in point of fact, the House had been trying this woman in her absence and making the most severe animadversions upon her. He repeated his opinion that the House had gone a little beyond its province in discussing the propriety of granting a new trial in this case. If they were to act as a court of appeal from the decisions of the Secretary of State in cases of that description their labours would be interminable, and they could have no certainty that they would be enabled properly to discharge that new duty.
MR. LOWTHERsaid, there was one portion of the reply of the Secretary of State which appeared to him to require some remark. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the precedent of the case of Hatch. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman were in search of a precedent to guide him in the course to be pursued in regard to Toomer, another case of more recent date might be taken—namely, the conviction for rape last year at Derby, which was tried by the same Judge, and by hint referred to the right hon. Gentleman for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer to Toomer's memorial, stated, as a reason why he could not reverse the sentence, that he could not take upon himself to say that the prosecutrix had been guilty of perjury. Now, such being the case, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House, how he was able to acquit the prisoners convicted at Derby?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, no notice had been given to him of the intention of the hon. Gentleman to bring the case just referred to under the attention of the House. He must say he thought it was somewhat unfair for the hon. Gentleman to bring any charge against him with reference to his decision in that case, because the hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that every one of these cases turned upon its own special circumstances. The special circumstances in the case at Derby were totally different from those surrounding the
1228
case of Toomer, and he thought it was not right of the hon. Gentleman to bring forward the matter in the way he had done.
MR. LOWTHERsaid, he had in the course of the evening called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case in question.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that just as he was going out of the House the hon. Gentleman had mentioned the matter to him.
MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSENsaid, he thought the case ought not to be discussed any further. He protested against the doctrine laid down by some hon. Members that the House was exceeding its province in dealing with questions of that description. He hoped that whenever there might exist what could fairly be regarded as a grievance the House would not refuse to take it into its consideration. Every one who knew what these cases were must be aware that a discretionary power of dealing with them must be left to the Home Secretary. It was impossible to judge of such cases without full and correct information; and as he himself had not the minutes of evidence before him, he felt precluded from going into the merits of the question. He felt assured that the result of this discussion would be to entirely clear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State from any imputation of having acted otherwise than with a sincere desire to do impartial justice. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman should now think fit to mitigate the sentence, he would be acting in a manner which could reflect no discredit whatever upon him.

COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF SLAUGHTERED CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORDYCE: Sir, the Question to which I have to call the attention of the House is one of great importance, not only to my own constituency, but to several others who happen to be placed in a similar position. I have to ask the Vice President of the Council, On what grounds it has been decided to exclude Aberdeenshire from participation in the Grant of £35,000, voted by this House, for the purpose of compensating the Owners of Cattle slaughtered under compulsory Orders in Council? It will be in the recollection of the House that during the cattle plague in this country in 1865, an Order was issued by the Privy Council, according to which owners of cattle affected by rinderpest were obliged to kill and bury

  1229
  them without compensation. That Order in Council continued in force from August, 1865, until the middle of November in the same year. In consequence of that Order a great number of cattle, both in England and Scotland, were slaughtered. Of course, the Order was very unpopular at the time. To apply the case to Aberdeenshire—it will be in the recollection of the House that in the course of the present Session a Vote of £35,000 was granted to compensate owners of cattle which had been slaughtered in accordance with this Order in Council. During the whole period of the operation of that Order, the people of Aberdeenshire had acted on the principle which has been sanctioned by the House. Owners of cattle, occupiers of farms, and the landlords in that county, had met together and agreed to form an association for the purpose of assessing themselves voluntarily, to compensate for the slaughter of their cattle. That was the main feature of the society which had been formed in Aberdeenshire—a principle which was carried out in such a way as commended it to the gratitude and imitation of the whole country. In the course of the present Session, Parliament resolved to compensate owners of cattle slaughtered under the compulsory slaughtering clauses of the Order in Council of 1865; and out of the grant voted, a sum of £900 would have fallen to the share of Aberdeenshire. But Aberdeenshire was in the position that the owners had already been pail, or, rather, had paid themselves by means of the Rinderpest Association. Accordingly, that Association presented a humble memorial to the Privy Council, praying for its share of the grant; but it received a refusal, for which no reason was assigned. The consequence will be that Aberdeenshire will have no participation whatever in the grant for compensation. I believe there is a sum of £20 which will be received by one man—a man who by his very recklessness in refraining from giving the association support is to receive this compensation. Such is the position in which the decision of the Privy Council has placed Aberdeenshire, and all places which acted in the way that county did with respect to compensation. The House of Commons, by making this grant of £35,000, has affirmed the principle on which Aberdeenshire acted; but the Privy Council, by its allocation of the grant, denies the reward Aberdeenshire is entitled to for
  1230
  having given a good example to the country. This is a decision which was not expected by the farmers of Aberdeenshire in their simplicity. They do not understand this sort of compensation. It seems to them to be a tax on forethought and energy, and a premium upon apathy and indifference. Their argument is this, and I think there is logic in it—that if it is a sound principle that owners of property taken by the State for State purposes should be compensated by the State, there should be no exceptions, but wherever the case applies the owners should have compensation; and they think that, in the cases where the owners of cattle have been compensated by the landlords or by voluntary associations, the principle still holds good that the State should pay. All that is required in the present instance is, that a little more trouble should be taken by the Privy Council Office; and that trouble surely is nothing compared with the satisfaction of undoubted justice which Aberdeenshire claims.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he had also to complain of Aberdeenshire being excluded from the benefit of the national fund. That county was the first to set a good example; its policy of compensation had been adopted by England, and it was only just that those who had displayed prudence, resolution, and disinterestedness should be compensated as their neighbours were. In England compensation had been given by the State to farmers placed in the same position as those to whom it was denied in Scotland. The conduct of Government was a remarkable instance of one-sidedness.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that the Order in Council for the slaughter of diseased cattle was made on the 26th of August, 1865. It was an Order for the slaughter of cattle not by the owners, but by inspectors appointed by Government. That Order remained in force till the 23rd of November, when it was rescinded by another Order in Council. The money voted by the House was to pay for the cattle slaughtered by the inspectors during the period which intervened between these two Orders. The sum was calculated upon the returns made, at the time, by the Government Inspectors, of the cattle which they slaughtered and of the value of the cattle at the time of slaughter. In December, 1866, another Order was made as to the distribution of the money. It runs thus—

  1231
  "That the amount to be awarded for cattle slaughtered, shall be according to the same rate as is provided by 29 Vic. c. 2, with regard to animals slaughtered under such Act, having previously deducted all compensation received from Local Rate, Insurance, Sale of Carcases, and any other sources."
  The Rinderpest Association of Aberdeenshire was not "an association for the relief of the sufferers under that Order." The people of Aberdeen had shown a great deal of public spirit. They had been before the rest of the country in endeavouring to stamp out the plague by slaughtering the diseased cattle; and they formed an association to pay each other for the cattle killed by themselves with that laudable object. This they did for their own good. They knew that by this means they would be subject to less loss. In time the whole nation followed in their steps, and by similar means, stamped out the plague throughout the whole country. The Privy Council had killed no cattle in Aberdeenshire except in the one case referred to by the hon. Member who had put the Question, and he had been paid by the loss which he had suffered under the Orders of the Privy Council. The £35,000 granted by the House was apportioned in accordance with the returns, made by the inspectors, of the cattle killed by them under the Order in Council. But in Aberdeenshire, with one exception, no cattle had been killed by the inspectors under that Order. How, then, were the Government to know the value of the cattle killed? The ipse dixit of the owner must be taken; but this would be out of the question. Again, an enormous inconvenience would result if this matter were re-opened. We stepped in when the plague was over; the people had settled down. Some had suffered total loss; others had since been satisfied. Some of the farmers who had lost their cattle had been re-imbursed by their landlords; others by the county Association; and if the Government were to say that they would compensate in these cases, claims would pour in by thousands, not from Aberdeenshire only, but from places all over the country. The class of claimants also would be different; it would not be the farmers who would claim; but the landlords or associations who had recompensed them. But the hon. Member thinks that "Associations have a right to claim compensation." What is an Association? A certain number of persons banded themselves together; and, if they could estimate the probable loss in the year, they divided
  1232
  it between them, and each paid his quota; so that the many paid a small sum, and the few sufferers were recouped. But, if you paid compensation to the Association, the money would not go into the pockets of those who bad lost their cattle, but into the pockets of those who had not. As the farmers had already been compensated by the Association or by the landlords, the compensation awarded would really go to the two last; in other words, the State was to compensate persons who had not lost their cattle. Again, an association is not limited as to size. If you are to compensate one association you must compensate another. Now, suppose that Sir James Shuttleworth's plan of a National Assurance Association had been carried out. Then every one who lost cattle would have been compensated out of a general rate on land; and the landowners might have claimed to be re-imbursed out of the Consolidated Fund. This would be absurd; but it rests on the same argument as the claim of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member thought he had a good case, his proper course was to bring it before the House of Commons and try to get an additional grant to compensate the Aberdeen Rinderpest Association.

THE BURLINGTON HOUSE SITE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the buildings now in course of erection on the site of Burlington House, especially with reference to the pledge given to Parliament last year. The late Government desired that the Burlington House site should be appropriated to a building for the reception of the national pictures; but, chiefly through the influence of the present First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners), the Vote proposed for that purpose was negatived and the scheme thrown out. For the interests of Art no more disastrous Vote ever passed the House. If a National Gallery had been erected on this spot a most important question affecting Art would have been settled; the national pictures would have been rescued from injury; and an admirable building, of which the plans and elevation were submitted to the House, would have been provided for their reception. It would now take many years to settle the question, if it were settled at all. The scheme of the late Government having being rejected, it was decided to

  1233
  appropriate the site for the purposes of the Royal Academy, the London University, the Royal Society, and other learned bodies. Certain hon. Members, admiring the architecture of Burlington House, thought that it ought not to be interfered with. The house was a handsome gentleman's residence, and a very fair specimen of domestic architecture, but he did not attach the value to it which was attached by many persons; and if, as he was told, no living English architect could hope to rival it, this country must be very badly off for architects. The principal merit of Burlington House was the tout ensemble formed by the main building, the wings, the colonnade, and other parts of the structure. Owing to the feeling he had mentioned, it was decided that Burlington House should be kept standing. The question then arose how the building should be turned to account, because to keep up the wings, colonnade, and the screen or frontage in Piccadilly would be to sacrifice a large extent of valuable ground. At length certain plans were proposed, and were originally accepted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper). It was determined that Burlington House should be utilized by being gutted and made a portico, as it were, through which access should be had to buildings to be erected behind it. The Royal Society and the other learned societies were to be accommodated in front. Burlington House was to be made the centre of two wings, which were to be carried out at right angles to it to Piccadilly, and there united by a sort of façade, in the centre of which was to be a grand triumphal arch leading to the court-yard in which Burlington House stood. Behind Burlington House was to be erected the Royal Academy, and behind the Royal Academy, again, a building for the accommodation of the London University. By following the plan proposed, an important feature in the house, its colonnade, would altogether disappear, and therefore one of the reasons for keeping it up would disappear also; and, again, to raise new and lofty buildings round about it was like marrying a little short man to a very stout woman who would be smothered in her embraces. The absurdity of this being apparent to everybody, another story was now to be added to Burlington House; and to give it strength at the base an arcade or portico was to be erected, uniting the two ends of the building. Thus Burlington House would lose
  1234
  its distinctive character altogether, and the reason for sacrificing so much valuable ground in order to preserve the original building would no longer exist. Now, considering that the buildings now to be erected would form one group, it was natural to suppose that one leading mind would superintend the erection of the whole. However, this was not thought right; and as on the French stage we often saw one play written by two authors, so here this group of buildings was handed over to three architects. Burlington House was to be transformed by Mr. Smirke, the new wings and façade were intrusted to Messrs. Banks and Barry, and Mr. Pennethorne was charged with the erection of the London University behind. The natural presumption was that the buildings behind Burlington House should follow the style of that building—the Palladian or Classic Italian. Accordingly, Mr. Pennethorne proposed a plan in this style for the London University. Meanwhile, however, a change had taken place in the Government, and the noble Lord became Chief Commissioner of Works. Unfortunately, the noble Lord had a certain attachment for the Gothic style; and Mr. Pennethorne, abandoning his Palladian plan after having submitted it to the noble Lord, sent in an Italian-Gothic elevation; whether by the direction of the noble Lord or not it appeared doubtful; but the noble Lord accepted the new designs. The hon. Member for Roscommon asked the noble Lord the other night to say what Italian-Gothic was; and well he might. He (Mr. Layard) was puzzled to know what was meant by Italian-Gothic. Was it the chaste, early Gothic so generally used by the Franciscan order in their churches, or the ornate style of Milan Cathedral, or what? Mr. Pennethorne retained the original interior plan of the building, but converted the exterior elevation from Classic into Italian-Gothic, which was an anomaly, because the interior arrangements that would suit a Palladian building would probably not suit a Gothic building. The face of a building could not be changed without a corresponding change of the interior. Already fourteen feet of the building had been erected, but the London University Committee appeared not to have been consulted in the matter. When they found they had got this Italian-Gothic building, on the 22nd of February they adopted the following resolution:—
  "They much regret that they cannot speak

  1235
  favourably of the elevation. They are, however, fully sensible of the disadvantage under which the architect has laboured in putting a Gothic casing upon an edifice planned for the adoption of an entirely different (and, indeed, antagonistic) style. Believing that ornament should be subservient to structural expression, they would gladly see the whole series of spires and pinnacles done away with. The sub-Committee also feel that the concealment of the roofs of the wings produces a want of harmony in the general effect, the centre having a high-pitched roof which is really picturesque. The design of the windows in the wings also seems to them capable of improvement; and they dislike the present aspect of the arcade at the entrance. They also cannot but regret that the principal range of windows should light a series of small or moderate-sized apartments, and thus give a certain character of unreality to the design; but this has been in a great measure the result of adopting a Gothic elevation without recasting the plan of the building."
  The building, it would appear, was one which had all manner of spires and pinnacles. Having made several attempts to induce the noble Lord to withdraw the Italian-Gothic façade, on the 25th of March the Committee of the London University passed this resolutionߞ
  "That, having reference to the style of the adjoining buildings and to the character and purposes of the University of London, it is the opinion of this Committee that the modern style of architecture would be preferable either to the mediæval or to the Italian-Gothic, for the elevation of the new building. That in case the Senate feel precluded by the communication from Lord John Manners from proposing any such fundamental change as that implied in the preceding resolution, the Committee would think it desirable to have some conference with Mr. Pennethorne on various modifications of the Italian-Gothic elevation now before them, which would not interfere with the early and economical completion of the building."
  He understood that the answer they got was to the effect that they were to mind their own business; they had to live in the house, but had nothing to do with the building of it, and that the design was to be carried out as a whole. Such was the history of this Italian-Gothic building to be raised behind Burlington House. He had seen the elevation for the additional story to Burlington House, and for the wings and façade in Piccadilly, and he admitted that they were very handsome, and that Mr. Smirke had done all he could to adapt that building to its object and to the surrounding edifices. On the whole, the grand entrance in Piccadilly, and the lofty ornamental buildings in the Palladian style for the wings, did great credit to Messrs. Banks and Barry; and he trusted that when Members saw the plans, as he hoped they would do, in the Library
  1236
  of the House, they would meet their approval. But the noble Lord had not only sinned against taste, but against the House of Commons. Last year they were called upon to vote £20,000 on account of buildings to be erected on the Burlington House site. The House objected to vote the sum without having an idea of the class of building to be erected, and a distinct pledge was given that the House should not be called upon to vote any more money until the plans and elevations had been submitted for the inspection of its Members. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said—
  "The great question related to the frontages to the north and south.… He should like the Committee to pass this vote. But he accompanied that with this arrangement. His right hon. Friend had already the ground plan prepared, and there would be no difficulty in immediately proceeding with the preparation of the designs, so as to give hon. Gentlemen what opportunities for criticism they might desire before any step was taken in the erection of the building.—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 190–1.]
  The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) said—
  "He could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space, which would accommodate the learned societies. The plan might be executed at different times, but the whole would be settled before any part was commenced. The Royal Academy building would be designed by their own architect, subject to the approval of the Board of Works, and care would be taken that it harmonized in character and general arrangements with the University building. They need not be identical in style, but all the buildings that would cover the site would be viewed as one composition."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 192.]
  That was a distinct pledge to submit the designs to the House. The present First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) was reported to have said—
  "He was of opinion that before this Vote was agreed to the House should be in possession of some general scheme for occupying the ground facing Piccadilly and the gardens behind. He thought it would be desirable for the Government to postpone the Vote for the present."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 189.]
  The noble Lord was then in Opposition; but since he had come into office he had violated every pledge that had been given, and the buildings had been commenced without any plans or elevations being placed within the reach of hon. Members. Notwithstanding the fact that the House voted

  1237
  the £20,000 on the understanding that no further demand should be made upon them until the House had seen the plans and elevations, the noble Lord, he understood, now put forward the extraordinary doctrine that the head of a Department was not bound by any pledges made by his predecessors in office. That was a most mischievous and dangerous doctrine, which, if carried out, would result in a general want of confidence in the heads of Departments, who might be changed at any time, and whose pledges would not he binding on their successors. Unless some distinct explanation should be given which would show a good reason for the course which had been pursued, he should move, when the next Vote on the subject was proposed to the House, that it should be rejected, and that the works should be stopped until the House had had an opportunity of inspecting and approving the plans for the whole group of buildings.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that there would be no objection to produce the Correspondence which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the London University during the entire period the negotiations had been in progress. The miseries of private gentlemen who engaged in building were proverbial; but they were nothing to what were suffered in similar cases by the head of a public Department. It was now nine years since the House had first commenced discussing this subject, and the hon. Member blamed it for having at last decided that the National Gallery was to be in Trafalgar Square, and the Royal Academy in Burlington House. He put it to the House that if, by any action on their part, they were to prevent that great scheme which had been decided on two or three years ago, by which Trafalgar Square was to be reserved for the National Gallery, and the Royal Academy was to be placed in Burlington Gardens, from being carried out, very great inconvenience must be the result. The hon. Gentleman, in the opening of his speech, had found great fault with him with reference to the design adopted for the building of the London University in Burlington Gardens, and also for the manner in which, according to the hon. Gentleman, he had not fulfilled certain pledges given to the House by his predecessor. With regard to the first point, he really felt a difficulty in approaching once more the old worn-out question of "the battle of the styles." The history
  1238
  which the hon. Gentleman had given—founded on what authority he could not even pretend to guess—as to the manner in which this particular design was formed was erroneous from beginning to end. He begged leave to state, in the most emphatic manner, that he never directed Mr. Pennethorne to form the design in Palladian, Gothic, Italian-Gothic, Byzantine, or any other style. When he succeeded to the office which he had now the honour to hold, he found that the House of Commons had voted £20,000 for the erection of a building for the London University, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), on the 30th of April last, had told the House that it was of the utmost importance that not a moment should be lost, that the Vote should be taken without delay, and the work at once commenced. When he found that such was the state of things, and that his predecessor before leaving office had commissioned Mr. Pennethorne to prepare specifications for the foundations of the building, he felt it to be clearly his duty not to stop the work, but to take the necessary steps to carry that work to completion. He therefore instructed Mr. Pennethorne to prepare a design; but he begged leave to deny, in the most emphatic manner, that in giving those instructions he expressed any preference whatever for one style of architecture over another. The result showed it. For how did Mr. Pennethorne fulfil those instructions? The hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that he had sent in what the hon. Gentleman rightly or wrongly called a Palladian design. The hon. Gentleman also said that his charge must be well founded, because it was founded on documents received from the London Univerversity. He begged to say that such was not the fact. Mr. Pennethorne of his own free will proposed two alternative designs. What became of the charge that he had shown a complete indifference to the wishes of the London University, who were to inhabit the building? What did he do? He requested the authorities of the London University to come down and examine the designs to see which of the two they preferred. The Chancellor was not in London at the time, nor he believed the Vice Chancellor; but Dr. Carpenter, the Registrar, came to his office, and he (Lord John Manners) begged that he, in conjunction with Mr. Pennethorne, should examine the designs and report which they preferred. The result was

  1239
  that, without expressing any very decided preference for one or the other, both Dr. Chancellor and Mr. Pennethorne said they rather preferred that the Italian-Gothic design should be adopted. They went carefully into the question how all the requirements of the London University would be met, and Dr. Carpenter seemed quite satisfied that ample provision would be made for them. And that was the whole of this tremendous affair of these two alternatives. He had no more notion of forcing Mr. Pennethorne or the London University to adopt a design which they did not like than the hon. Gentleman himself. Then the hon. Gentleman went into a matter very difficult to discuss in Parliament—the question of taste. That was a question which had been brought forward on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman thought that what he called the front and back of buildings ought to be in the same style of architecture. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman; but the whole question was, what was the front and what the back? The hon. Gentleman said that any building erected behind Burlington House on the north side must be in the same style of architecture as the building on the south side. Now, in what style of architecture were the authorities of the Royal Academy going to carry out those works which had met with approval of the hon. Member, and which were to be erected at the rear of Burlington House at their own expense? Were they to be in the Palladian style? [Mr. LAYARD: I hope so.] They were to be in the plainest possible style—they were to be architecturally adapted for galleries for pictures. The house with which the new building would be brought into immediate contact was that which belonged to General Cavendish, and he would challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell what was the style of architecture of that house? He should like further to know from him whether he thought the new building ought to be in that style. For his own part, he had not expressed an opinion in favour of one style of architecture over another. But the hon. Gentleman had referred to what had been said by late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) on the 30th of April last, and also to what had fallen from himself on that occasion. It was quite true that he had then observed that, if it were in the power of the Government to do so, it would be well to place before the House a general plan, and to show how the whole of the
  1240
  piece of ground in question was to be appropriated. But the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking after him, and he believed in answer to him, said—
  "It was necessary to take this Vote because the case of the University of London was urgent in point of time. If they were not allowed to take a Vote until they could produce a plan for the appropriation of the whole site, there would be a loss of a whole year, and even then the object in view would not be attained. The Royal Academy was going to build out of its own funds, and it would require a good deal of time to settle the mode of filling up the intermediate portion of the site."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 190.]
  Now, he was not disposed to be unreasonable, and that answer of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to him was, he thought, sound one. The House took the same view, because the Vote, after considerable discussion, was allowed to pass without a division. The hon. Gentleman, however, accused him of breach of faith, because he had not produced those plans which could not be produced last year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), it was true, on that occasion said—
  "He could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space, which would accommodate the learned societies."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 192.]
  But he gathered from that statement that it referred to the plans for the distribution of the ground, and not to the elevations and designs, which were things perfectly distinct. In answer to a Question which had been put to him on July 31 by his hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope), he said—
  "It is impossible for me to exhibit the design referred to by the hon. Member, as it is not in my possession."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1762.]
  And that was the fact, because, although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), after the Vote had passed, gave instructions to Mr. Pennethorne to prepare specifications for the foundations of the work, he issued no instructions for the preparation of designs so long as he remained in office. As soon as the plans for the appropriation of the ground could be prepared, he (Lord John Manners) was perfectly willing and ready and anxious that they should be placed in the Library for the inspection of hon. Members. There was necessarily great delay in dealing with the various bodies concerned. Arrangements had to be made with no less than six learned

  1241
  societies, and accommodation to be provided for the Royal Academy, as well as a new building for the London University. Those arrangements were now concluded, and the plans would be immediately placed before the House. Before any fresh Vote was asked for, the complete appropriation of the whole site of Burlington House and Burlington Gardens would be distinctly shown. Hon. Members would, when they saw the accommodation which was to be provided for the Royal Academy and for the different learned societies, and the new building for the London University, admit that the appropriation of the property at Burlington House was such as was originally contemplated by the nation, when the purchase of that property was made. It was such as would satisfy those who set a value on the objects which those great learned and artistic societies had in view. He understood from those who had seen some of the designs for the Royal Academy and the accommodation of the other societies that they met with general approbation. Nothing, he could assure the House, could be further from his intention than to treat it with the slightest disrespect, or to depart in the least degree from any pledge which might have been given. He had always, in the discharge of his duty, endeavoured to take the House fully into his confidence, and he hoped that in the present instance it would find that the Government had come to a wise and satisfactory decision.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that the London University with which he had the honour to be connected as a Member of the Senate, so far from making any complaint of him, were very sensible of the courtesy which they had received at his hands in reference to their new building. He might also say that, having for a long time sat in that House with the noble Lord, he should be last person to charge him with violating any pledge he had given. Through the kindness of the noble Lord he had been enabled within the last few days to see the elevations in accordance with which building was to be erected. Without entering into a discussion on a matter of taste, on which he did not feel that he was an authority, he might state it to be his belief, as a matter of fact, that if the elevation which it was proposed to erect in Burlington Gardens for the purposes of the London University had been exhibited in the Library of the House before the
  1242
  Vote was taken for it, not a single shilling would have been voted for carrying out such a plan. The extracts from the speech of the right hon. Member (Mr. Cowper) contained a statement that the plan would be submitted as a whole, and that the House of Commons would have the opportunity of declaring whether the buildings should be made consistent and harmonious with one another. But the noble Lord seemed to think it very absurd to suppose that because the Royal Academy was constructed in accordance with one style of architecture, the London University, on the same piece of ground, might not be built in a style entirely different. It appeared to him that the House would very likely be of an entirely different opinion, and if Burlington House was to be preserved, and other buildings were to be erected on the grounds, and to be parcels of the same block, the House would probably think that all the buildings should be in harmony one with another. It was very desirable that a large sum should not be voted and expended on buildings which instead of being an ornament, would be a disfigurement to the metropolis, until the House of Commons had had the opportunity of forming a judgment with respect to them. As the noble Lord proposed to place the design of the elevation in the Library in a few days, hon. Members would be able to pronounce an opinion in respect to it. He knew that the Senate of the London Unisity was of one mind in thinking that the building would be not an ornament but a disfigurement to the metropolis. He had been under the apprehension that the noble Lord, having a great liking for that particular style of architecture, had in this case yielded to his predilection. He was relieved from that apprehension, for it appeared that the noble Lord only desired Mr. Pennethorne to make two elevations, that those elevations were submitted to Dr. Carpenter, and that the two, in a few minutes, determined on the design without consulting the noble Lord. No doubt Dr. Carpenter supposed that his opinion was asked upon the convenience of the arrangements of the plan for the London University, and never for one moment believed that there was vested in him authority to speak for the Chancellor and Senate of the London University, and give their opinion as to the elevation to be erected. However, it was not for the London University, much less for Dr. Carpenter, to decide the question how public money was

  1243
  to be spent in ornamenting or disfiguring the metropolis. That was a question for the House of Commons, and it could not be decided without the House seeing the plan of the elevation. One duty the London University had to discharge, and that was to express their opinion on the subject. He bore testimony to the courtesy with which the noble Lord had treated the London University. He should like to know what amount of smart money the country would have to pay if this elevation were got rid of and another substituted for it. He hoped that a third elevation, preferable to either of the other two, might be adopted by the House.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought that the present discussion showed how ill-advised the last Parliament was under the advice of those now in power in throwing over the scheme for building the National Gallery on Burlington Gardens, and erecting there one uniform and harmonious structure. The House would recollect how he had been supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark on his Motion last Session to reverse this decision, and what little support he had received. All he had realized was saving Burlington House at the loss, however, of its best portion, its picturesque colonnade, which he hoped might be erected elsewhere. In the conversation which took place on the 30th of April in last year he clearly understood the right hon. Member for Hertford to promise that all the plans and elevations of the new buildings should be submitted to the House. Several hon. Members were taken aback at the suddenness with which the idea of putting the London University in Burlington Gardens had been produced full fledged; but a distinct promise was given by the then Commissioner of Works that the elevations and designs should be produced, and though a change of Government took place, he could not have thought that that promise would have been so entirely neglected. Under the old scheme there would have been one grand harmonious palace erected on the ground, with a direct through communication and two façades saving withal Burlington House. So much did he admire the scheme that he waived in favour of it his personal preference for Gothic. But this had been given up, and the ground was to be cut up and frittered away partly between the Royal Academy and the London University. Each building would now have its own entrance front, and neither of them
  1244
  would have any intercommunication, nor back nor sides, but simple blank walls, except the façades. Moreover, there could not conceivably be two structures which it would be more impossible to comprehend in the same coup d'œil, except from a balloon, than the Royal Academy looking down upon Piccadilly, and the London University up Cork Street. Accordingly, the unity of structure which had to be maintained in the days when the National Gallery was to cover the whole space no longer existed. The question whether Mr. Pennethorne's design was good or bad should be tested by its own merits—if good, let it be adopted; if bad, corrected, for a bad Gothic design would raise a prejudice against its style. The good scheme that would cover Burlington Gardens with one building was passed and gone. It was to be covered with two buildings totally distinct in their objects. Let them be dealt with on their own merits. Let them forget that there was a Royal Academy to the south, and deal with the London University merely with a view to Burlington Gardens. Take it in hand—make it as commodious and picturesque as possible, and if it could be made a new starting point for metropolitan architecture, so much the better. The time had come when the revolt was sounded against that monotonous repetition of Italian architecture in stucco and compo which had too long defaced our streets. Men were beginning to appreciate the picturesque forms of the Middle Ages so well adapted to the purposes of our present life. A Gothic club-house was rising in St. James' Street. A Gothic Insurance Office of great beauty had been planted within Temple Bar; a Gothic warehouse of great originality had been erected in Thames Street, while of all Members whom he felt sure would most warmly hail this happy change he would name the Member for Southwark, whose labours of love in the Arundel Society had done so much to impress our minds with the beauties of the mediæval art of Italy.
  MR. TITEsaid, he thought that there was one building in London which was admirably adapted for all practical purposes, and that was Somerset House. He felt that they were all much obliged to the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) for the candid manner in which he had acted and for the candid explanations he had given, by which he had liberated himself from all accusation. He had himself strongly

  1245
  urged getting the London University out of the rooms in which they were at present so inconveniently placed; but he certainly understood that before anything was undertaken they would have not only the plans but the elevation of the buildings. He would humbly suggest to the noble Lord that he should at once produce the plans. After the emphatic denunciation they had heard they ought to look carefully at this design before going further. The "battle of the styles" had been ill-fought on the present occasion. The same foundation would avail for a classical and a Gothic building. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) asked what amount of smart-money they would have to pay? He did not think it would be very much. The main thing was that the noble Lord should stay further progress in order to produce the design, and within a week they might come to a determination whether the judgment of the London University was right, and the judgment of the architect was wrong. If the feeling of the House was in favour of a Gothic design, no one could carry it out better than Mr. Pennethorne. With the opening from Piccadilly through the University buildings, he thought the three distinct styles of Burlington House, the Royal Academy, and the University building would in some sort or another be united. He understood that there was to be a way through the Burlington House galleries into the University building, and it would be very objectionable if the galleries were in one style and the new building in another. He could not conceive that with such a variety of style a result satisfactory to the nation could be carried out. This debate might well stand adjourned till they saw Mr. Pennethorne's design.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he gave his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) every credit for the great frankness with which he had made his statement. At the same time, there was one important point to which he had not adverted—namely, that Mr. Pennethorne's first design was in harmony with Burlington House, and that it was only on second thoughts that he furnished the present design. He quite agreed that they ought to endeavour to blend in one design the two buildings. As to any supposed breach of faith towards the House, he might say that having listened to the debate of last year, his opinion was that what was said by the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and
  1246
  Mr. Cowper) had been carried into effect. It was a question of accommodating three bodies—the Royal Academy, the Learned Societies, and the London University. He (Mr. Bentinck) took objection to the multitude of architects, and the answer he received was that they should work together. The whole depended on the Royal Academy agreeing to go to Burlington House. What happened after that? Sir Francis Grant declined, and would not go there till lately. Now he heard for the first time that the Royal Academy was going to Burlington House. He hoped that his noble Friend would throw aside any prejudice he might have, and comply with the request that had been made to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Until the Estimates were brought forward, which he assumed they would be at no very distant day, he would suggest to his noble Friend that directions should be given to stop any artistic work which had been commenced, and that the designs should be exhibited in the Library or in some other convenient place. When there had been an opportunity of taking the opinion of the House, no doubt a building would be erected which would be a credit to the metropolis.
  LARD ELCHOsaid, he wished, after what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Tite), to offer a practical suggestion—namely, that the work in this case should be stopped until the designs had been laid before Parliament, and the House enabled to form an opinion upon them. Some years ago the advocates of the Gothic style for the new Foreign Office were defeated; but he thought the result must have rather shaken the faith of those who had voted in favour of the style recommended by Lord Palmerston. As to the building now in question, it was to be regretted that the back of it would not correspond more with the front. In order to fulfil the understanding which was apparently come to by his predecessor in office, his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) should lay the plans before Parliament previous to proceeding with the building; otherwise, if they should see reason to object to what was done, they might be met with the answer that it was too late to make any change.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that when in April last the Vote was proposed to the House and carried it was the intention of the then Government to place the Royal Academy on the south side of the Burlington House site, and that the north side of the site should remain open for the purposes of the

  1247
  London University. At that time many hon. Members were much afraid that the building would be erected without any reference to a general scheme and to that proper harmony which ought to mark all the buildings on the Burlington House site. He remembered that the first in pressing that view upon the House was the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). To such a degree, indeed, did the noble Lord push it that he proposed to postpone the Vote because he feared there was not a complete and harmonious scheme for disposing of the whole of the site. He himself at once met that objection by saying that although it was not for the advantage of public business then to postpone that particular Vote, yet he was quite prepared, on behalf of the then Government, to state that they would satisfy the House that the whole of the ground was laid out with a general intention and a harmonious design, and that they were quite ready to let the House see the plans on which they meant to proceed, though those plans were not at that moment prepared. Therefore, the noble Lord must have been quite aware of the engagement into which the late Government had entered; and he was surprised that the noble Lord had not thought fit to act upon that understanding. There certainly was an understanding on the part of the late Government that the House should have information as to the plans for the building, though the elevation was not specially mentioned. At that time he had not caused any elevation to be prepared, for the very reason that he never intended that the London University should be a distinct portion of the building which was to occupy the site of Burlington House. He thought it should be in harmony with the other buildings which the Royal Academy were prepared to erect on the southern side; and until the architects employed by the Royal Academy could begin to consider what elevation they should propose for the assent of the First Commissioner of Works, he had not thought it right that any elevation should be prepared for the London University. Italian-Gothic was a style in which beauty and variety might be successfully combined with grandeur of effect; but that style was not appropriate to the position or the purpose of the building in question.

GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I can hardly expect the House at this late hour (twelve o'clock) to give its attention to the subject which stands on the paper with my name attached to it. At the same time, I venture to crave its indulgence for a few moments, while I refer to that topic. I was quite willing, Sir, to give way to my hon. Friend (Mr. Tite), because I always regard him as a patron saint of architecture. He so impressed me to-night with the idea of wings and structures without rears or fronts, that I am inclined to look on Italian-Gothic, as if I may so describe it, the Cherubim style. Having made that passing allusion to my hon. Friend, I am anxious to refer to the Question of which I have given notice, and which is one of great importance. Judging merely from the small superficial area involved, it may, perhaps, be viewed as of very limited moment, compared with the great territorial adjustments which have been taking place on the Continent. But, at the same time, it affects considerations which in my humble judgment are most important in their bearing upon the interests of Europe, and which, unless the negotiations are conducted in a spirit of fairness and of conciliation between the two principal Powers concerned, will, I am afraid, involve Europe in a very grave crisis. We have not yet heard anything from the Government upon this subject, though, no doubt, this morning's papers have informed us that the negotiations for the transfer of Luxembourg to France was at an end. I hope that may be the case; though, of course, until we hear what remarks the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) may make upon the subject, we shall be in the dark upon the point. But I am afraid that, even if this be the case, it will only tend to increase the perplexities of France, and will only tend to make still more patent the evils of that harassing policy which has placed her in so humiliating a position in the eyes of Europe. This morning's papers have stated that the negotiations for the annexation or the cession of Luxembourg to France are at an end. But it was only the other day that we were informed that Ministers, or at least ex-Ministers, do not read the newspapers. If I recollect right, it was only the other day that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) informed us that he had not seen in the newspapers an

  1249
  account, which occupied two or three columns of The Times, of a meeting which all the world was talking about, which he held at his own house, with some advanced Reformers; I do not know who. [A laugh.] At any rate, then, we hear that ex-Ministers do not read the newspapers. I therefore now ask the noble Lord to give us some information as to whether or not it is the case that there has been a proposal emanating either from France or from Holland—I presume it did not emanate from Prussia—to sell about 200,000 inhabitants of Luxembourg—180,000 of whom are Germans—to France, at the rate of 500 francs, or about £20 per head. That is part of the policy of the Emperor of the French. That policy has failed for the last seven or eight years. It is impossible to understand what he aims at. I cannot for a moment conceive that he tries to humble France in the eyes of Europe—such an idea would be absurd. Twice during a very short time he has told Europe of the gratification with which he has attempted to upset the treaty Vienna. From the very moment when having deceived Lord Cowley and all Europe, he stood with Victor Emmanuel on the summit of the Alps, and proclaimed the annexation of the two Provinces of Savoy and Nice, he has committed a series of blunders, which have involved him in the perplexing position in which he now stands. I do not know whether the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) will be able to give us any explanation as to the negotiations that have taken place in this mattter, and as to the frankness of France in such negotiations. I, in common with the House generally, have every confidence in the ability of the noble Lord, and in the course he may think fit to adopt in his administration of our Foreign Affairs at this moment. I heard a high compliment paid him the other evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have sounded better had it come from some other person than a Colleague. Still, I fully endorse that expression of esteem. But I wish to impress upon the noble Lord that for some years he and the party with which he was acting were constantly saying that the policy of Lord Palmerston and of Lord Russell was more and more isolating this country from the affairs of Europe. I do not wish to see this country indiscreetly meddling upon every occasion in European affairs; but sometimes I think that it is scarcely wise that we should be isolating ourselves to the degree which I fear is becoming so
  1250
  conspicuous in regard to our relations with foreign nations. I hope that the noble Lord, in the debate that we shall certainly have in the course of next week, when the whole question of our foreign policy must be brought before the House and the country in reference to the dispute with Spain—will give us some better assurance upon this point than we received the other day in "another place." The country was then informed by a noble Duke that upon notice having been given of a Motion to be made in this House he had telegraphed two hours before the debate took place to St. Petersburg to know whether it was true that Russia had ceded an extent of territory, amounting to 300,000 square miles, to the United States. The Government of the day and the Minister for Foreign affairs knew nothing about it. That circumstance shows how much our policy of isolation has tended to disassociate this country from the nations of Europe. I hope the noble Lord will not accuse me of taking a liberty in pointing this out to him, because I think nothing can be worse and nothing more injurious than that this system of our standing apart from other European nations should be carried out to too great an extent. I have made these observations with the view of eliciting from the noble Lord whether the breaking off of the negotiations for the annexation of Luxembourg by France is owing to any representations which have been made by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that such is the case. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord, with that excellent good sense that distinguishes him, has pointed out to the Emperor of the French and to the King of Holland—to the latter particularly—that this shabby traffiking in the sale of people will not do. I hope the noble Lord has pointed this out to them, and that he will be able to tell us that he has recommended them to let the matter drop through. Not that it will drop through altogether, I am afraid. I cannot conceive any question more likely to involve Europe, and certainly England, in a war than the question of a cession of this kind, which is one to which certainly Prussia would never willingly agree. Although we are sometimes indifferent to certain rectifications of frontiers, we should, nevertheless, scarcely be likely to assent to a transfer of territory that will affect Belgium and other States of Europe. Is it likely that Russia, as one of the five parties to the Treaty of 1831, that sepa-

  1251
  rated Belgium from Holland, would view this annexation with indifference. There is, however, no doubt whatever that this barter—this sale—was contemplated. The noble Lord admitted the other day, in his reply to an hon. Gentleman below the gangway, that there was no doubt communications had passed between the Governments of France and Holland with reference to the possible transfer of this territory. But the matter does not rest solely upon the statement of the noble Lord. By a singular coincidence, on the same day that the noble Lord made that statement in this House, Count Bismarck, in the North German Parliament, in reply to a question, stated, that so far back as October last, the subject had been raised. The King of Holland had at that time questioned the Prussian Ambassador, whether his country would be prepared to yield the occupation of Luxembourg. Count Bismarck further stated that while he was willing to respect the susceptibilities of France, Holland must take upon itself the entire responsibility of every transaction in the matter. That is the only answer we should have expected from Count Bismarck. There, however, appears officially in the Constitutionnel a statement that clearly shows the aim of the Government of France in making this demand. Only a short time after the battle of Sadowa, France asked for an enlargement of territory. That demand was peremptorily refused, to the evident annoyance of the Emperor of the French, though be bore it with an appearance of chivalrous disregard. But, now that he asks the King of Prussia to consent to this cession, an article appears in the Constitutionnel, the official journal of France, and which is therefore supposed to have been inserted by authority. It says—
  "France has no desire to threaten the interests of Germany, or to bring her honour into question. France has no warlike tendencies, but has solely a deep sense of what is just and equitable. Now, it would be neither just nor equitable that Prussia, after having achieved her great conquests without obstacles, should watch jealously the smallest acquisition that may be desired by her neighbours—not in the interest of ambition but of security."
  We know well enough what the Emperor of the French had in view, or, perhaps, I should rather say, what the writer of the article had in view, when he says that he tried to get Luxembourg, "not in the interest of ambition, but of security." It is this. During the Revolution of France one of the greatest men—perhaps the
  1252
  greatest military man in the early period of that revolution, Carnot, was intrusted with the drawing up of the military arrangements on that side of the Moselle. He says, in his memoirs, that the holding of Luxembourg is a matter of vital importance to France. Carnot says—
  "Le seul point d'appui pour attaquer la France est de la coté de Moselle."
  Therefore we have the authority of Carnot, which has evidently influenced the Emperor, that the holding of Luxembourg is a matter of the first importance for France for defensive or offensive operations against Germany. When this proposed cession was mentioned, it caused even greater dissatisfaction to Europe than that of Savoy and Nice. That there have been strong manifestations in Germany cannot be denied. Even Bavaria has strongly protested against this threatened action on the part of Holland. In the official journal of Prussia it was stated that in the event of war on account of Luxembourg Italy and Prussia would act together, and the King of Italy would look forward to that war in order to recover Savoy and Nice. When statements like these are made in official and semi-official journals of Prussia and France, there is evidently some deep-laid scheme at the bottom, which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind so as to prevent serious convulsions in the state of Europe. If the noble Lord will look to the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 and the Treaty of 1831, he will find it laid down that when by the Treaty of 1815 Luxembourg was ceded to Holland, it was in exchange for some part of Nassau, but on the distinct understanding that Luxembourg should be continued as part of the Germanic Confederation. When in 1831 Lord Palmerston and, I think, Talleyrand, and other statesmen were engaged in drawing up the treaty, it was distinctly laid down that Luxembourg should not go to Belgium, but should remain with Holland, and continue part of the Germanic Confederation. If hon. Members will read the admirable memoir of Earl Grey and the correspondence on the Reform question of 1831 they will find this question alluded to. In the first speech of the King of the Belgians on opening the Chambers in 1831 he expressed the dissatisfaction which he and the Belgian people felt at not having Luxembourg. Earl Grey resented that speech, and an intimation was sent to the King of the Belgians that he must withdraw any expectations as to the occu-

  1253
  pation of Luxembourg by Belgium. This is a matter of the deepest and most pressing moment to the peace of Europe. If the attempts of France are in any way encouraged or connived at by the Government of this country, it will lead to serious complications into which we shall most undoubtedly be drawn. I trust that the Government of Her Majesty have endeavoured to impress upon the Governments of Holland and France the inexpediency and the danger of pressing forward questions of this kind, knowing, as they must do, that Prussia, with all its power, and with one of the most capable Ministers that ever guided the destinies of a people at its head, will resent that irruption into a pure German population. Of course, this country has no direct interest in trifling territorial adjustment. We only want to see France great in the power of her arts and commerce. But it is this continuous agitation—this disregard of treaties, which is the primary cause of the uneasiness that exists in Europe. I hope that the reply of the noble Lord has been such as to enhance the position and influence of this country abroad.
  LORD STANLEY: Although this question of Luxembourg may be in its ultimate result one of great importance; and although the mere stirring of it up during the last ten days has agitated Europe in no inconsiderable degree, yet the facts, which the right hon. Gentleman has accurately stated, he in a very narrow compass. And, although he has made some remarks to which I cannot agree, and said one or two things which I regret were said, still I am glad he has given me the opportunity of stating, so far as I am able, what has passed in this matter. Every one knows that the French Government have desired to possess this territory of Luxembourg. It is also pretty generally known that the King of Holland was ready to part, on certain conditions, with the interest he had in it. I must remind the House that this is a matter for the King of Holland rather than for the Dutch Government. The territory is detached from that Government, and it is only connected with Holland by the tie of a common Sovereign. I am bound to say, in the interest of truth, that, so far as I am aware, the Dutch Government and the Dutch people do not regard this outlying territory as of any importance to them, or as adding to the strength, security, and prosperity of their country. But it is not
  1254
  the fact that the King of Holland was ever ready to part with this territory unconditionally. As I am informed there were various stipulations which he proposed, and on which he insisted as indispensable to the transfer, if it took place. One of them was, that he should receive certain compensation; but whether that compensation was intended to take a direct pecuniary form I have no information. Another stipulation which I feel bound to mention after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, on which the King of Holland insisted, was, that the wishes of the people of Luxembourg should be consulted, The third, and, for practical purposes, the most important of all, was, that the consent of the Great Powers should be obtained—and especially the consent of Prussia. Now, Sir, Prussia, as the House is aware, possesses and claims to possess by special treaty the right of garrison in the fortress of Luxembourg; and both on that account and as a neighbour—and particularly as the head of the Confederated States of Germany—Prussia has a deeper and closer interest in this matter than any other European Power. When the matter came to the knowledge of the Prussian Government a communication was made by it to the other Powers which signed the Treaty of April, 1839. That treaty regulates the relations of Belgium and Holland, and guarantees Luxembourg to the King of Holland. One of these communications was addressed to Baron Beust, and another to Her Majesty's Government; and the latter was received by me on Sunday last. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this negotiation as of an old date. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Last October.] I do not know what may have passed in secret; but all I can say is that no information reached Her Majesty's Government as to the transfer being in contemplation until about ten days ago. The Questions that were put to me by the Prussian Government were in substance two. One was, whether the British Government would endeavour to dissuade the King of Holland from going on with the negotiations supposed to be in progress; and the other was, what construction was put by the British Government upon the guarantee contained in the Treaty of 1839. As to the second of these Questions, I could not undertake to give a definite reply at once, for this reason—that it was obviously very desirable, if any representation or action were required to be

  1255
  taken on the Treaty of 1839, that such representation should not be the act of any single Power, but should be made in concert with the other Powers by whom that treaty was signed, and who equally with us were responsible. But I did not conceal a doubt (and I might use a stronger word) which existed in my mind as to whether the guarantee given by that Treaty of 1839 was one of a character to apply to the present case. And for this reason. That guarantee was undoubtedly intended to defend the interest of the King of Holland in his capacity of Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and to maintain the integrity of the territory. But, of course, if the King of Holland voluntarily surrendered his interest in Luxembourg, and was a consenting party to the arrangements made, his interest as contemplated by the guarantee ceased to be in question, and the matter which remained was a totally different one, between France on the one hand and Germany on the other. Now, neither by that treaty nor at any other time were we pledged to defend the integrity of the German Empire. Germany united, as she is now, and I am glad that she is so—united to an extent which has never before occurred, is perfectly capable of providing for her own defence. I do not think it would be easy to argue, although the right hon. Baronet's reasoning seems to point in that direction, that it is the duty of England to interfere to prevent a transaction which might result in some small aggrandizement on the part of France, when the Government and the people of this country have seen with entire acquiescence, and even, I believe, with approval, the enormous aggrandizement which has accrued to Germany, or rather to Prussia, as the head of the German States, within the last twelve months as the result of the late war. As regards the question whether we should dissuade the King of Holland from proceeding with this negotiation, my answer was that we had been informed—and subsequent intelligence has verified the presumption on which I acted—that the consent of the King of Holland was from the first made conditional on the consent of Prussia and on that of the people of Luxembourg. What may be the feeling of the people of Luxembourg I cannot undertake to say. But from the first I had a strong idea that the consent of Prussia would never be obtained. If these conditions were not fulfilled, the transaction fell to the ground. If the
  1256
  people of Luxembourg offered no objection, and if Prussia—the Power most interested in the proposal—gave her consent, it cannot be said that it was the duty of the British Government to interpose. That is the answer I gave provisionally on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There was no time for more detailed consideration, and there was no need for further expression of opinion on my part. As the House knows, yesterday information was received, not indeed at the time of an official or of an absolutely certain character, but which, nevertheless, bore marks of authenticity, and which I believed to be true, stating that the cession of Luxembourg had been relinquished by the King of Holland. I have had that statement confirmed by the representative of the King of the Netherlands, who called upon me this afternoon and authorized me to make that statement as coming from his Government. I think that is the end of the question as far as Holland is concerned. Whether or not it will put a final end to other questions which may arise out of it is impossible to say. If, however, they should be revived, they will be revived in a different form and under entirely different circumstances. It was in the late case supposed that the King of Holland was a consenting party to the transfer. That state of things is now entirely altered, and I do not, of course, pretend to say what will arise out of the new state of things which has arisen in consequence of his refusal. I have now related all the material facts, and I have done so more in detail than I otherwise should have done because every communication which I have received on the subject having been confidential, I am unable to lay the documents upon the table. But the House may rely upon it that I have given the whole facts of the case as they came before me. Further consideration has confirmed me in the conviction—a conviction in which the House will, I think, share—that we were right in declining to involve ourselves further in a transaction which might be, and still may be, productive of very serious consequences. No interest of ours was either directly or indirectly involved, and we stood absolutely free and unfettered. Sir, that is the whole case as far as it has gone. Something was said by the right hon. Baronet as to the security of Belgium. The security of Belgium is an entirely different matter. Upon that question we are involved in a guarantee solemnly and deliberately entered into. But the

  1257
  question as to the security of Belgium did not in the slightest degree arise during the course of the present transactions. I dealt with the subject as it arose, and I do not think that it is worth our while to go out of our way to anticipate difficulties which have not arisen and which probably never will arise.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The noble Lord has omitted to answer one Question I put. I asked whether the relinquishment of the cession of Luxembourg was in any way owing to the representations of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said that the Powers had agreed to make some joint representation. [Lord STANLEY: No, no!] Pardon me. Russia has made a representation to the Government of France. I wish to know from the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representation to France or to Holland, with a view of inducing either or both of those Powers to relinquish this projected cession?
  LORD STANLEY: I thought I had already answered that Question. With regard to any Russian protest against the transaction in question, I heard of it for the first time from the right hon. Baronet. No information has reached the Foreign Office of any action of that kind having been taken by the Russian Government. As to the abandonment of the cession of this province being due to any remonstrance on the part of the British Government, I thought I had stated that considering the cession proposed by the King of Holland was conditional, both upon the consent of the people of Luxembourg and of Prussia, and considering from the first that that consent on the part of Prussia was not given, and did not seem likely to be given, l did not feel myself called upon to make any remonstrance on the part of the British Government. The abandonment, therefore, of the project, if it be abandoned, is certainly not due to any action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Corry.)
  MR. CORRYmoved the second reading of this Bill. He said, that the Government proposed that it should be considered in Committee on Monday, when the clause relating to flogging would be amended, so as to agree with the Bill relating to the army. The House would then be asked to pass the Bill through all its stages, that it might be disposed of before Easter. According to the Returns received that morning, there had, in the last year, been only two cases of corporal punishment amongst the 9,000 Marines serving on shore in England.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he should offer no objection at the present stage, because he understood that clauses to which he objected were to be amended in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 104.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONmoved the second reading of this Bill. He disclaimed all responsibility on the part of the Government in respect of the fortifications referred to by the Bill. They had been projected entirely by the late Government, and it now became the duty of Ministers to see that the works were not left in an unfinished state. The progress which bad been made in the science of defence had caused some additional and unforeseen expense to be incurred. No one, for instance, could have anticipated the necessity for plating the works at Portsmouth with iron, which was now considered advisable. £500,000 was required for this plating, and he was sorry to add that the Estimates had been exceeded by upwards of £100,000. Some purchases of land also were necessary. In order to cover this extra expenditure of nearly £700,000, it was proposed to abandon works at Chatham to the extent of £500,000, and at the central arsenal at Cannock Chase to the extent of £150,000. The Bill did not ask for any fresh money, but simply authorized the re-appropriation of this money, and he hoped there would be no unnecessary delay in passing it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Pakington.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. The right hon. Gentleman had very fairly described the Bill; but his description showed that it dealt with matters of great importance, which demanded more attention than could be devoted to them at five minutes to one o'clock.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the only principle involved in the Bill was as to whether the money which it had been already agreed to raise for certain fortifications should be distributed in a different manner from what was originally intended. The money had already been voted. It was only now proposed to re-distribute it. That question could be easily decided, and he hoped the House would understand how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if the Bill were not passed before Easter.
  SIR MORTON PETOmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if any discussion were desired it might take place in Committee. It was impossible for the Government to proceed with the works if the Bill were not passed. The Government inherited this Bill from their predecessors.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that although the Government might have inherited the works from their predecessors, they had not inherited the changes, and it was the new proposals which the House wished to discuss. He did not see how the Bill could be passed before Easter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  ARREST FOR DEBT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to abolish Arrest for Debt on Mesne and Final Process except in certain cases, and to amend the Law of Debtor and Creditor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN and Mr. BLAKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

  EDUCATION OF THE POOR BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to provide for the Education of the poorer classes in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, and Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Vice Admiralty Courts Act Amendment *(71); Clerical Vestments (No. 2) * (72).
Second Reading—Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites) (68); Mutiny.
Committee—Lyon King of Arms (Scotland) * (54).
Report—Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* (54).
Third Reading—Criminal Lunatics* (55), and passed.
Withdrawn—Clerical Vestments * (72).
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£7,924,000) [30 Vict. c. 7]; Sugar Duties [30 Vict. c. 10]; Trades Unions [30 Vict. c. 8]: Dublin University Professorships [30 Vict. c. 9].

RELIGIOUS, &c., BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL—(No. 68.)
(The Lord Cranworth.)
RELIGIOUS, &c., BUILDINGS (SITES) BILL—(No. 68.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, stated that its object was to enable religious and charitable or scientific societies to acquire land for the purposes of their buildings not exceeding two acres in extent without being obliged to comply with the provisions of the Mortmain Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would not oppose the Bill, which, however, seemed very carelessly drawn, and would require considerable amendment in Committee. If it were not amended it would apply to dispositions made by will. He thought also it would be absolutely necessary that all deeds conveying land for such purposes to such societies should be enrolled, and should move a clause to that effect in Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

MUTINY BILL.
(The Earl of Longford.)
MUTINY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that some formal alterations had been made in the Bill at the instance of the Judge Advocate General, which it would not be necessary to detail; but on the 22nd clause, by which the infliction of corporal punishment was governed, considerable discussion had taken place in the other House, and after some contradictory decision, a new clause had been substituted for that contained in the usual annual Bill. The effect would be to limit the infliction of corporal punishment in time of peace to two offences only—mutiny, and insubordination accompanied by personal violence. He should be very glad himself, as everybody else would be, if corporal punishment could be dispensed with altogether. Like capital punishment, it could only be supported as a painful necessity. The preamble of the Bill explained in reasonable language why summary powers should be placed in the
  1168
  hands of courts martial, and these powers were quite as necessary for the protection of the citizen as for the restraint of the soldier. Law and custom had selected corporal punishment as the mode in which these summary powers should be exercised in preference to carrying into execution sentences of death, which might be the alternative. He did not think it would be judicious at this moment to weaken the authority of those who were responsible for the discipline of the army by abolishing corporal punishment; but their Lordships might rest satisfied that it would only be resorted to when necessity demanded.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  VICE ADMIRALTY COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend and amend the Vice Admiralty Courts Act, 1863—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 71.)
  CLERICAL VESTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  Bill, by Leave of the House, withdrawn.

  CLERICAL VESTMENTS (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for better enforcing Uniformity in the Clerical Vestments and Ornaments to be worn by Ministers of the United Church of England and Ireland in the Performance of Public Worship—Was presented by The Earl of SHAFTESBURY; read 1a. (No. 72).
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock