Sitting of 7 July 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Special and Common Juries [No. 401.]
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class IV.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Trades Societies and Combinations of Workmen *; New Zealand Assembly's Powers; * Vaccination (Ireland) *; Tithe Commutation, &c. Acts Amendment. *
First Reading—New Zealand Assembly's Powers * [216]; Vaccination (Ireland) * [217]; Tithe Commutation, &c. Acts Amendment * [218]; Trades Societies and Combinations of Workmen * [219].
Report of Select Committee—Sale of Liquors on Sunday * [No. 402].
Committee—Public Schools (re-comm.) [135]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit * [184]; Court of Session (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [173]; Larceny and Embezzlement * [157].
Report—Public Schools (re-comm.) [135]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit * [184]; Court of Session (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [173–214]; Larceny and Embezzlement * [157; Sale of Liquors on Sunday * [12].
Considered as amended—Ecclesiastical Buildings and Globes (Scotland) * [150]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) * [174].
Third Reading—Assignees of Marine Policies * [203]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment * [193]; Petit Juries (Ireland) * [209]; Metropolitan Police Funds * [132], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—THE CONTROL DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lieutenant General Sir Henry Storks,

  811
  G. C. B., Controller in Chief, War Department, has not expressed his entire disapproval of the views laid down by the Treasury in their Letter of the 29th June last respecting the proposed arrangements of the Control Department, more especially as they do not carry out the Recommendations of Lord Strathnairn's Committee?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONin reply, said he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not think him wanting in courtesy to him if he declined to state in that House the substance of any conversations which might have passed between himself and the War Office officials with whom he had the pleasure of acting. There was, however one statement which be wished to make, as it might possibly be inferred from the Question that his hon. and gallant Friend intended to imply that there had been some personal difference between Sir Henry Storks and himself. [Colonel JERVIS: Not the slightest!] He did not mean to say that such was the intention of his hon. and gallant Friend, but he thought that might possibly be inferred from the terms of the Question, and he wished, therefore, to state most specifically that nothing could be more friendly and harmonious than his communications with Sir Henry Storks.
  COLONEL JERVISsaid, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers referred to in War Office Letter of the 6th April 1868, page 19 of Papers marked War Office, "Control Department," 373, as the "enclosed Draft Regulations;" together with any Memorandum thereupon by the Chief Controller?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied that his hon. and gallant Friend was quite mistaken in the inference which he seemed to have drawn, that the Regulations now upon the table of the House had been drawn by the Treasury. The first Draft of the Regulations was somewhat hastily compiled, and was rather more lengthy than was necessary. It was, therefore, improved and revised; but the revised Copy, which was now on the table, had been drawn up by the same hand which drew up the original Regulations, and he could not see what good object was to be attained by laying on the table the first Draft, which had been improved upon and considerably altered.

FRESCOES IN THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. COWPERsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has received any Chemical Report on the trials that have been made for the induration of the Walls of the Houses of Parliament, and whether he will lay such Report upon the Table of the House; and, when the public will be admitted to see the Frescoes painted by the late Mr. Dyce in the Queen's Robing Room?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that as far as the Frescoes were concerned, they were now quite fit to be inspected by the public, and he believed he might also say, with great confidence, that they would prove themselves to be fully worthy of the fame of that distinguished and lamented artist. With regard to the room itself, there were some slight works being carried on under Mr. Barry's charge, which were not yet completed. Mr. Barry had been called away from London, and he was not able to say precisely how soon the room, would be in a condition to be opened to the public, but he apprehended very shortly indeed.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Walpole, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy).
[BILL 135.]

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 23rd June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 20 (Powers of Special Commissioners).
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that it was contrary to practice to repeal Acts of Parliament without specifying them, and he therefore proposed the following Amendment to be inserted after the word "Commissioners":—
  "But no statute or scheme proposing the repeal of any Act of Parliament, or the alteration of the provisions or application thereof, shall have effect until the same has been submitted to Parliament in a Bill, to be introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers within two months after the commencement of the then next Session of Parliament, and such Bill shall have been enacted."
  The clause as it stood was a departure from the practice of the Universities and the Common Law of the State. There were two principal Acts of Parliament under which the property of these schools

  813
  was appropriated, and his object in moving this Amendment was to prevent any existing Act relating to the public schools of this country being varied or repealed by Order in Council.
  MR. WALPOLEobserved that the clause as drawn was almost entirely analogous to the Oxford and Cambridge Act. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was aware of what would be the legal effect of his Amendment. He (Mr. Walpole) thought the introduction of those words would cause great confusion, and instead of enabling the Commissioners or the Governing Body to settle what are to be the future arrangements, they would have to come back to Parliament, re-opening the whole of the questions now discussed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, his object was to take care that a set of Commissioners or the new Governing Body should not have power to vary Acts of Parliament.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped the clause gave no such power.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not admit that the clause would give any power to repeal Acts of Parliament. This Amendment would render it necessary to bring every scheme before Parliament to be discussed, and that would be obviously most inconvenient.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the Amendment proposed would do away with all the advantage of passing the Bill. Where would be the benefit of the measure unless the new Governing Body had power to reform or make better regulations for the conduct of the schools?
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that his object was that the property in question should be dealt with by Act of Parliament.
  MR. GOLDNEYsupported the clause as it stood.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) was to prevent a course being followed which was unprecedented; and his hon. Friend contended that these schools should be enabled to come to Parliament in the same way as the schemes of the Charity Commissioners were submitted to Parliament.
  MR. NEATEsaid, there was a precedent, and in proof of it he would refer to the Acts relating to Oxford University.
  MR. NEWDEGATEdenied that there was any precedent, and in the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Neate) the Act of Parliament was never mentioned.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the Commissioners would be enabled to deal with the rights of property in utter ignorance by this House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he could not understand the tendency to hand despotic powers to Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21 (Clause A. Scheme for Appropriation of Estate to Westminster School).
  MR. WYNN MR. WYNN moved in page 11, line 10, to leave out "exceeding," and insert "less than." He stated that the expenses of Westminster School had increased from £2,176 in 1861 to £2,681 in 1867; and that the Commissioners had stated in their Report that £3,300 would be barely sufficient to meet the expenditure of the future. He therefore proposed to alter the clause, so that the sum set apart for the Westminster School shall not be less than £3,500.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, if this were agreed to, he should move the insertion of other words preventing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from appropriating more than £4,000 to Westminster School.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped it would not be lost sight of by the friends of the Church and the supporters of religion that property originally set apart for the religious culture of the poorest was being appropriated for the education of the wealthiest. ["No, no!"] That he maintained was the fact. Reverting to the clause under consideration he advised the granting of an annuity to the School, rather than giving it property which could be much more cheaply managed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He moved the insertion, of the words "or for granting an annuity of the like amount."
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Motion, on the ground that it would maintain the connection between the Chapter, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the School, whereas the object of the Bill was to sever the connection, and place the School upon, an entirely independent footing.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not allow the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets to go un-

  815
  contradicted. The boys at Westminster School formerly were by no means exclusively the sons of the wealthy; they included a great many sons of struggling professional men, whose difficulties were greater very often than those of persons nominally in a poorer grade. The hon. and learned Member appeared to think that no boys whatever ought to be on the foundation but those whom one sees running about the streets in leather breeches and a little muffin cap.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he had certainly understood from many "Old Westminsters" that the School used to be specially the resort of the British aristocracy.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, the aristocracy used to be strongly represented at Westminster, but they did not, as alleged, devour the endowments, which were freely enjoyed by sons of the poorer clergy and struggling professional men. The endowments of Westminster were not being created now for the first time, and in any fresh distribution of the funds he thought the School had a right to claim its fair proportion.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Government might very fairly have supported the recommendation of the Committee; but they had shown a ready lavishness to spoliate the people by adding a further sum of £500 a year to the endowment. His hon. Friends who had been educated at Westminster School seemed to believe that they had been there in company with all the poverty of the town; but that was not the impression of anybody else. What he complained of was, that those who had the charge of this Bill had refused to introduce a clause which would limit the application of these public funds to people who shall give evidence that they were required for the purposes of their education. He had a right to say therefore that this was a Bill for the benefit of a class who could afford to pay for their education. Supposing that Westminster School was used by those who could not pay for their own education, he would ask whether the same thing could be said of Eton, Harrow, and Rugby? Were those schools carried on upon the principle of being most adapted to the people who could not afford to pay for their education? On the contrary, their only peculiarity was that they were most expensive in point of charge, and least effective in point of education. ["No, no !"] It was notorious that the education of the majority of the scholars was neg-
  816
  lected for the purpose of occasionally producing what were called "show boys."
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was so severe upon the Government, had not been very careful as to the accuracy of his own stetement. So far from the Government seeking to spoliate the funds belonging to the Church, the proposal in Committee to fill up the blank with the sum of £3,500 was carried by a majority of 14 or 15 votes, the only dissentient being the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. The Committee had determined that a sum should be paid to the School out of the property of the Dean and Chapter, amounting to nearly £3,593, and all that was now asked to be done, in addition, was, that the Commissioners should be left a discretion to increase that amount to a sum not exceeding £4,000. The Government, in sanctioning that proposal, were simply acting on the equitable construction to be put on the statutes, which laid it down that portions of the funds in question fairly belonged to Westminster School.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MARSH MR. MARSH moved the insertion, page 11, line 12,after the word "them," of the words—
  "The playground in Vincent Square with the buildings thereon; the dormitory with its appurtenances; the school and class-rooms; the houses and premises of the Head master and Under master; the three boarding-houses; the gymnasium excepting the crypts; and subject to existing interests the house in Great Dean's Yard, now occupied by the Rector Canon of Saint John the Evangelist, Westminster; the house abutting on the school premises, and now occupied by Mr. Turle; the house now occupied by the Sub-Dean and the house situate at the south-western corner of Great Dean's Yard, now numbered, and in the occupation of Mrs. Gullan and."
  The space occupied by Westminster School, he said, was only 5,000 square feet, whereas King's College and the City of London School occcupied a space of 12,000 feet. He trusted the number of boys at Westminster School would largely increase, and if that were so they would stand in need of the additional accommodation which he proposed to provide.
  MR. W. LOWTHERexpressed a hope that the Committee would accede to the very reasonable suggestion which had just been made. The requirements of the present day necessitated that additional accommodation should be provided for the School.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. POWELL MR. POWELL moved to omit the words, "and such other portions of the said Chapter estates as are essential to the well-being of the School."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MARSHsaid, that, according to the proviso at the end of the clause, in the event of Westminster School being removed beyond the City of Westminster, all its property and income derived from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, or their estates, would revert to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought that Westminster School should be treated on the same principle as the Charterhouse School; and therefore, by way of Amendment, he moved in line 28, after "governing body," leave out to the end of the clause.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was of opinion that there was force in the argument that Westminster School, not being an entirely independent school, but being connected with Westminster Abbey, should not be allowed to take the funds which arose from the revenues of Westminster Abbey and spend them in some place in the country. He therefore deemed it desirable that the decision of the Select Committee, which was in favour of the proviso, should be adhered to, though the matter was of no great practical importance, as it was not probable that Westminster School would be removed into the country.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought that the buildings round Dean's Yard ought to be reserved, and ought to lapse to the Abbey, if the School should be removed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 postponed.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  MR. LOWE, in proposing a new clause, providing for an annual examination by Inspectors, said, that the proposal was not altogether a new one, because when the Public Schools Commission were inquiring into the matter they invited the public schools to submit to an examination of the kind he proposed; but for various reasons, all equally cogent, these schools declined the honour that was offered them. He made this proposal in no spirit of hostility
  818
  to the public schools, but in friendship for the youth of this country. A very good case for the clause was, he thought, to be found in the Report of the Commissioners. A gentleman of great judgment and experience, for instance, stated that a few years ago the University of Oxford had to make its course commence with the mere rudiments of education, and on page 26 of their Report the Commissioners arrived at the conclusion, among others, that the classical knowledge possessed by young men leaving school was very low, but that the knowledge of arithmetic, mathematics, and general information was lower still. Now the deficiencies thus pointed out in no unfriendly spirit were such that he felt sure the Committee must deplore their existence. At Winchester, in his time, neither writing nor reading was taught, and a similar state of things prevailed, he believed, at most of our public schools. The question then arose how so great a want was to be supplied? His idea was that the sources of improvement were not to be sought in the endowments of a school, but in the parents of the children by whom it was attended. The object which the Committee should endeavour
  to secure was to bring the opinion of the parents to bear on the system of instruction which their children received; because our public schools being in the main adventure schools necessarily depended very much on those who were their customers. It was desirable, therefore, that the fathers and mothers of England should be made acquainted with the deficiencies in the education given, and the way to that was to submit the schools to examination and to make known the result. If the views of the Commissioners should then be found to be correct, a service would be done by having public attention called to the fact, while, if not, an erroneous notion would have been dispelled, and the schools would be the gainers. In either event such examinations as he proposed could not fail to be attended with advantage, and he could not see how, on the ground of expediency, there could be any objection to the clause. But then, perhaps, it might be opposed on the ground of right. It might be contended that Government Inspectors could not properly be empowered to enter the schools for the purpose of instituting an examination of the pupils. These schools, however, he would remind the Committee were really founded on endowments, and the Commissioners on Middle-class Education

  819
  reported in favour of having every endowed school examined under Government inspection. He was therefore only asking the Committee to anticipate the recommendations of those Commissioners; and, indeed, it would, he thought, have been better if endowed schools had been dealt with as a whole, and the invidious distinction between public and private schools obviated. If the subjects to which his clause related were taught in our public schools, he could not understand why they should shrink from the proposed examination; if not, he could not gee why the House of Commons should shrink from making the fact known to the world. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following clause:—
  "That all boys educated at the seven Schools mentioned in this Act shall be examined once a year, by one of the Inspectors of the Committee of Council on Education, in reading, writing from dictation, arithmetic, including vulgar fractions, practice, and the rule of three, geography, English grammar and history, and the results of such examination and the Report of the examining Inspectors shall be laid before Parliament.—(Mr. Lowe).
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcontended that the effect of the adoption of the clause would be to degrade the great public schools of England down to the level of village schools. The right hon. Gentleman had in another place ascribed his success in life to his command of his mother tongue; but he would venture to say that there was no Member of that House who owed more to other sources. Had he trusted to his mother tongue alone, independently of the classical reputation which he had acquired, he would scarcely have reached so high a position as he had achieved. The right hon. Gentleman scorned to wish to interfere with private right, and the function of the Head master of the school. There was no such thing as mens sana in corpore sano, as when the mind was cultivated the body suffered, and when the body was highly cultivated the mind suffered. The richness of our language arose from the Anglo-Saxon foundation, enriched by copious gatherings from Greek and Latin. It was to these agglomerated sources that the English language owed its richness. The object of Eton and Westminster was to raise the minds of the pupils; but all those in the public schools would feel that examination in the branches mentioned in the Resolution would be a degradation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would be obliged to vote against the clause, be-
  820
  cause he did not think the Inspectors of the Committee in Council would be the proper examiners, nor did he think an examination should be limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic, or be confined to the schools affected by the Bill. He thought all endowed schools should be subjected to examination. Nothing seemed more clearly proved than this in the evidence before the Committee. If his right hon. Friend would frame a clause that would submit all these schools to an extensive examination, he (Mr. Forster) would vote for it; but he was afraid many of the schools would think this clause an insult.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the clause would be pressed to a division, because it was evident that most pupils at public schools did not know as much as an intelligent charity boy. Complaint had been made that the whole time of public school boys was taken up by the study of Latin and Greek; but, as a matter of fact, they learnt very little of these languages. An ordinarily educated German could converse with a foreigner in Latin if the two had no other language in common; but how many Englishmen carried from a public school sufficient Latin to do this? He confessed that, although he might be able to translate some half dozen words of Latin, he was wholly unable to translate a sentence from the Greek, although he had studied those languages for ten years at a public school. He complained that it was the fault of the system and his misfortune that this was so. The fact was, public schools had become mere hotbeds of social exclusiveness and aristocratic prejudice, where people sent their sons to pick up what they called gentlemanly connections. He hoped that a division would be resorted to, in which case the right hon. Gentleman would find more Members voting for him than he expected.
  MR. WALPOLEagreed that it was desirable to remedy as far as possible the deficiency of their public schools with regard to the lower branches of education; but he did not think that the remedy which the right hon, Gentleman proposed to apply would at all hit the source of the disease. The sources of the deficiency were chiefly two—one was connected with the boys, as the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) had virtually admitted was his own case, the other was traceable to the parents. The real fault lay with the parents themselves, who left the responsi-

  821
  bility altogether upon the school and the masters, and did not pay sufficient attention themselves to the progress which their boys made. But how was that difficulty to be got over? He believed the Bill would meet this evil much better than the appointment of Inspectors, and that it would be the primary duty of the newly-constituted governing bodies to make regulations for accomplishing the very purposes to which it was proposed that the Inspectors should apply themselves. It would be a great mistake, and that not merely in educational matters, to encourage the belief that everything which was complained of could be got rid of by a system of Government inspection. Evils like these were properly to be encountered and surmounted by the exertions of the people themselves. Even if Government Inspectors were appointed, in time the duties would be very imperfectly discharged, and the system would end very much in matters of form. Seeing, therefore, that the object which his right hon. Friend had chiefly in view could be accomplished by trusting and strengthening the new governing bodies, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, there was no doubt the fault lay to some extent with the parents; but a parent who paid £200 a year for the education of his boy had, at the same time, a right to expect that he would be taught the elementary branches of learning. For his own part, he hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division. The Government had done a great deal during the last twenty years for the education of the poorer classes, and it was time now that something should be done for the children of the upper and middle classes. Government inspection, he believed, would do a great deal towards renewing public confidence in the education given in the public schools.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, of all the curious propositions put forward during the present discussion, this was the most remarkable. For the last couple of years the Legislature had occupied itself in constituting anew the Governing Bodies of the great schools; it had not hesitated to deal freely with founders' wills, with Acts of Parliament, or, as some put it, had not scrupled to "rob the poor." But hardly was all this done, the work even was not yet completed, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) came forward and said—
  " These very authorities whom you have just
  822
  established with so strong a hand are not fit for anything—not fit even to judge whether the schools are teaching anything or nothing."
  Surely, if you have swept away much of what exists and set up something in its stead that you declare not to be competent to decide whether children can read or write, you must have done a great deal of wrong, and the better course would be to proceed no further with the Bill. What confidence could the Committee put in the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) now proposed? Why, he was the very man who was forced to come down to the House some years ago and state that all the beautiful system of inspection which had gone on for many years under the Privy Council was an utter failure, that the children could neither read nor write, and that an Act of Parliament was necessary to set right the very matters which, according to the Inspectors' Reports, varied only in their degrees of excellence. He honestly avowed that he had no faith in the proposed system of inspection. It was a serious charge, and behind it was the whole question of visitation. Were the Committee going to strike down the system of visitation, and to create in its stead a system of inspection? The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) told the House that there were a great many boys in these schools who learnt nothing. Some of these were not wanting in ability, but they set that ability to work to defy the masters, putting up with any little inconveniences for the sake of carrying their object. If the Committee chose to enact that the children in the different public schools should learn reading, writing, or arithmetic, that proposition in itself might be deserving of consideration. But a system of Government inspection, he believed, would be a failure, and, furthermore, would militate against the system of visitation.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, the great evil of the public schools was the tacit recognition of idleness. One of the Assistant masters at Eton brought before him very plainly the difficulty of grappling with this evil, when he repeated a saying of the parent of one of these boys—"I don't care whether my boy learns anything as long as he makes a good connection." The gentleman who made this remark was a man likely to rise into a very high position in society, but he was nevertheless somewhat of an upstart. The ceremony of examination under the operation of the clause would

  823
  in his opinion, be a great farce. Who were to be the examiners? Inspectors appointed by the Privy Council, who, he must say, with all respect for some of them, were not men in the slightest degree fitted to discharge the duty. Indeed, it would be nothing less than an insult to any respectable middle-class school, be thought, to send such persons to examine the scholars. Why were decimal fractions omitted from the list of subjects in which the examination was to take place? He hoped the Committee would not consent by a sidewind to erect the President of the Council into a Minister of Public Instruction. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne was so anxious for improvement in the direction to which his clause pointed, why did he not propose, he should like to know, that all boys should be examined before they were admitted to our great public schools? He himself was the advocate of enforcing elementary education in the schools of England from top to bottom; but the subject was one of great importance, requiring serious consideration, and ought not to be dealt with in a chance clause, such as that under discussion. The clause should run, not "all boys educated at the seven schools;" but all boys "admitted" to the seven schools.
  COLONEL SYKESmaintained that the principle advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne was a sound one. The object of the clause was to see that the endowed schools did their duty in elementary knowledge. The fault was not in the pupils or the parents, but in the system. According to the rules at Harrow a pupil might go out with honours in Greek and Latin without knowing the multiplication table.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, the remedy which was now proposed was that the scholars should be examined, not in what the schools professed to teach, but in what every boy should know before he went. To examine them in what any boy should know at a National School might be an extremely good joke against the schools; but he hoped no one would vote for it seriously. The examination should be in those subjects the cultivation of which was the purpose of the schools. But he quite agreed that the examination provided by the clause might be applied as an entrance examination.
  MR. HEYGATEthought the objections which had been urged against the teaching
  824
  at Eton applied more to a past state of things than to the present.
  MR. NEATE, having a great respect for endowments, protested against the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) proposed to treat them, and expressed himself as not well satisfied with the feeble defence of them which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole).
  MR. LOWE, in reply to the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), who argued that the Motion might be good as far as it went, but that it should go further, observed that it could go no further, as there was no machinery by which the boys could be examined to better effect than according to the plan he proposed. With regard to the Universities, there were enormous endowments held out to those who learnt there; but with regard to elementary studies nothing was to be got in the way of endowments, and no endowments were held out as rewards for good teaching. Therefore, it was important to bring before the public the amount of deficiency in teaching which might exist in any institution. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) said that his (Mr. Lowe's) tongue was not enough. Now he (Mr. Lowe) quite agreed with him—mother wit was wanted as well as mother tongue. As to the statement that there was no such thing as mens sana in corpore sano, probably on that point the hon. Member spoke from his own experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) attributed the evil to the wrong cause, and suggested the wrong remedy. He said that the evil was the fault of the parents. How was it their fault if they paid sufficiently for the education of their children? In that case was it not the fault of those who undertook to give the education and did not give it? Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman said that the remedy was to be sought in the governing bodies. Was that according to the analogy of human affairs? The evil of these endowments was that the persons enjoying them had a duty to perform but no interest in performing it, and it was desirable to create that interest in the Head masters by making known to the parents what was and was not taught. Then the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said that it was monstrous that these great changes should have been made, and that governing bodies who were not

  825
  competent to see the desired things done should have been created. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the governing bodies of schools could be inspectors in that sense, and that they should look after the Head masters and stimulate them to teach what ought to be taught? Where were to be found the governing bodies who had ever exercised this great supervision? The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire expressed surprise that he (Mr. Lowe) should have made the present proposal, because he had pointed out that the inspection of schools was nugatory, and yet he now advised, it was said, the introduction of inspection. What he now proposed was not inspection, but examination; and when inspection was found deficient was not the evil remedied by examination? The statements which were made with regard to the defective results of inspection were at the time boldly denied, and by no one more strongly than by the right hon. Gentleman, and yet when they came to be investigated every word of them was verified. It stood pro confesso that the things mentioned in his clause were not taught at these schools; but he would not expose the remedy proposed in the clause to the disadvantage of a division in the existing temper of the House.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved clauses, to be inserted in all statutes under this Act, providing for the admission of day scholars into every school to which the Bill applied. In a vague way the Bill recognized the admission of such scholars; but the provision did not go far enough, it being merely permissive, whereas the object of his clause was to make the admission of day scholars compulsory. The demands of the masters of these schools were enormous—£150 or £200 a year; but there were a great many people in this country who, from their position, might fairly desire to have their sons educated in those schools who could not afford to pay such a sum. There were, for instance, officers in the army and navy, members of the professions, many country gentlemen and clergymen, whose income would not enable them to pay such large demands. Then, there were a great many widows, whose husbands had occupied considerable positions, and who generally resorted to the places were those schools were situated, in order to obtain education for their sons at the low rate of charge. It was incum-
  826
  bent on the Committee to secure that the classes he had described should have the benefit of education for their sons on paying the actual sum required for instruction. The only objection to this was that the richer classes sent their sons there for social considerations, which they regarded as superior to educational considerations. Now, that was a feeling to which they ought not completely to succumb. The spirit of exclusiveness was cultivated by these schools, and the more the false pride and pretension of money was checked the better, by the association of the children, of the wealthy with those who, though not so rich, were probably their superiors in mental accomplishments and moral elevation of character. He proposed to limit the application of the clause to children residing with persons who stood to them in the fourth degree of relationship. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the clause being inserted in the Bill.
  Clause (In the statutes to be made under this Act, for every school to which this Act applies, provision shall be made for the education of any boy, as a day scholar, who may be residing within three miles of the school with a parent or relative within the fourth degree of relationship, consanguinity, or affinity, or with his guardian, and who may be proved by a preliminary examination to be in other respects fit to be educated at such school: Provided, That every such boy may be required to pay a reasonable sum for his education not exceeding that paid by borders,)—(Mr. Ayrton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTIN, in supporting the clause, observed that when he was at Eton there were there a certain number of day scholars, the sons of tradesmen, who were received upon an equality with the rest of the scholars.
  MR. BARNETTalso supported the clause and remarked that he recollected when the head boy of Eton was the son of an Eton tradesman.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the boys were all treated alike at the public schools.
  MR. WALPOLEobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with the management of the school by permitting the influx of a number of boys far larger than the teaching power of the school was calculated to educate in a proper manner. He added that under a clause of the Bill the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman might be accomplished.
  MR. NEATEurged the necessity for some such provision, as the interest of the

  827
  school would rather be in the direction of boarders, who would be more profitable, than of day scholars.
  MR. AYRTONurged that there was no ground for the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman to the clause. He was willing to consent to the introduction of words to guard against any undue increase in the number of the scholars.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEremarked that in the 12th clause power was given to the Governing Bodies to afford facilities for boys other than boarders to attend the schools.
  MR. AYRTONsaid that power was not given to the Commissioners to do what he required, and therefore the clause was necessary.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend would do well to leave the education of the day boys to the Commission.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 96: Majority 56.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

IRELAND—COMPULSORY PRESENTMENTS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCH, on rising to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the amount levied off the Irish counties by compulsory presentment under the head of Audit, referred to the circumstances under which Mr. Anthony Blake was appointed to the office of Chief Remembrancer under the Act of Parliament passed in 1833. In his opinion compulsory presentments had been levied off the Irish counties in a very unconstitutional manner. For works on the Shannon, which had not effected the objects for which they had been undertaken, as much as £300,000 had been so levied. He hoped his right hon. Friend would state how much had been levied for audit expenses. He would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, For how many years the sum of £500 a year, part of the amount levied off the Irish counties by compulsory presentment under the head of Audit, has been placed to the credit of the Consolidated Fund; and, whether it is intended to appropriate the accumulated sum towards developing the resources of Ireland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in answer to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman he had to say that the money referred to had been paid into the Consolidated Fund since the Act passed authorizing such payment, which was in 1843. There was an Act passed in the first year of the present reign to provide for the audit of accounts in Ireland, and a fee of not exceeding 5s. per hundred was to be paid to constitute a fee fund. The Lord Lieutenant could charge on that fund any expenses necessary for carrying out the Act; and it was provided that the expense of auditing the Treasurer's accounts should be borne by the counties. In 1843 an Act was passed having relation to the offices of Chief and Second Remembrancers in Ireland; and since the passing of that Act the duties formerly discharged by one of the Remembrancers in regard to auditing the accounts, for the audit of which the fees were levied, had been performed by one of the Masters in Chancery, who was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It seemed not unreasonable, therefore, that the respective counties should in respect of the audit, contribute to the Consolidated Fund a sum equal to that which they formerly paid to the Remembrancer. He was not aware that there was any accumulation from those fees. If his right hon. Friend could show that there was, he would have the matter inquired into. He could, however, assure his right hon. Friend that the Consolidated Fund was a considerable loser by the offices of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as the fees received from them did not amount to the sum which had to be provided for those offices.
MR. SYNANsaid, he did not think the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfactory. The Master in Chancery who audited the accounts referred to only received the same salary as the other Masters of the same Court.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  (1.) £67,380, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
  MR. LOWE: The grant to the British Museum last year was £95,446, and the sum for which I am to ask this year is £99,380, showing an increase of £3,934. That increase is accounted for mainly by

  829
  grants for different special purposes. For instance, £1,000 extra have been granted for the purchase of Mr. Hay's very curious and interesting collection of Egyptian antiquities; £1,300 for the purchase of a bronze head of Hypnos, with an owl's wing on one side of the head, and other bronzes of great value; £1,000 for researches in Asia Minor, conducted by Mr. Dennis, mainly into the tombs of the Lydian kings at Sardis; and £1,000 to the gentleman who was sent with the Abyssinian Expedition. These sums together nearly cover the increase upon the former Estimate; and, as the year has been very uneventful, it is not necessary for me to detain the Committee with further observations. I ought, however, to mention the munificent bequest which has been made to the Museum by Mr. Slade of a very curious collection of glass worth £8,000, and prints worth £1,600. The gentleman whom we despatched to Abyssinia upon a scientific mission with the expeditionary force seems have acquitted himself of the task with great energy and considerable success. He obtained a large quantity of Ethiopic manuscripts, which we have not yet had an opportunity of inspecting, but which may, perhaps, contain something of interest and value, remembering that in 1820 the remarkable Book of Jasher was recovered from Abyssinia. Mr. Holmes, it seems, contrived to get into Magdala within ten minutes after the troops entered; he found the dead body of Theodore, and made a sketch of him as he lay, which competent judges have pronounced to a most faithful and admirable likeness. He also secured from a private soldier, for the very moderate sum of £4, the crown of the Abuna, and also a chalice and some other articles. I am sorry to add that, though these were obtained for the modest amount which I have stated, we are now offered by the Government the option of purchasing our own collection for the sum of £2,000. These were the only items which it was necessary for him to mention in connection with the Vote. There is only one subject more; but it is one which ought always to be mentioned on these occasions, and that is the question of room. There is no complaint against the Government on this account. They have taken all the necessary information, and I trust that before long we shall have a comprehensive scheme, which is so much needed for the proper display of the objects in the Museum. The fact is we are proceeding in a most absurd
  830
  manner. We are spending large sums in obtaining a valuable collection, a great part of which is useless and packed away, I because this House has not made due provision for the treasures it has so liberally acquired. This is a state of things which is an opprobrium to the national liberality and taste. We have a collection that would make the fortune of twenty ordinary museums, yet they are lost to view as if they did not exist, and they are undergoing a process of injury and dilapidation. He hoped that something would soon be done to remove this opprobrium on the public taste and sense. The right hon. Gentlemen concluded by moving the Vote.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcongratulated the Trustees on the success of their efforts in obtaining works of art; but could not congratulate the Museum upon its success in a popular point of view. Notwithstanding the sums that had been spent on it, the people did not go to it as they were expected to do, and the number of visitors fell off every year. Even the readers frequenting the Reading Room showed a diminution of more than 30,000 in the last six years. There was far too much of some things, and too little of other things. People got tired of seeing so many cats, dogs, monkeys and birds—in fact it wanted weeding. Many of the gems and articles of value the right hon. Gentleman admitted were put away in cellars. Even celebrated antiquities did not please everyone. A person he knew said of one room that it was "full of big stones, and men without heads, and he did not see much merit in them." He told his friend he was not perhaps a judge of Fine Art; but being himself in the room devoted to antiquities the other day not a single person was to be seen. The public wanted greater variety, and the tastes of all should be considered and not that of only one part of the community. At present he could not-regard the British Museum as a success, or as a proof of good management.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that as it appeared that some of the greatest curiosities that would give the Museum greater novelty were "going to the bad" for want of more space, he wondered why the worthy Alderman did not propose a large sum for a proper building.
  VISCOUNT AMBERLEYagreed in thinking that the present managemement of the Museum was not satisfactory; but the fault was not with the Trustees. One great drawback to the library was the

  831
  want of a printed catalogue. If a catalogue were published every three or four years the sale would be to a considerable extent remunerative, and it would greatly add to the usefulness of the Museum.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, that a few years ago property might have been purchased adjacent to the Museum on very' reasonable terms. He believed that it would be an economical thing even now if on estimate were made for the purchase of the property in Montague Street, and if negociations were forthwith entered into to buy the property. Such a step would, of course, invoke the question of the separation of articles of vertu from the collection of natural history. Ought it not to be the duty of some one to ascertain what articles were now stowed away and perhaps going to ruin for want of proper accomodation in the Museum? He believed the time had arrived when there ought to be a proper depositary for the invaluable treasures of every description collected in the British Museum.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT.
  (2.) £1,024,653, Customs Department.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcommended the economical administration of this Department, and said it was an example which he thought might be advantageously imitated in the Admiralty and other Departments; but he ought to have remembered the Customs existed for the collection of money and the other offices seemingly only for the purpose of spending it.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  (3.) £1,574,210, Inland Revenue Department.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—POST OFFICE, &c.
  (4.) £2,369,235, Post Office, &c.
  VISCOUNT MILTONcalled attention to the absence of any direct communication between this country and British Columbia.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the matter could be more conveniently entered into if the noble Lord would give Notice of a Question upon it.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKremarked upon the insufficient redress given with respect to lost letters, and gave an instance which recently came under his own notice. He
  832
  was not quite sure that the Post Office was so well-managed as it was stated to be, and complained that the authorities were rather harshly prosecuting a company for delivering circulars at a fourth of the cost which they charged.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSexpressed an opinion that much improvement might be made in the postal service by the adoption of a system of country sorting offices, to which letters might be sent direct, instead of, as in many cases, being first sent to London, whereby much time was lost. Some years ago he drew the attention of the Post Office to this subject. He found that if a letter intended to be sent to Chatham were put in the Post Office at Woolwich at seven o'clock, it was sent up to London, and passed by Woolwich again at twelve o'clock the next day, and was not delivered at Chatham till about two o'clock in the day. He admitted that the great commercial communities were well served; but he thought greater advantages might be conferred on the rural districts.
  MR. M'LARENcalled attention to the expediency of carrying printed matters cheaply by the Post Office. The Post Office, having a monopoly, was able to drive private carriers out of the market. But when the private carriers were allowed to deliver circulars, they could carry with profit to themselves for a farthing what the Post Office charged a penny for carrying. Agencies were established in Liverpool, London, Edinburgh, and other towns for the delivery of circulars; but the Post Office took legal means of establishing its monopoly, and put down the private trade. The Post Office now proposed that they should be allowed to do all the telegraph business of the country, on the ground that they could do the work much more cheaply than the telegraphic companies. If that was true, why could not the Post Office carry circulars for double the charge that would be asked by private carriers? He thought the Post Office ought to carry any printed matter not exceeding one ounce for a halfpenny. If that price were charged a very large number of circulars would be sent through the Post Office. There was a special reason why circulars should be carried by the Post Office cheaply at this time. Millions of circulars were sent out at election tune, and it had been calculated that if a candidate for a large town, such as Liverpool, Glasgow, or Manchester, were to send four circulars to each elector by the penny post it would cost him

  833
  £1,000. He (Mr. M'Laren) did not know whether the rules of the House would allow him to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Post Office should carry printed matter, not exceeding one ounce in weight, for a halfpenny." No Act of Parliament was necessary to effect the alteration. An Order from the Treasury to-morrow would be as effectual as any Act of Parliament. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury would take this matter into their serious consideration, and give an assurance that the reform he suggested should be carried into effect without delay.
  MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, that with reference to the matter so ably advocated by his hon. Friend, he could not help suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be very proper to carry bonâ fide election circulars through the Post Office free. If that were done it might come to pass that candidates would address their constituents much more by circulars than by speeches. Election expenses were increased much more than hon. Gentlemen were aware by the charges for the delivery of election circulars.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that the Post Office contributed to the revenue of the country. In his opinion no person had reason to complain of 1d. being charged for any quantity of printed matter not exceeding four ounces. The efficiency and economy of the Post Office had been recognized in every country. As to the complaint of want of accommodation in the rural districts, he could say that as far as his experience went it was not well founded.
  MR. WYLDcalled the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a prosecution which was being carried on against the Circular Delivery Company. That Company charged only one farthing for a circular for which the Post Office charged 1d. Now, a most important question was involved in this prosecution; because if the Government could prosecute the Company they could also prosecute any private person who delivered his own circulars. If it were true that the country derived a revenue from the Post Office, it should not be forgotten that the Post Office was established for the benefit of the country.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the object of the Post Office was to bring the different
  834
  parts of the country within reach of each other. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member below him (Colonel French) that his experience as to the accommodation given to the rural districts was very different. He knew parts of Scotland where the post from London could not be reckoned to reach in less than a month, and where a letter from New York would arrive as soon as one from London. He had himself conveyed Her Majesty's Mails for the last fifty years for nothing in some of the remote districts of Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not able to answer the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Wyld) about the prosecution, as he had not received Notice that it would be put; but if the hon. Member would repeat it he would be happy to let him know how the matter stood at another time. With respect to the Circular Delivery Agency, be understood that some of those agencies professed to deliver circulars; but it was found that a great many of the circulars which it was alleged were delivered were thrown into rivers and ponds and out-of-the-way place, and that some of them were put into pillar-boxes without being paid for, in order that they might be delivered by the Post Office. He was not sure, therefore, that those agencies really carried out what they professed to do. He had been several times in communication with the Post Office to see whether printed matter weighing less than four ounces could not be carried cheaper than 1d. The question was still under consideration, and he hoped that they should arrive at a satisfactory solution of it.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEcomplained that the postal communication with the Continent of Europe was very defective, and that no progress had been made in the delivery of letters. They were told in the Post Office Directory that there were two mails a day made up for France, Belgium, Holland, Hamburgh, Bremen, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Denmark; and therefore one might imagine that, as two mails left England for those places, there were two deliveries; but that was not the case. It was true that two mails were daily sent to Italy, but there was only one delivery; because when the letters posted in London in the evening reached Paris in the morning they they remained there all day until evening, when the French mail left Paris for Italy.

  835
  A letter posted in London at seven o'clock in the evening readied Italy exactly at the same time as a letter posted at Liverpool. He thought the time was come for all the nations of Europe arriving at an understanding not only upon the question of postal intercommunication between the various countries, but also upon the matter of establishing some uniform system and rate of postage. The subject was one well worthy of investigation and consideration by the Post Office authorities in England. It was of the utmost importance that the great bulk of the correspondence of this country should not be delayed at Paris, as was the custom at present. Nobody could guarantee when a letter posted at London would reach Berlin, Madrid, or other distant places, as no information on this point was given in the Postal Guide. This clearly demanded a remedy. He considered that if the subject were properly discussed an uniform rate of postage might be procured.
  Vote agreed to.

  POST OFFICE PACKET SERVICE.
  (5.) £789,349, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service.
  MR. CRAWFORDcalled attention to the recent increase of postage on letters addressed to the East Indies and Ceylon, and the exemptions allowed in certain privileged cases. The subject was considered two years ago by a Select Committee of the House, and recommendations were made which resulted in increased facilities being afforded and in many additional services being established. A recent arrangement with the Peninsular and Oriental Company had given the public the advantage of communicating once a week with Bombay, instead of forty-eight times a year as formerly; but this increase from forty-eight to fifty-two posts in the year, or about 8½ per cent, had been followed by an increase in the rate of postage from 10 d. to 1s. 1d. for letters going by way of Marseilles, and from 6d. to 9d. for letters going by Southampton. In other words, the Government were making those who used the Post Office pay the extra expense of increased service instead of trying what was to be made out of the cultivation of new and improved communication with India. Great objections had been taken to the course pursued by the Treasury, not only here but in India; and various Chambers of Commerce and other bodies interested had
  836
  petitioned on the subject, although, so far as he was aware, no answer had been returned to these representations. The present postage system was full of anomalies—for instance, a letter not exceeding half-an-ounce, viâ Marseilles, was charged 1s. 1d., and to China 1s. 4d., whereas the same letter could be sent the much greater distance of Australia for 10 d. He could not understand why this should be so. Again, a 845
  large mercantile letter, containing enclosures, say, of two ounces, could be sent to Australia for 3s. 4d., the same rate as was charged for India, whereas 4s. 4d. was charged for Ceylon and 5s. 4d. for China. And the only ground that he could see for this overcharge was that the Government had given the people of India the privilege of writing and posting their letters fifty-two times in the year, instead of forty-eight times. He objected to these increased burdens being placed upon the shoulders of correspondents. In the case of American and other letters, the postage was being reduced; and he could not understand why a different system should prevail with regard to Indian letters, unless it was because the Indian purse was a convenient one to tax. The subject was one of great importance, and he had received representations from many people in India respecting it. He had hoped that some Member of the Government would have directed their attention to it. If his remarks were to receive no attention, he had perhaps as well sit down at once, though he had hoped that some Member of the Treasury would have paid attention to what he was saying.
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise to Order, Sir; I am listening to every word the hon. Member is saying. I have reason to believe that other Gentlemen on this Bench are listening also; and I am therefore quite at a loss to put any interpretation that is intelligible upon the observations of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he had observed that the First Lord of the Treasury had been paying attention; but he did not think he would interest himself in these mere departmental details. He would now proceed with his remarks. The Post Office authorities had given notice that, concurrently with the establishment of the weekly mail service to India, the rates would be raised to 1s. 1d. per ½oz. to the general public, while letters for officers of the army and navy would still be carried at 6d. viâ Southampton, and 10 d. viâ Marseilles. He

  837
  could not understand on what principle this privilege was granted, and he knew that to many commercial and professional men postage was as much a burden as it was to officers of the army and navy. The recent increased charges had the effect of inducing people who carried on an extensive correspondence with India to look far more closely than they had previously done to that item of their expenditure; and he could state that a firm in the City had thus been induced to use lighter paper and to adopt other expedients by which their expenses were diminished £5 a week on their inward and the same sum on their outward letters, so that the Post Office would receive from them £500 a year less than there had been received before the change that had recently been effected. He felt convinced that a similar course would he followed by other firms, and that the Treasury in the long run, instead of benefiting, would suffer by the increased rate of postage, which could be justified neither by expediency nor fairness. Referring to a recently issued Return, in which the net produce of the mails between the United Kingdom and India, &c, was estimated by deductions of the amounts paid to the French Government and to the colonies, and of £25,000, or 1d. out of the 13 d., for inland conveyance, he said that if the latter deduction were made, it would be equally fair to charge the Military Estimates with the sum saved to British soldiers and sailors. Commenting upon some discrepancies in Returns, he traced them to the natural tendency on the part of those who framed the Estimates to make the burden on the taxpayers in this country for Indian postage appear as large as possible. He had no intention of moving an Amendment, and he apologized to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Sclater-Booth) for having noticed his departure from the House when his absence was only temporary.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, the principle had been frequently laid down in that House that mail packet contracts ought to be thrown open to public competition. But he had heard it stated that that rule had not been followed in the case of the contract for the West India mail service, and he should be glad to receive some explanation upon that subject.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the House and of the Government a complaint made by the inhabitants of Penang. For a period
  838
  of twenty-two years the people of that colony had enjoyed direct postal communication with England; but they had been deprived of that advantage by the contract recently entered into with the Peninsular and Oriental Company. He had put a question on the subject, and had received a reply which left the impression that the Post Office would re-open negotiations with the Company, in order to remedy the grievance; and a communication was sent to the Secretary of the Company, setting forth the complaints that had been made since their steamers ceased calling at Penang. The Company offered to resume the old system provided their subsidy was increased by £5,000 a year. That offer was followed last month by a letter from the Post Office, stating that the Lords of the Treasury would not assent to such an arrangement. He believed that hitherto no case had occurred when after postal communication had been accorded to a colony it had been stopped without any compensation or equivalent being given to the colony. In regard to this particular colony it could be shown that at the time when the privilege was granted it was poor and unprotected, and yet in the course of twenty-two years it had increased enormously, and was still making rapid advances. This was obvious from the fact that one year's tonnage at Penang now was equal to the tonnage in the ten years preceding the establishment of postal communication. It was, however, now arranged that the mails should be taken from Singapore to Penang and back again to Singapore. But as the outward bound steamer touched at Singapore only three days before the homeward steamer from China touched there it would follow that the merchants at Penang would not be able to answer their letters for a fortnight. It could hardly be denied that this was a substantial grievance. And what was the reason for making the new arrangements? He was told that the only offer for carrying the mails to the East had proceeded from the Peninsular and Oriental Company; but, on the other hand, it should be borne in mind that Her Majesty's Government was the only body which could thus employ the Company, and that consequently the Government was perfectly able to insist that the Company's vessels should touch at Penang as before. Indeed, the contract contained a clause under which the Government could force on the Company the resumption of its former

  839
  duties as regards Penang, subject to such compensation as might be awarded by an arbitrator. The Company, however, had offered to perform the service for £5,000 extra, and therefore the cost to the country would be but slight when it was considered that the postage between Penang and this country produced between £2,000 and £3,000. He confessed himself unable to say very confidently whether the new system would expedite the transmission of correspondence between China and this country; but at all events the calling at Penang would only occupy fifteen hours longer. The Government was bound to consider whether it could not restore direct postal communication with Penang or make some arrangements which would give satisfaction to the colony. The conduct of the Post Office had been truly, ridiculous. He was not an advocate for an extravagant expenditure; but a stingy saving, which was not economy, had been effected, and it might result in starving one of our distant possessions without nourishing the Empire. Indeed, it would tend to deprive us of those collateral sources of wealth which established the prosperity of the country, and which were obtained by a liberal treatment of out dependencies. The question in reality was, whether the Post Office Department should lose between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum, or whether, on the other hand, the settlement of Penang should be wholly deprived of the facility and advantage of a prompt communication with this country.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERpointed out that under the old arrangement the steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Company touched at Malta; but under the new arrangements they had ceased to do so. At present our communications with that important dependency were made under most unsatisfactory circumstances—Italian steamers being employed to convey the mails to Sicily and thence to Malta. The communication between Sicily and Malta was only once a week, and the consequence was that there was unnecessary delay in the transmission of letters between Malta and this country. This was a great injustice to a dependency which had vastly increased in importance since the cession of the Ionian Islands. Malta was a great port and also a strong fortress, besides which it had the capabilities for becoming a dock for the whole of the Mediterranean. And yet, while knowing full well how important a place it was, the Government
  840
  had totally neglected the means of communication between this country and Malta, but had allowed the mail service to be performed by foreign steamers. The present service was dilatory, uncertain, and altogether unsatisfactory. If the Government did not take this matter up, he hoped the House would do so, in justice not only to Malta, but to this country also.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had been informed that the Government had not only not invited tenders for an intermediate monthly mail to the Cape of Good Hope, but had disregarded an uninvited tender, though it was lower than the contract made with the Peninsular and Oriental Company. In substance, that contract had been entered into last year; but it was not yet laid on the table of the House. If he had not been correctly informed, the fault was with the Department in not having furnished before now a correspondence which had been ordered for the use of Members. If contracts were laid on the table only a few days before the termination of the Session, the rule of producing them, that they might be approved or objected to within a month, was not kept in spirit.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKobserved that in the matter of postal contracts the public should be considered as well as merchants and owners of steam-packets, The Government were bound to view such questions in an economical light—not forgetting the taxpayers—and to see that the total sum received for postage, if it did not equal, should at least bear a considerable proportion to the amount paid for the contract. In many cases the subsidies were too large, and he thought better bargains might be made.
  MR. WYLDsuggested that the experiment of having the packets call at Falmouth should be tried, as that of having them call at Plymouth had not been considered successful.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he had received several communications from merchants and others on the subject brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), and he had accompanied that hon. Gentleman as one of a deputation on the subject to the Postmaster General. By a Resolution passed in 1860, all contracts extending over a period of years for the conveyance of mails by sea were required to be laid on the table of the House for a month, and the sanction of the House was necessary

  841
  to give them validity. When this question was first started by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrlon) the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, in consequence of the view which seemed to be taken by the House, he thought it would be undesirable to conclude the contract till the House should have had a further opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. Now, he took it that the rule respecting the laying of those contracts on the table had reference to a regular Session; but when Parliament held what he might call the Abyssinian Session last November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid this particular contract before the House on the 27th of that month, and proposed a Resolution giving it the approval of the House on the 29th. In a House of sixty-eight that Resolution was carried by 55 to 13. He thought that, under all the circumstances, that might be considered as snapping a division in favour of the contract. This case was one without precedent. Twenty-five years ago a postal communication was i given to Fenang. Since that time Penang had gone on improving. It had an increasing revenue, and that being so, there was no precedent for taking away from it postal advantages which it had been enjoying for a quarter of a century. The intention of Parliament had plainly been set aside, inasmuch as no opportunity had been afforded them of seeing the contract that was laid upon the table, while at the same time their representatives in this country were precluded from expressing their opinions as to its merits. It had always been the practice—a practice invariably adopted by Sir Rowland Hill—not to withdraw postal communications which had been once established, on the ground that the districts so convenienced failed to make a profitable return to the revenue, because it was found that, though a loss might be incurred for a few years, the very nature of such communication was to produce and create a development of correspondence, and so ultimately to make an ample return. As there was no precedent for withdrawing this communication from Penang, it only required, he felt sure, that the facts should be stated in order to obtain the alteration which was so much desired.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would endeavour, as far as he could, to answer the observations made by hon. Members, though the Committee would, he trusted, extend some indulgence to him, as much of
  842
  what had been referred to related to his predecessors in Office. In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) with reference to the increased charge levied upon letters sent to India, he would remind the Committee that the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company had entailed an additional expense of £300,000 a year upon the country. When he was asked if the new contract was a paying one, he could only say that, while the old contract was conducted at a loss of £82,000 a year, the new contract, even if the new rates returned what was anticipated, would involve a loss of £195,000 a year. He was far from denying that these matters ought to be regulated by considerations apart from a mere question of profit or loss to the revenue. The subject, however, had received a very fair share of attention in the short Session held before Christmas. The increased charge, as far as their present experience had gone, had fully answered their anticipations. At the time that increase was made it was contemplated that the result would be an increase of £37,000 a year to the revenue; but their experience hitherto had shown that something like an increase of £40,000 would be realized by a charge which, if heavier than that formerly imposed, was to a great extent justified by the increase of postal facilities. He admitted that it was an experiment, and that circumstances might occur which would render a change necessary; but, considering the enormous increase which they had to pay for the contract, he thought that it was but right that they should endeavour partly, at all events, to re-coup themselves by the imposition of an extra charge on those availing themselves of postal communication between England and India, The hon. Gentleman also complained of the reduction which was made in favour of the officers of the army and of the soldiers in India. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was not sure that the reduction in favour of the officers was altogether justifiable; but it should be remembered that those officers were stationed in India from no inclination of their own, but simply for the purpose of performing certain duties to their country, and the indulgence to them in this respect was something analogous to that which was made in their favour when travelling. The rates charged in the case of soldiers had always been lower than those exacted from the public, and he scarcely thought that any alteration in that

  843
  respect would be desired. The reduction had only been granted to officers of the army within a recent period, and might, perhaps, have arisen, to some extent, from the fact that a reduced rate had long been used in the case of officers of the navy and sailors. If that were so, it only showed how dangerous it was to establish a precedent, and how difficult it was to adhere to the strict path of rectitude after having once departed from it. The hon. Gentleman next complained as to the difference of charge between letters and parcels sent to India and those sent to Australia. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was not sufficiently informed on the point to account for the discrepancy alluded to by the hon. Gentleman; but he would cause inquiries to be made into the matter, although it might arise from the greater frequency of the communications in the one case than in the other. He could not, however, help thinking that the hon. Gentleman employed rather a suicidal argument when he said that in consequence of the increased charges those who sent to India so compressed their parcels and reduced the weight of the paper they used that they were enabled to send what they required at a less cost than formerly. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the facility with which he and his friends had overcome the difficulties placed in their way; but the hon. Gentleman and his friends could scarcely expect that the old rates would be recurred to unless he could guarantee that the paper formerly used should be again employed and the present compression be discontinued. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) had complained that the West India mail contract had not been thrown open to public competition. He had on several occasions, in answer to questions which had been put to him, stated that the old contract was renewed in consequence of the injury caused to the West India mail steamers by the hurricanes of last autumn. That Company had represented to the Government that an extension of the term, of which two years then remained unexpired, would enable them to raise fresh capital, re-construct their fleet, and carry on their affairs as before; and under the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a great deal of correspondence had passed on the subject, and after taking the advice of the Postmaster General and his very able staff, did not regard the proposal as unreasonable or improper. He was sorry that on a recent occasion he had been
  844
  unable to give his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Baring) a more satisfactory answer with regard to the postal communication with Penang. It was true that Penang was shut out by the terms of the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company from the advantage of the postal communication which it had hitherto enjoyed. But the objection taken to stopping at Penang was a very serious one—that it interfered to a certain extent with the direct communication with China and Japan, and that, if continued, would result in a delay of twenty-four hours. The postages received on account of Penang would not amount to one-half of the cost, but no doubt some arrangement might be come to between the authorities at Penang and Singapore, whereby some of the extra cost might be borne by them. The wants of these colonies had not been lost sight of by the Government, and it was hoped that some means might be adopted whereby the wants of those colonies might be complied with. With regard to the Malta mail, he said that one might, suppose, from the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer), that Malta, as well as Japan, was cut off from all communication with England. That, however, was not the case, for the Malta mail from Southampton, though not so speedy as could be wished, called at Malta every week, and there was a communication by overland mail viâ Marseilles. There were two mails in addition every week, one through Italy and the other from Marseilles by French steamers. Greater regularity might shortly be expected in the arrival and despatch of those mails. He was sorry that the contract and correspondence with reference to the Cape mails laid on the table had not been earlier in the hands of hon. Members, in which case the objection of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would have been satisfactorily met. It would be found advantageous both to the Government and the colony.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas perfectly aware that there was communication with Malta, but he complained that the communication was excedingly dilatory and uncertain; and a considerable improvement would he effected on the present system if the Government would run a steamer between Malta and Sicily.
  MR. HORSMANadmitted that the hon. Gentleman had given an explanation with respect to Penang with great fairness, but there was no precedent either at home or

  845
  abroad of postal communication being withdrawn from any community to which it had once been granted; and the Resolution of the House providing that the postal contract should be laid on the table for a certain period had practically not been carried into effect by the course which was adopted.
  Mr. T. BARINGurged the claims of Penang to improved postal communication.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENcalled attention to the inconvenience which arose in respect to answering letters arriving from Australia by the present arrangement for the arrival and departure of the mail steamers, the letters from Australia reaching this country after the mails had left. He had moved for a copy of the memorials from bankers and others presented to the Postmaster General on this subject on the 31st of March last; but the answer given was that the matter was still under consideration. What was wanted was a fortnightly mail to Australia.
  MR. O'BEIRNEasked if the Cape mail contract is to be entered into before hon. Members had an opportunity of seeing what that contract is?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the contract had been laid on the table, and would, be hoped, be in the hands of Members to-morrow. The question of a fortnightly mail to Australia was still under the consideration of the Postmaster General. No doubt there was inconvenience, in consequence of only four days being allowed to answer letters to Australia, but it was very difficult to arrange the mails so as to suit all places; but, in the course of another year, perhaps some more convenient arrangement might be devised. The expense of a fortnightly mail to Australia would be very great, and it was by no means clear that all the Australian colonies were of one mind on the subject.
  MR. CRAWFORDcomplained that while the postage of newspapers to Australia was only 1d, it was 2d. to India.
  MR. CHILDERSobserved that the difficulty was to meet the requirements at both ends, consistently with the arrangements for India and China. If another week were allowed for answering letters in this country, the result would be that the letters would arrive at Sydney two days after the homeward mail had left. On the existing basis, he believed that the present time-table was the beat that could be devised. He hoped hon. Members would
  846
  suspend their opinion till the correspondence was in their hands.
  In reply to Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE,
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHstated that there were two Italian mails from this country to Paris, but only one from Paris to Italy. The Post Office, however, had no power to remedy that inconvenience.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  TRADES SOCIETIES AND COMBINATIONS OF WORKMAN BILL.
  On Motion of Sir THOMAS FOWELL BUXTON, Bill to repeal and amend the Laws relating to Trade Societies and the Combinations of Workmen, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS FOWELL BUXTON and Mr. RICHARD YOUNG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 219.]

  NEW ZEALAND ASSEMBLY'S POWERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ADDERLEY, Bill to declare the powers of the General Assembly of New Zealand to abolish any Province in that Colony, or to withdraw from any such Province any part of the Territory thereof, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 216]

  VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Earl of MAYO, Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh years of Victoria, chapter filly-two, intituled "An Act to Further Extend and make Compulsory the practice of Vaccination in Ireland," ordered to be brought in by The Earl of MAYO and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]

  TITHE COMMUTATION, &C. ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to alter certain provisions in the Acts for the Commutation of Tithes, the Copyhold Acts, and the Acts for the Inclosure, Exchange, and Improvement of Land, and to make provision towards defraying the expense of the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Office, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 218.]
  House adjourned at half after Ono o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (221); Poor Law and Medical Inspectors (Ireland) * (222); Clerks of the Peace, & c. (Ireland)*(221); Fairs (Metropolis)* (223); Railway Companies * (226); Assignees of Marine Policies * (225).
Second Reading—West Indies [135]; Prisons (Scotland) Administration Acts (Lanarkshire) Amendment.* (202); New Zealand (Legislative Council)* (197); Admiralty Suits* (182); Renewable Leasehold Conversion (Ireland) Act Extension *(184); Registration (218).
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [No. 227].
Committee—Fairs*(141); Representation of the People (Ireland) (176); Reformatory Schools (Ireland)*(122); Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (190); Bank of Bombay*(196); County General Assessment (Scotland)*(190); Courts of Law Fees, & c. (Scotland)*(189).
Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings* (93–228); Fairs* (141); Representation of the People (Ireland) (176); Reformatory Schools (Ireland)* (122); County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction* (108); Medway Regulation Act Continuance* (199); Bank of Bombay* (196); County General Assessment (Scotland)* (190) Courts of Law Fees, & c. (Scotland)* (189).
Third Reading—Army Chaplains* (146); Vagrant Act Amendment* (138); Boundary* (170); Representation of the People (Scotland) (192).and passed.

WEST INDIES BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Duke of Buckingham.)
WEST INDIES BILL—(No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill for the relief of the Consolidated Fund from an annual payment of £20,300 for purposes connected with the Church of England in the West Indies. That grant originated in 1824, when the condition of the slave population having attracted much attention, among other measures for improving their condition preparatory to emancipation was one introduced on the Motion of Mr. Canning, for increasing the efficiency of the Church of England in those colonies. The Church had been established there for a long series of years, the parochial system having been introduced, and the clergy being subject to the Bishop of London; but the wants of the landowners and white population had been regarded in those arrangements rather than those of the slaves. Under these circumstances an immediate and considerable increase in the numbers of the clergy was necessary, and it was also requisite that ecclesiastical supervision nearer than that of Bishops in this country should be provided. Mr. Canning, in proposing the grant, said—
  "To provide the means of religious instruction and worship is an object first, indeed, in importance, but necessarily subsequent in order to those which I have already mentioned, because it is not till the slave population are raised in the scale of nature that they can be capable of comprehending or fitted to receive the blessings of Christianity. It is intended to increase the amount and widen the basis of the Ecclesiastical Establishment in the West Indies. That Establishment was founded for the benefit of the white population alone. It was no more calculated for the negro than for the brute animal that shares his toils. I am not stating this as a matter of charge, but as a matter of fact."—[2 Hansard, x. 1097.]
  It was not proposed by Mr. Canning as a permanent grant; but its object was to meet immediate and pressing wants, and from the first it was avowedly subject to such modifications as might be required from time to time, or to entire withdrawal; and, as a matter of course, it has been more than once discussed both with regard to the amount of the sum given and as to the mode of its application. Mr. Canning further said—

  785
  "One of the Episcopal Establishments is intended to be fixed at Jamaica, the other in the Leeward Islands. For the support of these Establishments it will not be necessary, for a time at least"—
  Your Lordships will remark these words, "for a time at least"—
  "that any demand should be made on the finances of the Islands."
  The grant was accordingly made, and in the first instance £14,000 of it was appropriated to the Bishops and archdeacons, while the remaining £6,300 was distributed among rectors and catechists. An alteration was soon found necessary with regard to the bishoprics, and a third see was constituted, the income originally allotted to two bishoprics being divided among three. Some years later the sees were further increased to five, and the amount paid to each Bishop has therefore been materially reduced, while the payment to the clergy has been distributed among a larger number of persons, new churches and rectors being admitted to a share in it. Among the changes also was a total repeal of the clause which gave pensions to Bishops appointed under the provisions of the Act. The reason why the withdrawal of the grant is now proposed is this—Last year a measure having that object, passed through several stages in the House of Commons without opposition, and that House was evidently of opinion that the grant had done its work, and that, while respecting existing interests, its continuance was unnecessary. That that is a correct view of the case is evident from the fact that when the giant was first made the whole sum appropriated by the various colonies to the maintenance of their clergy did not exceed £14,000 or £15,000 a year, so that the addition of the grant more than doubled the amount; whereas the sum now appropriated by them is about £60,000, so that the Imperial Votes form an augmentation of only a third. Moreover, the slaves were at that time incapable of holding property, and had no means of providing such spiritual ministrations as they might desire; but their descendants are now in many cases landed proprietors, and are not only able to subscribe, but do, in fact, subscribe considerable sums for religious purposes. Circumstances have thus entirely changed, and there is no reason why the Church in the West Indian colonies should be assisted out of the Imperial Revenue any more than those of our other colonies. Now, the provision for the West Indian
  786
  clergy being made, in most cases, by Ordinances or Acts renewable at intervals of eight or ten years, and it being in some of the islands about to undergo consideration, it is desirable that Parliament should declare its intentions with regard to the grant, in order that the colonies may know, in making their arrangements, whether it will be continued, and whether the appointments which have been allowed to remain vacant will be filled up. Now, as for some years, under the Governments of different parties, it has not been the practice to fill up appointments in the case of the higher order of clergy, it seems to me most desirable that these circumstances should be put an end to, and, therefore, in accordance with the general policy, the Government have come to the determination to propose the withdrawal of the grant, respect being had to vested interests. Before moving the second reading, I think it right to explain to the House that this question, of the abolition of the grant has no connection with the question of the suspension of certain appointments in Jamaica, with which the discussion the other night appears to have been to some extent mixed up. On the latter question a correspondence had arisen between my immediate predecessor and the Governor of Jamaica; but the question with which this Bill deals, on the contrary, has arisen altogether since I have had the honour of holding the Seals of the Colonial Office. Although this question has been mooted many years in Parliament as to whether the grant should be repealed, yet my predecessor in Office has not been mixed up with this particular Bill, to which I ask your Lordships now to give a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Duke of Buckingham).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I do not rise to offer a single word in opposition to the Bill, the second reading of which has been just moved by my noble Friend. I do not object to the Bill; though I can hardly concur in some of the reasons which he assigned for asking your Lordships to support the Bill. My noble Friend stated, as his first reason, that this measure, or many stages of it, had passed the House of Commons last Session without opposition. That, I hold, would be in itself a very poor and insufficient justification for asking your Lordships to agree to a measure if objectionable on other grounds. Nor do I quite

  787
  go along with my noble Friend when he says that the second reason which induced him to move the second reading is the great change which has occurred in the character of the population of the West Indies. I am afraid that population—changed possibly as it may be for the better in some respects—is still by no means in such a position as to dispense easily with the annual £20,000 which this Bill will take away from them. But, my Lords, as I said before, I shall not offer the smallest opposition to tills Bill; though I am bound to state to the House that it will fall as a very serious loss upon the Church in the West Indies. When I had the honour to hold the Seals of the Colonial Office, I was well aware that some considerable change—the ecclesiastical establishment of the West Indian Church—was coming. I foresaw from the temper of Parliament that it would not be disposed for very long to continue the grants which had been made; and when taking preparatory steps to endeavour to place the Church in the colonies in a somewhat better situation, I incurred at the time considerable reproach—reproach from those who thought this change was distant, but who now find that it is near. My Lords, the Church in the West Indies must fare like almost every other colonial Church. She must stand upon her own resources—so far, at least, as help and aid from this country are concerned; and I do not myself doubt, though her situation is not as favourable to her as in many other colonies, that she may gather strength and extend her ministrations by evoking sources of new latent strength—perhaps by means of Native clergy and Native catechists. My Lords, before I leave this point, I would suggest that when this Bill goes into Committee an Amendment may be introduced which will probably meet with the assent of both sides, to correspond with the clause introduced in the Canadian Clergy Reserves Act, and to enable the holders of life-interests to compound those interests for a gross sum which shall be paid into the hands of some trustees or other authorities. My Lords, I should be glad now to pause; but after the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few nights ago, when alluding to this Bill, I feel it due to the House and to myself to say a few words. My Lords, I may safely say my whole object, my chief desire whenever I have had the honour to address your Lordships, has been to confine myself
  788
  as closely and with as much accuracy as possible to any statement of facts which I may have to make, and in return for the constant kindness and indulgence which this House has shown me never to state any fact which, without full care and consideration on my part, I do not believe to be correct. But, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack coming down upon me a few nights since, I must say, with all that forensic skill of which he is so great a master, and with all that long professional training and practice which distinguish him so much in this House and elsewhere—left upon your Lordships the impression that I had grossly exaggerated, not to say misrepresented, certain facts, and that I had endeavoured to mislead your Lordships upon matters on which as having lately had the honour to hold the seals of the Colonial Office I was bound to be especially correct. Now, upon that point I will ask your Lordships' attention for a very few minutes—and I will beg the House to believe that I have no wish whatever to revive any asperities of the past debate or to say one word which can give reasonable offence to Her Majesty's Government or those who supported them on that occasion. My only and my sole controversy is with the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Now, there are two questions which the noble Duke who has just spoken (the Duke of Buckingham) carefully distinguished at the end of his speech; the first is the question with regard to the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments in the island of Jamaica, and the other is the question of the disendowment of the Church of England in the West Indies under this Bill to the extent of £20,000. My Lords, that first question of the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments requires little notice, because it is, as the noble Duke said, not immediately and directly connected with the Bill before your Lordships, and if it had been that the noble and learned Lord had charged me with an inaccuracy on that point I should not have thought it worth while to allude further to the subject. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) who moved the second reading of the Established Church (Ireland) Bill the other evening stated that a parallel existed between the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments in Jamaica and their proposed suspension in Ireland in the Bill which your Lordships have rejected; and I, following on a subsequent evening, en-

  789
  dorsed entirely all that my noble Friend had said on that part of the subject. For this I was taken to task by the noble and learned Lord, who stated that there was nothing whatever parallel between the two cases. Now, my Lords, I, on the contrary, can, without taking up your Lordships' time, show that there is a great deal that is parallel. The Established Church of England in the West Indies, as in Ireland, is the Church of the few; it is also the Church of the rich few; it is a Church whose clergy, as educated men scattered in the midst of a far less educated race, stand in very much the same relation to the population in the West Indies as the clergy of the Established Church do to the population of Ireland. And what was the suspension of these ecclesiastical appointments? In Ireland, the Irish Suspensory Bill provided that the vacancies of sees and certain ecclesiastical offices that occurred should not be filled up for the space of one year—to do what?—to enable Parliament to consider whether, at the end of that time, it should not make modifications, reductions, and, on the admission of Her Majesty's Government itself, even a total abolition of the Ecclesiastical Establishment. And what was the Suspensory measure with regard to Jamaica? It provided that ecclesiastical vacancies among the clergy—not the Bishops—should not be filled up for the space of between two and three years, with the view that at the end of that period Her Majesty's Government might consider whether or not modifications, reductions, and even total abolition should not be enacted. And I say "total abolition" on the authority of a report which I saw in the paper of an Answer given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) about ten days since, in which he stated that no steps Her Majesty's Government were taking in this matter would preclude if desirable in the opinion of Parliament, the total abolition of the West Indian Church. My Lords, that, I think, is sufficient to justify the noble Earl and myself in saying that there was a strong parallel in principle between the two cases. But then the noble and learned Lord read a despatch from Sir John Grant, recommending to the Secretary of State this scheme, and he subsequently read a despatch from the Secretary of State approving it; and then be turned round on me, and, in a manner which brought down cheers unnumbered on my head, he said, "Shall I tell the House how the case really stands? Why, can it be possibly believed that the sig-
  790
  nature appended to that despatch was the signature of the Earl of Carnarvon?" Why, my Lords, I never denied—I never dreamt of denying—that I sanctioned the Suspensory scheme in Jamaica just as I voted for a Suspensory scheme in Ireland. I am at a loss to understand where is the inconsistency. The noble and learned Lord seems to have given me even greater credit for consistency than I ventured to claim for myself. And now I come to the subject really before the House—namely, this Bill—and upon this ground the noble and learned Lord attacked me severely. I had stated that this Bill, which withdraws the £20,000 originally granted to the West Indian Church, was a disendowment. The noble and learned Lord denied the justice of the term so applied. He said—and I will give you his very words—referring to the West Indian Church—
  "Nothing whatever has been done, nothing whatever is proposed to be done altering in any manner the establishment of Bishops, archdeacons, and clergy in the way in which it has subsisted ever since it had any existence."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now, let me ask your Lordships to consider what the real facts are. My noble Friend the noble Duke stated them to your Lordships. Allow me to re-state them in a few words. The West Indian bishoprics had no existence before the year 1824. In that year the Crown, by letters patent, created these bishoprics. In the very next Session Parliament passed the Act which is here repealed, and that Act recited that the Crown had by letters patent constituted these three bishoprics; that the right of appointment was in the Crown; and it then proceeded to assign for the support and sustentation of these bishoprics the sum of £20,000 from the Consolidated Fund; providing, lastly, that if the 4½ per cent duties in the colony should reach a certain point, that sum of £20,000 should be transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the 4½ per cents. In the following year—1826—there was another Act, an amending Act, which simply apportioned part of this £20,000 among some of the minor clergy. From 1826 to 1842 I can find no trace of any legislative action on the subject; but, in 1842, another Act was passed, enabling the Crown to subdivide these dioceses, and diminish the stipends assigned to the clergy and Bishops without any increase of the gross sum of £20,000. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that no bishoprics were in existence prior to 1824, that then they

  791
  were created by letters patent; that an endowment was provided for them; that that endowment remained untouched up to 1842, though power was given and has been used of re-distributing the grant within the sphere and limits of the West Indian Church, just in the same way as the noble and learned Lord on a former occasion argued that the funds of the Irish Church ought to be re-distributed for the benefit of the Irish Church itself. I say, therefore, that so far as Act of Parliaments are concerned, if this is not the case of an endowment I am really at a loss to understand what an endowment is. But I may make my ground stronger still. In 1842, when my noble Friend Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, introduced the Bill as Colonial Secretary, what did he state to the House of Commons? Why, that he proposed this measure for the subdivision of the existing dioceses only after consultation with the heads of the Church, and after receiving their approbation; thus clearly implying that the West Indian Church was intimately connected in interests and policy with the Established Church of this country. In the debate which followed Mr. Pakington thanked Lord Stanley for what he had done, and went on to state that for his part he always declared that wherever the authority of the British Crown existed, proper provision should be made for the Established Church. On the other hand, a noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyveden), then Mr. Vernon Smith, warned Lord Stanley not to establish Bishops in every colony, because nothing could be more detrimental, especially to the Church of England itself, than the establishment in all the colonies of the State religion of this country. That, therefore, in general, public, Parliamentary repute was the view taken of this Act.And if you go further you find undoubtedly the same view taken. I find no further allusion to these bishoprics until 1866, when Mr. Remington Mills complained that these Bishops were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of this country; and what was the answer of my predecessor, Mr. Cardwell, upon the subject? He said that the general views of Parliament and the country with respect to—what?—with respect to these "ecclesiastical endowments" had very much changed since the passing of the Act imposing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, I think I was warranted in speaking of this Church in the West Indies as an Estab-
  792
  lished Church, and of the money granted to it as an endowment. It is possible that—though I do not stop to argue the point—some persons may attempt to draw a distinction between income derived by the Church from tithe and income derived under statute. I confess I am at a loss to understand the grounds for such a distinction. The tithes rest on the security of the land from which those tithes are derived; money granted out of the Consolidated Fund by Act of Parliament is based on the security, not of one piece of land, but of the whole of the land and property of the country; and I am at a loss to understand what can be more binding or trustworthy than an Act of Parliament passed under such conditions as I have described. But the noble and learned Lord did not content himself with contradicting the accuracy of my statement with regard to the use of the word endowment. He went on to say that this was simply a transfer from Imperial to colonial funds. In order that there may be no mistake he will allow me to read his very words, He said—
  "The colonists are, I believe, perfectly ready to make provision for the payment of the Bishops and parochial clergy; and the whole of this great question of the disendowment of the Church in Jamaica turns out to be simply this—the transfer of the burden of £20,000 from the Imperial Exchequer to the Colonial Exchequer."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now, I have examined these three Acts and I take on myself to say that there is not a word in any one of them with reference to such a transfer; and if it is not effected by virtue of anything in these Acts, how else can the transfer take place? As to the alleged readiness of the colonists to accept those burdens, it is true that I have resigned the Seals of the Colonial Office for a year and a half, and of course can know nothing of what may have passed since then; but no satisfied am I that the noble and learned Lord could have had no warrant for this statement that I will take the responsibility of saying that I am fully satisfied there can be no disposition on the part of these colonists to accept the burden; I am satisfied that there is little power on their part to accept it, even if they were so disposed; and I cannot, therefore, believe the statement which the noble and learned Lord unadvisedly, and I am sure unintentionally, made to this House. I must ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can produce any evidence, direct or indirect,

  793
  great or small, to show that the colonists have ever expressed in the smallest degree their readiness to accept this burden. I think I might safely go further, and ask the noble and learned Lord to produce a single despatch previous to the debate on the Irish Church in this House, in which the colonists have been even invited by the Government to accept that burden. If I am wrong in this statement which I now make I shall be the first to apologize for it; but if, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord has no evidence to produce in support of his statement, I hope that his sense of candour and fairness will lead him to acknowledge that that statement was wholly without foundation. Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord has contradicted me equally pointedly on another question of fact, and I beg the House to pay particular attention to it. He says—
  "From a very early period the dignitaries of the Church were supported by the colonies. The distress in the islands arising from emancipation was so great for the time, that the Parliament of England, as a matter of charity and as an eleemosynary gift, was content to pay out of the funds of the mother country, a sum of £20,000 a year in order to eke out and complete the salaries of some, not all, but a certain number of the Bishops and their archdeacons in those islands."—[3 Hansard, cxciii. 261.]
  Now I am sorry to say that in these half-dozen lines the noble and learned Lord has fallen into not less than three distinct errors. In the first place, before emancipation, these Bishops as I have shown, were not supported by the colonies at all. In the next place, this sum of £20,000 has not been granted to eke out and complete the salaries. I believe that the Bishops have almost if not wholly and solely depended upon that grant. Thirdly, I deny that the distress arising from emancipation was in any degree or shape the cause of this endowment of the bishoprics. It is obvious it could not be so. Negro emancipation was passed in 1833, and the Act which gave this endowment was passed in 1825. That is my answer to this charge, and I do not care to make any further comment on it. Lastly, the noble and learned Lord told me I was so blinded with anger against the Government that I was ready to make a thrust whenever I could, and therefore that I had magnified what was "a very simple and commonplace transaction" into a matter of great importance Now, let this question be judged, whether or no it is a very simple and commonplace transaction, not from anything I say, but
  794
  from the words of a Colleague of the noble and learned Lord. I find that on the 13th of April last year Mr. Remington Mills, a Gentleman I believe of advanced Liberal opinions in the House of Commons, introduced a Bill which, with the exception of a single clause, was substantially the same as the measure now before the House. Mr. Adderley, on behalf of the Government and the Colonial Office, said he should not oppose the Bill, but he pointed out that it was in a very improper state to pass, and he went on to say—
  "The measure ought to be accompanied by considerable safeguards, for anything like a precipitate repeal of the Acts in question might lead to the production of great mischief, to injustice to individuals, and injury to the Church, and might even involve a breach of faith with the colonists of the West Indies. Not only must existing interests be saved, but the power of gradual reduction must be somewhere reserved, as also the power of anticipating vacancies."
  That Bill then and this being substantially the same, I must ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is fair to describe a measure which is "fraught with great mischief, injustice to individuals, injury to the Church, and possible breach of faith with the colonists of the West Indies," as a simple and commonplace transaction. I do not care to pursue this any further. I am indebted to your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me. I have studiously avoided by any word of mine reopening any part of the debate on the Irish Church. What I have said has been said in vindication of my own character, which was assailed for inaccuracy. The noble and learned Lord lectured me very severely, and he lamented that he was obliged to point out to me, who had been Colonial Secretary, the errors I had made in the matter of colonial fact. I leave it now to the House and to every impartial person to judge between the noble and learned Lord and myself, and to say which of the two has been most accurate. My Lords, I did not wish to say one word more, but when the noble and learned Lord uses that great skill and forensic power, to which I am the first to pay my tribute of respect, to charge an humble Member of your Lordships' House like myself with attempting to exaggerate and to mislead, and when that individual labours as I did under the disadvantage of being unable from the rules of the House to reply, and feels himself very far inferior to the noble and learned Lord

  795
  in rhetorical power, I think it would have been fairer and more generous if the noble and learned Lord himself were to measure his own statements of fact by a standard of the most precise accuracy.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of reopening the debate on the Irish Church. The noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Carnarvon) laments that statements were made by me when he had not the opportunity of replying. The noble Earl has had an opportunity, not often the lot of those who take part in debate, of replying, after an interval of several days, to the statements which I made. That advantage I do not in the slightest degree grudge the noble Earl. And now first as to the question he has asked me. He has asked me whether the statements I made in reference to the position of the Church in Jamaica were correct. I said that the grant of £20,000 a year had been made by Parliament as an eleemosynary grant in consequence of the state to which the islands had been reduced by emancipation. In point of fact the grant was made some years before emancipation took place. If the noble Lord thinks that material to the argument,—if he thinks it in the slightest degree affects the argument I advanced, he is perfectly welcome to my full admission. Even as to that I must remind the noble Earl that in a speech of Mr. Canning, which has been quoted to-night, he spoke of the ground of the grant as being the condition of the colony, not by reason of emancipation, which had not then been granted, but by reason of the necessity of ameliorating the condition of the people, which was one of the grounds of the subsequent emancipation. The noble Earl asked me further whether I was correct in saying that the grant of £20,000 was for the purpose of eking out the resources of the Church in the Islands. I certainly maintain that it was, and the noble Earl, had he heard the statement of my noble Friend to-night, would have known that the Church in the islands had possessions which brought in something like £50,000 a year, and this £20,000 a year went to eke out and supplement that income. I do not know in what shape the property was, but I think the noble Duke said it was worth something like £50,000 or £60,000 a year. The noble Earl also asked me what authority I had for saying that the colonists were willing to take upon themselves the burden. I said I believed the colonists
  796
  were prepared to provide for their Bishops and their parochial ministers; I said that, as soon as the present Bill received the Royal Assent, they would be invited by the Home Government so to do; and I added, whether they did or did not, in my opinion it did not matter a pin's point in the argument. I maintained that the donation we gave in aid of the funds of the island was not in any sense establishment or endowment, and that the action which would take effect under the Bill would amount to neither disendowment nor disestablishment. I have already stated that I do not in any respect grudge the noble Earl the advantage of his reply to-night; but with reference to the arguments I advanced and the statements I made, beyond what I have now said I have nothing to retract, qualify, or explain. I am perfectly willing that the statements I made and the arguments I urged should go forth to your Lordships and the country with the reply of the noble Earl to-night, and I leave your Lordships and the public to judge whether that which was the main topic of my observations, the original attack of the noble Earl on Her Majesty's Government, was or was not warranted.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not rise to re-open the Irish Church debate, but to say that I am most willing on my part to rest what little share of responsibility I have in introducing this matter first to your Lordships' notice upon the statement which was made by the noble Earl opposite, and the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, however, there is one other question I should like to ask; and I wish to do it in guarded words, so as not to re-open what is past. Your Lordships may remember the severe censure which was passed upon us by Her Majesty's Ministers for not immediately retracting and apologizing for certain declarations, and it was said that it was usual in this House, when an attack was made on any Member of this House for anything he might have said, and he had completely and fully answered, that attack, that a retractation of that charge should be made. I will not go into what might be said to show the difficulties of our position at that moment, but I admit in the fullest degree the general principle which was laid down by noble Lords opposite. I really wish to know what are the peculiar circumstances in which the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) stands that, twice during the last ten days, he has been made a

  797
  marked exception to this rule? The other day he made a statement, to which he has referred this evening, with regard to the Church in the colonies. He was taunted with being inaccurate; but I think he has proved that he was absolutely correct in what he then stated. And yet no single word of apology has been offered him. On the other occasion I refer to, an opinion was imputed to the noble Earl on quite another subject—that of the Abyssinian War. The noble Earl denied that he had ever held that opinion, and the only excuse or retractation he got was that the noble Earl who made the imputation said that for the future he should never believe his own cars. I should be glad to hear it stated what are the peculiar circumstances which prevent the application of an honourable rule in his case.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) is a most extraordinary one. He says that he brought a totally unfounded charge against Her Majesty's Ministers and refused to retract it; and then, because two perfectly fair charges are brought against my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), he complains that those who bring them do not retract them.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I do not wish to continue the criminations and recriminations of the discussion; but I have to offer an explanation in reference to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said the other evening as to the expression made use of by the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) respecting the Abyssinian War. I have to state that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) afterwards referred to Hansard, in which there was a report of a speech by my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) which entirely justified the reference that was made to it. I think it right to make this statement in justification of Lord Derby, who is not now in the House.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I am extremely sorry the noble and learned Lord should have made that statement, because I also referred to Hansard, and satisfied myself that I was in the right. I am prepared to submit to any impartial jury the question whether there was the smallest foundation for what my noble Friend said. On the contrary, I totally deny having offered the recommendation imputed to me that a military dash should be made into Abyssinia. I recommended
  798
  a diplomatic mission, and the two things are wholly inconsistent.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: The noble Earl thought that a regiment or a regiment and a half would be quite sufficient to enforce that mission.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am getting quite accustomed to the character of these debates, and I venture to suggest that we are already travelling in the direction of those warm latitudes to which I alluded the other night. Although I have not long been a Member of your Lordships' House, I diligently read the reports of your Lordships' proceedings in the newspapers, and if my recollection serves me it is quite clear that what my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Carnarvon) wanted was an Embassy which should be properly protected. Lord Derby, however, understood my noble Friend to say that the Embassy was to fulfil all the purposes of a military expedition. Now I think a little consideration will show that the two things are wholly distinct from each other; but whether my noble Friend was right or wrong, his proposal had nothing to do with the Expedition under Sir Robert Napier. As to the thorny subject which has been brought forward this evening, I think that in reference to one, and that to the smallest part of it, my noble Friend was distinctly right; while in reference to the other, he, in reality, merely begged the question which is at issue between those who are in favour of and those who are opposed to the Irish Church Establishment. As far as the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum are concerned, I hold that the parallel between Ireland and Jamaica is complete. To withdraw those two grants is exactly the same thing as the withdrawal of the support which Parliament gave to the West Indian Church. In regard, however, to the Irish Church, I think my noble Friend, who alluded contemptuously to certain persons who believe there is a difference between the inherited property of a corporation and sums voted annually by Parliament, thereby indicated the confusion which had arisen in his own mind. We on this side of the House contend, whether rightly or wrongly, that the property of the Irish Church depends on something totally different from the sanction given by Parliament, when sums are voted out of the Consolidated Fund, We contend, in point of fact, that the Church depends on sanctions analogous in character to those by virtue of which my

  799
  noble Friend holds his own property. That, I believe, constitutes the great difference between us and the noble Lords opposite on the subject of the Irish Church property. It is a difference of principle; and if my noble Friend overlooked that difference of principle, and also the fact that numbers of people hold the views which he thinks absurd, I can easily understand how he imagined that in withdrawing the grant to the West Indian Church the Government were going in an opposite direction to that indicated by the policy which they pursued on the question of the Irish Church. That, I think, was the way in which the confusion of the noble Earl arose. I have ventured to make these few remarks, but, although only a young Member of your Lordships' House, I must earnestly protest against the growing practice of devoting, in the midst of the important questions which we have to decide, and of the serious problems which come up to us for solution, so much valuable time to the discussion of purely personal questions.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDthought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) had completely vindicated himself from the charge of inaccuracy that had been brought against him. With respect to the general subject then under their Lordships' consideration he was of opinion that it would not be possible to continue the policy hitherto pursued towards the colonies; and he was therefore prepared to support the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that if he might trust to his memory the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) said he thought the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Carnarvon) wished to have a flying squadron sent to Abyssinia, and suggested that perhaps the noble Earl might wish to have the Hampshire Yeomanry Cavalry despatched to that country. ["Question !"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not enter into the general question, but wished to ask the noble Duke the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the colonists were ready, or had at any time been invited, to take this increased burden upon themselves?
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM: No application has yet been made to the colonies asking them to assume the charge for the episcopal supervision of those sees, which will be unprovided for, as far as regards the Imperial salaries, on the death of the present holders. The communications
  800
  which I have had with those who hold the most important sees in the West Indian colonies lead me to believe that there will not be any difficulty on the part of the colonists in providing out of their own resources for episcopal supervision, on the scale which is usual at present in our colonial dioceses. It is true that that is not such a provision as was contemplated years ago, when the grant was established, but still it has been found sufficient throughout our colonial possessions. With regard to the houses, lands, and certain allowances appertaining to the bishops, and which have been granted in the colonies, they will, of course, stand just as they did before the passing of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Earl of Longford.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 176.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the said Bill read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid that, as a measure of Parliamentary Reform, this Bill was a mockery and an absurdity. What was required in Ireland was not an extension of the franchise so much as a redistribution of seats. Anomalies existed in Ireland which could not be justified on any ground; and it seemed to him that it was precisely because there was so much to be done in that direction that no attempt at re-distribution had been made. It was evident that another Irish Reform Bill would have to be introduced next year. This measure conferred the franchise on the most doubtful class to which it could be extended in Ireland. He would not detain their Lordships by going into statistics on this subject further than to refer to one or two facts which would be found in a Paper laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament, though not communicated to their Lordships' House. He alluded to a Paper showing the population and the number of the electors in the different counties and boroughs in Ireland. It was evident from this Paper that there were very striking anomalies in connection with the representation of Ireland. There were eighteen boroughs, the largest of which, Lisburn,

  801
  had only 302 electors; of which one, Portarlington, had only ninety-two electors; and most of which had under 200 electors: and yet each of these boroughs returned a Member; while an important county containing 1,000 electors, and having within it no boroughs, returned only two Members. Such anomalies as these showed the absolute necessity of introducing a measure which should deal with the distribution of the seats, so far as Ireland was concerned. Again, it was impossible that the populous, wealthy, and increasing district to the south-east of the city of Dublin could remain without direct representation, and the ninety-two electors of such miserable places as Portarlington continue to return a Member. He had no intention of opposing this Bill; but he protested against the notion that it was a measure which would settle the question of Reform in Ireland, because he foresaw that within a year or two it would be necessary to take up the question of the re-distribution of the representation in that country.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had intended to say a few words on the provisions of the Bill, even if the noble Marquess had not thought it necessary to refer to the subject. It was to be remembered that this was not the Bill originally introduced by the Government for the amendment of the representation of the people in Ireland in Parliament. The Government had introduced a Bill, by the provisions of which certain small boroughs in Ireland would have been abolished, and among them Portarlington—which he believed was the smallest borough in the kingdom—whose Member would have been given to the City of Dublin. That Bill, however, met with so small an amount of favour in the House of Commons that the Government were obliged to give up that scheme of re-distribution. Another part of the original scheme for Ireland was a revision of the electoral boundaries by a Commission; but it had since been determined that the boundaries should be settled by the Bill. Though in the Bill before their Lordships the qualification in boroughs was named at £4, practically the borough franchise in Ireland would be the same as that in England—as in the former country premises valued at under £4 were exempted from payment of rates. There was a lodger franchise for Ireland, as well as for England and Scotland. A noble Earl (the Earl of Bandon) had given Notice of two Amendments;
  802
  but they were not Amendments to which the Government could assent; and he therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not press them.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he was disposed to accept this Bill as it stood, because, notwithstanding the anomalies in the Irish representation pointed out by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanvicarde), he thought the measure was sufficient for the present time. His reason for saying this was that, taking the general question of representation, he thought it could not be said that the Irish boroughs generally had more than a fair proportion of representation in relation to the counties. It therefore seemed to him that it would be better for Parliament to wait for some years and see whether there were not some large and increasing towns, such as Belfast, entitled to additional representation before they made any change in the distribution of seats. With regard to a "hard and fast line," which was so strongly repudiated by the Government last year, he might observe that in England and Scotland we had it in respect of the county and the lodger franchises, and in Ireland it was now to be extended even to the boroughs. He was led to the conclusion, therefore, that either the pretence put forward last year was a false one—which he thought it was—or that the Government had departed from their own principles.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he would point out one of the anomalies of Parliamentary representation in Ireland, which he desired to see rectified. The large county of Cork in which he resided, contained no less than 15,995 voters, who only returned two Members; while four boroughs in the same county had a collecive constituency of only 814 voters, where turned four Members to the House of Commons. Even under the present Bill the whole constituency of these boroughs would not exceed 1,760, and, probably, would not be more than 1,300 or 1,400 voters. The Irish Reform Bill of 1850 had, unfortunately, given up the principle that the county franchise should be based upon property, and he still retained the opinion which he expressed at the time that this was a step in the direction of equal electoral divisions. He looked upon the lodger franchise as applied to Ireland with considerable distrust, for he could not forget that before the Bill of 1850 the great complaint was the swearing on both sides as to the value of the holdings. He had

  803
  presented a petition that evening from certain influential citizens of Dublin having houses in the neighbourhood, stating that they were much nearer to Dublin than formerly by means of the railway, but that they were still outside the seven-mile line, and urging that they should be allowed to vote within a distance of twelve miles. As to the Amendments, of which he had given Notice, he was willing to withdraw them for the present; but he trusted that at some future time a Bill for the re-distribution of seats in Ireland would be brought before their Lordships' House.
  House in Committee; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 218.)
(The Lord Chancellor,)
REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 218.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the object of this Bill was to make those arrangements with regard to registration which would allow of the dissolution of Parliament at the earliest possible moment. The contents of the Bill were entirely matters of detail, which would be best discussed in Committee, and he would, therefore simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 220.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 220.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the Amendment, of which he had given notice, relative to the Boundaries of Glasgow, said, that the districts which he proposed to add to that place were virtually parts of the city, Govan comprising part of the harbour, and Partick containing the site of the now University, and were so identified in every way with the city that they ought to form part of it for electoral purposes. This could hardly be accounted a party question, for the Corporation of Glasgow,
  804
  which was, he believed, one of the most liberal Corporations in the country, had petitioned in favour of the extension. It was true that some of the inhabitants of these districts objected to the proposal, their fear being that it would be followed by their inclusion within the municipality, and that they would so become liable to taxation for municipal purposes; but that could only be done by a special Act, when they would have an opportunity of showing cause against it. He believed they would be unable in that case to show any sufficient cause, for it was very important, for drainage, police, and other purposes, that every portion of what was really one city should be comprised in one jurisdiction. At present, however, only the Parliamentary boundary was to be dealt with, and the House of Commons having decided this question by a narrow majority of 5, it seemed to him fair to give them an opportunity of re-considering it. Amendments had been already adopted, the consideration of which would probably occupy the House of Commons only a few minutes, and he did not anticipate that there would be any protracted discussion on this point—so that the progress of the Bill would not be delayed; for, in the event of the other House refusing to agree to the Amendment, he should not, ask their Lordships to insist upon it.
  Moved, at the end of the Bill to add the following clause:—
  "That the Boundaries of the City of Glasgow shall, until otherwise directed by Parliament, be those specified in Schedule (K.) hereunto annexed."—(The Lord Redesdale.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was not sorry that the noble Lord had given him an opportunity of discussing the general bearings of the Bill, on which hitherto no observations had been offered in their Lordships' House, it not being usual to debate the principles of a measure brought in by the Government and accepted with trifling alterations by the Opposition. He regarded it as, on the whole, a very satisfactory solution of the Reform question with regard to Scotland. On some points, indeed, the Liberal party had been unsuccessful in the other House; but on others the Government had been defeated, and the Bill he thought might be regarded as very much of the nature of a compromise. He was glad that the Government had as regards Scotland been obliged to give way on the question of a rating franchise

  805
  in counties. A rating franchise had two meanings; in counties its object was to take the rateable instead of the value column, while in boroughs its object was to make the payment of rates a condition of the suffrage—and this was quite a different question from rateable value in the other sense. In Scotland a rating franchise in counties would have been quite unworkable; and after full discussion the Government had agreed to a franchise founded upon actual value, which was the basis of almost all rates in Scotland except the poor rate, and was, he believed, the best system. Had it been necessary to raise the question in this House, it could have been shown that the anomalies and absurdities of a rating qualification would have been greater in Scotland than in England; and the Government, by accepting a £14 rental instead of a £12 rating franchise, had shown that they could easily have accepted a similar basis in the case of England, and that no "principle" is involved except that of public convenience. In England the tenant might pay through his landlord or any other person, but must pay the full rate, compounding being abolished; whereas in Scotland the practice was for the tenant and the landlord to pay half the rate each—and this system would continue in force. As regards the borough franchise he thought the Bill had satisfactorily settled the question, for he did not deny the expediency of excluding from the borough franchise those who were unable to pay even half the poor rates. A noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) complained a few nights ago of the English Act of last Session having been tampered with, and of Scotland having invaded England and carried off blackmail in the shape of seven seats. Now, he (the Duke of Argyll) had never contended for a re-distribution of political power as between the two countries, founded either on taxation or population, for he did not consider that Scotchmen had any special grievances, and they were allowed by their English friends to manage their own affairs very much as they pleased. He wished, therefore, for no re-distribution founded on taxation or population, though if such grounds were considered Scotland could make out a fair claim for additional scats. The only claim he had ever made was that particular constituencies of such magnitude and importance that were they in England they would be allotted a second or third seat, ought not to be denied that
  806
  privilege simply because they were in Scotland. He did not think the independent Members of their Lordships' House had any great reason to complain because seven seats were taken from England. He did not believe there was anyone who in his heart supposed that it would be possible in the next Parliament that all the small boroughs in England should retain their Members. Up to the present time no county in Scotland had had two representatives, while several of the smallest in England had two Members, and some of them had more. It could hardly be considered unreasonable, therefore, to give a second representative to a few counties in Scotland which had made such enormous advances in wealth and commercial importance. Many Conservatives thought it a point of policy that county constituencies should be composed almost exclusively of landed proprietors and tenant farmers, and that the urban element should be eliminated. It was on that principle that the Amendment to extend the boundaries of Glasgow was sustained. But that was a very dangerous policy, even from a Conservative point of view; because it should not be forgotten that there were many boroughs which were called town constituencies, but which were nothing in reality but small counties and belonged as exclusively to the agricultural interest as any county in England. If, therefore, they were to have a revision of boundaries, any Commission that might be appointed should be left perfectly free to deal with these so-called boroughs. Now, the case for the extension of the boundaries of Glasgow was, instead of being very strong, a very weak one. It was perfectly true that in the other House the Government proposed to include Govan and Partick within the Parliamentary limits, and upon that they were defeated; but they never ventured to propose such an extension as was contemplated by the Amendment that was now submitted to their Lordships, Such an Amendment had indeed been placed upon the Paper, but it had never been carried to a division. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had talked of part of these suburbs being within the natural boundaries of Glasgow; but he (the Duke of Argyll) could assure the House from his own knowledge that these districts extended far beyond what could be at all considered as properly included within it. His noble Friend had appealed to the desire of the municipality of

  807
  Glasgow to take in the suburbs; but in February last a Petition had been presented from the magistrates of Glasgow, in which they prayed that four Members should be given to the city, and if it was decided not to give four Members then that the Parliamentary boundary should not be enlarged. It might be said that they had changed their minds when they found they could get only three Members; but the reason for that was because they wished to bring the whole of the inhabitants of the outlying districts within the area of Glasgow taxation. The inhabitants of those districts, on the other hand, resisted because they had a taxation of their own, and they feared that if brought within the municipality of Glasgow their taxation would be grievously increased. The population of Glasgow was somewhere about 450,000; and if this area, which had about 62,000 inhabitants, were added to it, the whole population of the city would be largely in excess of 500,000, and the number of voters would be between 60,000 and 70,000. A great many people therefore said that they would be entirely swamped by this immense mass of voters; and most of the intelligent inhabitants of the outlying districts did not desire to be taken within the city, because they would lose their county votes. On these and on other grounds, he thought it would be very inexpedient if that House was to interfere with the natural right of the House of Commons to define the boundaries of its own constituencies.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he must defend the Government against the charge of having abandoned their fundamental policy of taking rating instead of rental as the basis of the franchise. The state of Scotland was so peculiar and so different from that of every other part of the United Kingdom, that it would have been impossible to adhere in that country to all the provisions of the English Reform Bill; for there were parishes in Scotland where there were no rates at all, and consequently had the rating principle been adhered to it would have introduced nothing but confusion. But with regard to the essential principle of the payment of rates, the Government had adhered to their principle in the other House, and had successfully vindicated that principle. But with regard to the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale), he could only repeat what had been already stated as to the course the Government intended to pursue. What the opinion of the Govern-
  808
  ment was had been sufficiently indicated by the Amendments proposed by the noble Duke at the head of the Post Office (the Duke of Montrose) in regard to the Boundary Bill. But the same considerations which had weighed with the Government in the case of the Boundary Bill had weighed with them also with respect to this Bill—they did not think it right to interpose any obstacle in the way of passing those measures which they considered absolutely necessary to be carried before the close of the Session. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to his noble Friend not to press his Amendment; and if his appeal should be unsuccessful he should be compelled to divide against him.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he would not say more than a few words, as the Government had announced their intention not to support the Amendment. But he must say he felt some little surprise that the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) should be the person to bring forward this Amendment—particularly after the part which he had taken in respect of the English Reform Bill of lost year. On that occasion the noble Lord said that for this House to deal with the question of enfranchising or disfranchising boroughs was almost unconstitutional; it might be within the letter of the law, but certainly was a strain upon the Constitution. But was not an interference with the limits of boroughs in principle the same, seeing that you thereby affected one way or the other the franchise of a great number of persons? He thought that it was a mere question of degree between the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of boroughs and the alteration of borough limits.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not see any inconsistency at all. What he stated last year was that it was a very delicate thing to disfranchise a borough which had perhaps enjoyed the franchise for centuries, and which the other House of Parliament, to which the question more especially belonged, did not think should be disfranchised. On the other hand, to say that in determining the question of Reform this House had not a right to give an opinion upon the boundaries of one of the boroughs affected by the Bill was really to limit the power of this House to an extent which he thought would not be contemplated by anybody in his senses. He should press his Motion to a division, because he felt bound to assert the independ-

  809
  ence of this House, which had been most unfairly treated with regard to this Bill. Every Member of the Government admitted that his Amendment was a proper one; it could not interfere in any way with the passing of the Bill, and being admittedly a proper Amendment he hoped that their Lordships would support it.
  LORD LYVEDENwished to say a word on the inconsistency of the Government, who proposed this year the very thing which they strenuously objected to last year. Last year there was to be no disfranchisement of boroughs; but this year seven boroughs were taken away from the English representation by one small clause in the Scotch Bill, and no reason whatever was assigned why it was done. He thought some notice ought to have been taken of this before the third reading, and nothing but the necessity of passing the Scotch Bill at the present time would induce him to acquiesce in it.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 13; Not-Contents 53: Majority 40.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Churston, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Clarina, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Denman, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Coventry, E.

  Romney, E.

  Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Halifax, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Templetown, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Belper, L.

  Mar. lborough, D.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Camoys, L.

  Abercorn, M.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Airlie, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Minto, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Portarlington, E.

  Russell, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Monson, L.

  810

  Mostyn, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Raglan, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Silcheater, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

  Wentworth, L.

  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to further amend the Law relating to Railway Companies—Was presented by The Duke of RICHMOND; read 1a. (No. 226.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.