Sitting of 5 May 1868

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Municipal Corporations (Metropolis); Corporation of London*; Stockbrokers (Ireland).*
IRELAND—CATTLE PLAGUE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will lay before the House the detail of the expenditure of the sum levied over Ireland to meet preliminary expenses in anticipation of the cattle plague?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that the accounts were nearly completed, and the details would be laid on the Table as soon as possible. A small sum remained in hand which had not been expended.

IRELAND—DEATHS FROM SMALLPOX.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would now beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is about to give instructions to the Constabulary in the case of deaths from smallpox, caused by inoculation, to endeavour to procure an inquest to be held, in order, if possible, to obtain a conviction for manslaughter, or for an offence against the Vaccination Act?
  THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, instructions had been given to the Constabulary in cases where deaths occurred under the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member for Galway to cause an inquest to be held. Those instructions, however were confined to certain localities, with regard to which information had been received. But if it were desired that the instructions should be made general, he had no objecton whatever to that course.

IRELAND—HABEAS CORPUS ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the present tranquil state of Ireland, he conceives it necessary to keep prisoners arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act any longer in confinement; and, whether he will state to the House the number at present under confinement under the above Act?
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Sir, when I moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the further extension of the Habeas Corpus Act there were ninety-six persons in confinement in Ireland under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. I am happy to be able to state that this morning there were only twenty-three persons in confinement under the provisions of that Act, and, of those twenty-three, orders for the release of fourteen have already been made, on condition either that they leave the country or give solvent bail. As the House will see, there is reason to hope that before long any practical consequences of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland will have ceased.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1867—COMPOUND-HOUSEHOLDERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to his Answer of the 18th of February upon the same subject, When he will state what recommendations he is; prepared to make for the enfranchisement of "compound-householders in parishes not within existing borough boundaries, but which might be wholly or in part added to boroughs," and of whom the Boundary Commissioners report that "they will be precluded from qualifying as voters in the year 1869, unless some special provision is made for their protection?" He had understood the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion to admit the importance of this question, and to state that it had not escaped the attention of the Government; but, finding no reference to the I matter in the Boundary Bill as laid upon the table, he felt it right to ask this question. ["Order!"]
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the observations; of the hon. Gentleman are quite justified. It was considered expedient that the remedy required should not be included in the Boundary Bill as laid upon the table; but that, when the Measure had gone through Committee, I should, if necessary, propose a clause upon the subject. Of course, it is quite possible that the matter may have previously received the attention of the Committee upon the Bill.

SCHOOL AND TRAINING SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with
  1786
  reference to the sale of such of Her Majesty's ships as are not now required for the Service, Whether the use of such ships might be obtained for Schools or other public purposes, subject to such conditions for their preservation, and their return when required, as the Admiralty may prescribe?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that the Admiralty had already in many instances given ships for the purposes specified by the hon. Gentleman, and would be glad to do so where this was possible and compatible with the public service. At the same time he must point out that, in many cases, the societies not only asked for the loan of ships, but required that these should be refitted, caulked, and otherwise repaired at very large cost, for which no provision could be made in the Naval Estimates.

DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Speaker, Whether the direct allusions made that evening by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) to what had taken place in the House of Lords was in order?
  MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is, that allusion to debates in the other House of Parliament should not be made in this. It would have been competent to the hon. Member to have risen to order, if he had thought fit this evening; but it is scarcely possible that, under all circumstances, the rule can be construed in an absolutely literal manner. When declarations have been made by Ministers of the Crown, particularly as affecting the position of this House, exceptions have been made to the strict observance of this particular rule.

BOUNDARY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Boundaries Bill would be brought on?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that he had expected to proceed with the Boundary Bill on Thursday; but, as that day had been given up to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire for his remaining Resolutions, he feared he should not be able to do so. Pie would, however, proceed with it on the earliest possible day.

ARMY—RESERVE FORCES.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any regulations for the Army Reserve or Militia Reserve Forces have been made under the "Army Reserve Act, 1867," and the "Militia Reserve Act, 1867;" whether any instructions with reference to the latter force have been issued to Commanding Officers of Militia Regiments now called out for training; and, whether he will lay such regulations and instructions upon the Table of the House?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that regulations had been made under both Acts. Those regulations would be issued immediately, and laid on the table of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT—DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE IRISH CHURCH RESOLUTIONS—QUESTION.
MR. GLADSTONE: I rise. Sir, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government which will require some explanation; and I will therefore commence by moving the adjournment of the House. I think the justification of that course will appear from the matter which I have to state. I did not expect, when I closed the remarks which I had to make to the House yesterday afternoon, on the subject of the Ministerial Explanations, that it would be my duty to revert to that matter at so early a date. But the character of the debate which took place in this House was unexpectedly altered by a remarkable declaration, withheld from us by the Prime Minister during the lengthened speech which he addressed to us at the commencement of the Sitting, and given in so enigmatical a manner and at such a period that neither my hon. Friends who sit about me, nor I myself, were in a condition to follow him or to comment upon that speech. But even that declaration, enigmatical as it was, does not constitute the whole, or even the main part, of the subject which I wish to bring under the notice of the Government and the House, and with respect to which I am about to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I must remind the House briefly of what occurred with regard to an essential portion of the right hon. Gentleman's communication. The right hon. Gentleman told us at the commencement
1788
of the Sitting that the advice Ministers had tendered to the Crown was to dissolve the present Parliament; but that if, for any reason, Her Majesty saw cause to prefer a different course, and to ask the advice of other persons, Her Majesty's Government would place their resignation in Her Majesty's hands. Her Majesty, said the right hon. Gentleman, did not accept their resignation, and she was ready—I am quoting now what I believe to have been his words, but up to this time I have only given the substance of them—"she was ready to dissolve this Parliament as soon as the state of Public Business would permit." I myself, Sir—and, I believe, the whole House — distinctly understood the meaning of those words; and I testified, and others did so too in the remarks which they offered, that, according to our view, the advice offered as to an immediate dissolution had not been taken, that the resignation of the Government had not been accepted, and that the condition in which we stood was this—the Government proposed to carry on the Public Business until after the completion of those portions of business which they had declared to be essential—namely, business having relation to the subject of Reform—when they should be in a condition to advise Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament. The reference to such a dissolution was undoubtedly not open to objection; although, on other grounds, it was my duty to take exception to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and other Members took exception to it likewise with great justice upon other points. One of them, in particular, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), rightly charged that the right hon. Gentleman, by the mode of his communication to the House, for the first time, I believe, in recent history, certainly within the recollection of the present generation, or, as far as I know, within any other recollection,—seemed to make Her Majesty the suggester of the course which was about to be pursued by the Government, instead of the acceptor or rejector of the simple and single advice tendered by them to her, as has been the case on every former occasion. However, feeling the absorbing interest and importance of a great public question, I think I may say for some, if not all of us, who sit on this side of the House, that we were desirous to pass by topics purely political, and in that

1789
strain the debate was closed. But, at the close of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman gave us, in that enigmatic manner which is so peculiar to him, a most important addition, which was likewise, in fact, an alteration of the speech which he had made, because he signified that Her Majesty had given an unqualified assent to a dissolution of Parliament, without reference to the new or to the old constituency. Had I had the power of following the right hon. Gentleman, I should have asked for an explanation of that statement. I own it excited my suspicion; I thought that it meant more than the words were intended at the moment to convey, and that it was a sort of cover for future and ulterior designs. But I wish now to illustrate that which occurred at the close of our debate, when none of us who had entered into it were in a condition to comment on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and when the House, at the approach of the inevitable hour of dinner, had sunk to low water mark. The illustration which it appears to have received from a statement made elsewhere is really most significant. It signifies not to me in what other place this statement was made. I am not going to run across either the letter or the spirit of any of our rules—I speak of statements credibly reported, to have been made, it matters not in what place, by responsible Advisers of the Crown; and it is upon this statement that I wish to put a distinct question to Her Majesty's Government—a question which, I trust, will lead, either upon this or upon some other occasion, if it should be requisite, to an answer equally clear and distinct. It appears that one Member of the Cabinet (the Earl of Malmesbury) made a declaration elsewhere which was in precise concurrence and agreement, so far as I am able to learn or to comprehend it, with the first edition of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. After that had been done, exception was taken to that statement upon grounds essentially similar to part of the objections taken in this House, and a question appears likewise to have been put asking for further information from the Government. In answer to that question the Duke of Richmond is reported to have spoken, and to have touched upon one or two points to which in my remarks I have referred. In the early part of what fell from him, he is reported to have said—
"I can only recapitulate imperfectly what my
1790
noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) stated so clearly as to the position of affairs at this moment. The Prime Minister, on the part of his Colleagues, tendered to his Sovereign the resignation of their Offices on Friday afternoon. Her Majesty took time to consider the matter, and received the Prime Minister again in audience upon Saturday."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1690.]
Now, Sir, I submit to the House that is a statement totally different from the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. ["No, no!"] That is a statement that the Prime Minister went down to Osborne and tendered the resignation of the Government to the Queen. I do not now inquire how it was, and why it was, the Duke of Richmond gave that form to his statement—I have no doubt in perfect integrity—because that is a matter which may call for further comment. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt, it is the wish of the hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me that no such comment should be made; but the duties incumbent on Members of this House are not to be discharged otherwise than in accordance with our deliberate convictions; and sense of what is right. Sir, as to the statement made, what I want to point out is this, if I have not made myself clear:—The right hon. Gentleman said he went down to Osborne and advised a dissolution, but if Her Majesty should see fit not to accept that advice he tendered his resignation. The statement of the Duke of Richmond yesterday was that the right hon. Gentleman tendered his resignation on Friday. The noble Duke did not say a word about the right hon. Gentleman having advised a dissolution. That is the first discrepancy I wish to notice, and respecting which I wish for information. I want to know whether this statement is accurate and correct. But I pass on to a matter equally unintelligible, and I think more weighty and mere important—in truth a matter calling for the gravest attention of this House—I will not say now, because that may depend on the Answers which may be given, but probably hereafter. The remainder of the statement is as follows:—After the noble Duke announced that Her Majesty had declined the resignation, and that the Government would continue to conduct the public affairs as long as they were able to do so, he is reported to have gone on and spoken as follows:—
"And in the event of any difficulties arising, Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state that she would make no objection to a dissolution of Parliament."—[Ibid.]
The noble Duke then appears to have proceeded

1791
to reiterate that important statement. I may say I have endeavoured as well as I was able to ascertain whether the report of the noble Duke's observations is correct. With that object I have applied to one very competent witness, and the evidence I have received is that it is correct. Well, then the noble Duke is reported to have made these further observations—
"It of course will depend upon the state of affairs whether that dissolution shall be a dissolution under the existing constituency, or whether it shall be a dissolution under the new constituency to be formed under the Reform Acts; but Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state that she would make no objection to either course being adopted by her Advisers whenever they should see fit to tender to Her Majesty a recommendation on that subject."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1690.]
[Cheers.] Now, Sir, in the first place, I hear cheers which I think it material to note from the opposite side, as I presume they are an indication of the opinion of the hon. Gentlemen who utter them that the sentiments expressed by the noble Duke are right and constitutional sentiments. I am not about to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Government, whether Her Majesty did say she would make no objection to a dissolution, or to any other course being adopted by her Advisers when they should think fit. Sir, a long experience of over thirty years has satisfied this House and the country that Her Majesty well deserves—if ever any Sovereign deserved—this simple testimony, that she knows and that she has ever walked in the lines and pathways of the Constitution. It is not for one moment to be supposed that there is the slightest question to be raised on that subject. I gladly echo back the just statement of the right hon. Gentleman that to the advantage of having acquired a thorough knowledge of the principles of the Constitution Her Majesty possesses, in addition, the inestimable advantage of what he pointedly, and not unjustly, described as "a vast experience of public affairs." Sir, my question is not as to what has taken place, or to what has not taken place, between the Sovereign and her Ministers; it is simply as to the words purporting to have been spoken by these Ministers themselves. These are words respecting which I wish to know whether they are avowed or disavowed by the right hon. Gentleman for the whole Government. We have heard enough, indeed, of differences in the speeches of Members of the Cabinet. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
1792
Affairs sits within one of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the latter right hon. Gentleman sits within one of the First Commissioner of Works. I need not refer to the icy temperature of the discussion which was raised by the Foreign Secretary in dealing with the vote on the Irish Church, nor to the glowing language in which some of his Colleagues described the glory of the task they had undertaken, nor to the devoted avowal made by the First Commissioner of Works—that he sits on those Benches for the purpose of defending the Irish Establishment, and that he will not sit on them when he can no longer do so for that purpose. But this is a totally different matter. It is one respecting a declaration made by Ministers of the Crown, and purporting to define the relative positions of the Crown, the Government, and the House of Commons. In making such a declaration the Member of the Government who addresses Parliament speaks for the whole Cabinet; and to the very least syllable of a statement such as this we are entitled, we are bound, to ask the Government whether they adopt the statement of their Colleague? As to the meaning of the statement itself I need say but little. I think it is plain enough. The Duke of Richmond tells us that leave for a dissolution had been obtained by the Government beforehand in anticipation of events, with reference to cases which have not arisen, with reference to the entire course of public business; not simply, though that would be quite enough—and wholly without precedent—in respect of the Irish Church, but in respect of every stage of any Bill which may come before the House of Commons. He parades this leave before our faces—this leave to dissolve the House of Commons in case difficulties should arise, that is, in case any of its votes should be displeasing to Her Majesty's Government. Having stated the meaning of that language, I carefully refrain at the present moment from going further. My duty is to make the request—I think a not unreasonable one—that this language may either be explicitly adopted or explicitly disavowed. As to what may follow such adoption or disavowal it is perfectly unnecessary for me to speculate; my business is to ascertain the fact. I know that perhaps amid the pressure and distraction of affairs it is possible, though hardly probable, that the right hon. Gentleman has not become acquainted with the exact expressions used in "another place."

1793
It would be most unjust on my part to press for an answer to an inquiry which, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, may be a hypothetical inquiry. I have no objection, therefore, to his taking time to ascertain the facts; but I ask for a distinct and intelligible answer to these Questions: First, whether language of this kind was used by the Duke of Richmond, now one of the confidential Advisers of the Crown; secondly, if it was so used, whether it is adopted by Her Majesty's Government as signifying the relations in which they stand to the House of Commons, and the position in which they would ask the House of Commons to continue to discharge its functions in the execution of the legislative business of the country?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. DISRAELI: I would first observe that I had myself yesterday no wish whatever to again address the House; but pointed inquiries were made to me on particular heads, and it was necessary therefore that I should reply to them; and I had an opportunity of replying to them subsequently to my original statement, an hon. Gentleman having moved the adjournment of the House. That would have given the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone)—although he had spoken previously—an opportunity of speaking again. Therefore the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that he was silent and reticent then because the forms of the House would not allow of his noticing my observations really has no foundation. It was perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to make any comments whatever on any discrepancy which he may have thought he observed in my statements as to the audiences graciously accorded to me by Her Majesty. But the right hon. Gentleman was silent. I do not think that on subjects of this kind there ought to be any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. It is for the interest and the honour of both sides of the House that on a matter of such grave import there should be no misunderstanding. We may all use expressions which are liable to misinterpretation; but I do unequivocally maintain that there was not the slightest difference — certainly not the slightest intentional difference—between my original and my subsequent statement as to what occurred at the audience which Her Majesty graciously
1794
accorded to me. That there was a misunderstanding, however, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Gentlemen as to one point was very obvious to me as the discussion went on, and accordingly at the right time I took the opportunity of correcting that misunderstanding. I will again repeat very succinctly, but very accurately, what occurred when, by Her Majesty's gracious permission, I attended Her Majesty at Osborne. After putting Her Majesty in possession of the views entertained by the Government of their position, I did at once, considering the present state of affairs, recommend a dissolution of Parliament, not only in justice to Her Majesty's Government, but for the sake of obtaining the decision of the country on the great question at stake. I understand that this is the statement I made last night, and I repeat that statement. I did also, when in audience of Her Majesty, add, in reference to the first and inferior motive of that advice—namely, the personal claims of the Ministers—that if Her Majesty thought a more satisfactory settlement of the question at issue could be attained, or that the best interests of the country would be better considered by our immediately retiring from Her Majesty's service, we should retire only with that feeling of gratitude to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The advice then which I gave, with the full consent of my Colleagues, was, to advise Her Majesty to an immediate dissolution—to a dissolution of Parliament "as soon as"—according to custom and the constitutional phrase—"as soon as the state of Public Business would permit." That was the statement which I made, or certainly intended to make, to the House, and I believe that is generally recognized as the statement which I made.
MR. BRIGHT: As I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to rise in order to explain again, I wish to ask him whether the recommendation made to Her Majesty referred to a dissolution with the present constituency?
MR. DISRAELI: What I complain of, and what has led to misapprehension, is that when a person in my position comes here and makes what he intends to be a clear and plain statement of what occurred, hon. Gentlemen rise up and interpose matters which really have nothing to do with the question — ["Oh, oh!"]—nothing to do with what I am stating. I have stated what occurred in that audi-

1795
ence; but when I have made what I think was a very clear statement on that subject the hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "But did you refer to something else?" I repeat my statement as I made it. We recommended absolutely and unequivocally, without reference to any particular circumstances, that Her Majesty should dissolve Parliament for a particular reason, as soon as the state of Public Business would permit. And Her Majesty, without reference to any point such as the hon. Gentleman mentions, ultimately sanctioned that advice, refusing to accept our resignations, and expressing her readiness to dissolve Parliament as soon as the Public Business would permit. That was the statement which I made last night. I afterwards, having Her Majesty's permission to speak frankly to the House, and wishing, as indeed, it was my duty, to conceal nothing, but simply to discharge my duty to the House, made a statement in reference to the meaning which the House might wish to ascribe to the phrase "when the state of Public Business will permit." And I need not remind the House that I was in a position in which no Minister was ever placed before, because the circumstances which now exist never existed before. Therefore it was my duty to lay those circumstances before Her Majesty; but this had nothing to do with the original advice given, or with the original decision of Her Majesty. I had to state facts which are perfectly familiar to every Gentleman in this House—that there is an existing constituency and a newer constituency—which matters Her Majesty must have been well acquainted with, although I nevertheless felt I ought to bring them directly under Her Majesty's notice. I did hope that if we gave up all the Bills which we had introduced into the House, and confined our attention merely to the supplementary measures connected with the Reform Act, the House would act cordially with the Ministry, so that we might be able to bring affairs to so expeditious a conclusion that the General Election might be taken by an appeal to the new constituency. That is what I conveyed to the House yesterday—that was the observation which I felt it my duty to make to Her Majesty, and I could not have appeared in this House upon the subject without frankly communicating the fact in the same spirit to the House. But that has nothing whatever to do with the original object of my visit to Osborne. I did at once, in cones-
1796
quence of the state of affairs, and in consequence of the position in which we were placed, recommend a dissolution of Parliament; and, as I have already stated to the House, I did, on behalf of myself and my Colleagues, tender our resignations. Her Majesty refused to accept our resignations, and sanctioned a dissolution of Parleament as soon as the state of Public Business should permit. I am sorry to have been under the necessity of going at any length into this subject on the present occasion; but after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, it was absolutely necessary that I should put the matter clearly before the House. And now, Sir, I think that, having been the Minister who was in audience of the Queen, my statement on this subject may be taken as the authentic statement; and if a statement is made in "another place" by a Minister who is my Colleague, and which may be different from the statement I have made here—and I must candidly say I was entirely unaware, until the right hon. Gentleman told the House this evening, that any remarks of the kind had been made, for I have had no opportunity of making myself acquainted with them—but if any of my Colleagues in "another place" have conveyed a different impression to the House in which they sit, it appears to me that—I having been the Minister who was in audience of the Sovereign, and who came down here to make an authentic statement by Her Majesty's command and permission—the logical consequence would be that my Colleague in "another place" should be called upon to explain the differences between the statement alleged by the right hon. Gentleman to have been made there and the statement made by the Chief Minister, who has been in audience of the Queen, and who, by Her Majesty's command and permission, came down to the House of Commons to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
MR. BOUVERIE: If a Member of this House wished to ascertain what had been stated by a Member of the Government in "another place," the proper course to take would be to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. My right hon. Friend does not sit in the other House, and consequently has no opportunity of questioning the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. He has, however, a legitimate and proper opportunity of questioning the right hon. Gentleman here, and why the right hon. Gentleman

1797
has complained of my right hon. Friend's giving him an opportunity of giving an explanation in this House I, for one, am at a loss to understand. I admit there may be a defect of understanding on my part; but still I think there is an ambiguity in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who has not told us whether the dissolution which he recommended to Her Majesty, and which her Majesty sanctioned, will be with the present or the future constituency. Now, the Duke of Richmond, as I understand, stated in "another place"—and the accuracy of the report is not disputed — that the power of dissolution was in the alternative, and the important business still before this House is to be conducted under the impression, at any rate in this House, that if the Ministry are defeated a second, or rather a fourth, time, then, at last a dissolution is to come. Those who have been at a public school know what "a first fault" is; but it appears that, according to this new constitutional doctrine, the right hon. Gentleman, according to the explanation of the Duke of Richmond, has gone a step further than he enunciated yesterday, and now the doctrine seems to be that, if the Government suffer a tremendous defeat once, or twice, or three time, it shall count for nothing; but that, if they are defeated again, there shall certainly be a dissolution and an appeal to the existing constituency. Now, that seems far worse than anything which has been yet proposed. On this point let me appeal to the good sense of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has a considerable knowledge of constitutional practice. How is it possible for the deliberations of this House to be fairly conducted, or for the relations between the House and the Crown and its Ministers to be properly has been carried maintained, if this is to be the understanding? I think all this follows from the course which the right hon. Gentleman has pursued. I insist upon it that it is a sound doctrine that, under such circumstances as exist at present, Government ought either to resign or dissolve; and, in the latter event, they ought to state distinctly and clearly that they will only just conclude the business already in hand, appealing to the good sense of the House to assist them in doing so. Now, if you are determined, as the right hon. Gentleman intimated yesterday, to carry on this Parliament till the new constituent have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion, eight or nine months must certainly elapse—and
1798
possibly eighteen or nineteen months—before we can have a dissolution, because the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills now stand in the position which the English Reform Bill occupied last year; and, if we are to have long and elaborate discussions in Committee on the clauses of those Bills, it is not at all unlikely that, at the close of the discussions, some demand may be made that the register of the new voters in Scotland and Ireland should not come into operation till the succeeding year, so that a further lease of Office will be given to the Government. It conies to this—the House of Commons have distinctly expressed this want of confidence by an overpowering vote. [Cries of "Move!"] I say there has been a Vote of Want of Confidence of the House on the Irish ecclesiastical policy of the Government. I contend, and without dread of dispute, that this was not, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged yesterday, an unprovoked and unnecessary move on the part of the Opposition; but that it was provoked by the Government stating and inviting an opinion upon their Irish Church policy. Then, what was the meaning of the vote to which we came? It was that we had no confidence in the Irish ecclesiastical policy of Her Majesty's Government; that we did not approve the principle of levelling up rather than the principle of levelling down; that we had a distinct policy which was the exact contrary of that of the right hon. Gentleman, and that in this most material respect we had not the slightest confidence in the Government. That is equivalent to what has been admitted in the past practice and history of this House to be substantially a Vote of Want of Confidence. It is idle, after a Resolution of that kind had been carried by such a majority, to say—"It is true you may not like our Irish Church policy; you may not think it right to endow a new Roman Catholic College, nor to increase the Regium Donum; but look how unassailable are our foreign administration, our Indian government, and our financial management." That is no answer to the vote of this House that, in respect of their Irish Church policy, the Government does not possess our confidence.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, that the statement of the noble Duke in "another place" was perfectly plain, straightforward, and was expressed in language not so cautious and not so mystifying as that of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. The statement that the right hon.

1799
Gentleman had just made was in perfect accordance with the narrative of the noble Duke; but he must confess that, after hearing the first statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he laboured under a very different impression of what had taken place than he did after hearing the explanations of this evening. What he understood this evening was that the right hon. Gentleman had advised a dissolution of this House, and Her Majesty had consented to it, and, further, that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to press that dissolution, not upon any necessary measures for completing the Reform Bills, but only if, upon the introduction of any new matter or subject, a vote equal to a Vote of Want of Confidence were carried. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman —and it was a point that should be cleared up—the House was at perfect liberty to alter the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills and the Boundary Bill as it pleased. He hoped the House would not endorse that it should enter into legislation on these matters with the threat of dissolution hanging over its head. He could have understood the right hon. Gentleman stating that the Government were perfectly willing to complete the work of Reform and then to dissolve, that would be a fair and just proposition; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say he had the power in his pocket to dissolve the House if it altered the Scotch or Irish Reform Bills, or rejected the Boundary Bill, that was a most unconstitutional proceeding on the part of any Minister. The declaration of the noble Duke appeared to have been amply borne out by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CARDWELL: The right hon. Gentleman says that if anybody questions a statement that has been made, or supposed to have been made by one of his Colleagues, the logical course is to put a question to that Colleague himself. It appears to me that when we want to know whether the language of a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman is the language of the collective Government, acknowledged, approved, and avowed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and when we speak of transactions in which the right hon. Gentleman, and not his Colleague, took a part, whatever the logical course may be, the fair and straightforward course is to propround a question to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and if there is no mystery at the bottom of this matter there will be no difficulty in giving a simple answer to
1800
the question. It is our bounden duty to see whether there is any mystery, or whether there is plainness and straightforwardness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. In the reply of the right hon. Gentleman last night he used these words—
"Her Majesty did not accept our resignations, and gave her unqualified assent to a dissolution of Parliament, without the least reference to old or new constituencies."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1742.]
Now, Sir, in those words, taken by themselves, there is not rising to the surface, perhaps, the appearance of a menace or threat; but these words do not stand by themselves; they are explained by other words which have been used by a person justified in speaking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He refers to the same transaction, and his words are these—
"We intend to conduct the affairs of the country so long as we are able to do so; and in the event of any difficulties arising Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state she would make no objection to a dissolution of Parliament. It, of course, will depend upon the state of affairs whether that dissolution shall be a dissolution under the existing constituency or whether it shall be a dissolution under the new constituency to be formed under the Reform Acts."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1690.]
Now, Sir, we have a practical object in endeavouring to obtain an answer to this question. As long as I have been in Parliament, or have read anything even of the rudiments of the Constitution, I have believed there were two things which to violate was to violate the essential condition of freedom in this country: one was to give the Sovereign the appearance of expressing an opinion to Parliament, and the other was placing Parliament in reality or in appearance under the menace or threat of dissolution. Now, Sir, it appears to me upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—it is not yet clear, but we are giving the right hon. Gentleman a fair and straightforward opportunity of saying whether it be the case—firstly, that he tendered simple, unqualified, direct advice to his Sovereign, and not contingent or optional advice; and secondly, he is not now placing us under the menace or threat of a dissolution in regard to the future conduct of our business in this House. That was the object of the question propounded by my right hon. Friend. I humbly submit to the House it cannot be put off by clever phrases and ingenious evasions in debate; and that we are entitled to be told in what character we are about to legislate during the short remainder of the Session, and

1801
whether we are the free representatives of those who sent us here or we only hold our places at the will and pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: My right hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), has put an intelligible and very simple question, to which the Government are able to give a very intelligible and simple reply. But the question as it was originally put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was one which it was not perfectly easy to understand, and still less easy to answer. The question as it was put had reference to what had been said by my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) in "another place." My right hon. Friend the First Minister had not read or seen the report of what the Duke of Richmond had said; and I may say for myself, that I also had not seen it; but a question has; now been put by the right hon. Member for the City of Oxford to which the Government have not the smallest difficulty in giving an answer. The right hon. Gentleman asks, whether it is to be understood that the Government hold out to the House any menace of a dissolution. ["No, no!"] It will be in the recollection of the House whether that was not the question of the right hon. Gentleman. We were asked, unless I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, this question, whether it was to be understood, in the account which my right hon. Friend had given of his interview with Her Majesty, and of Her Majesty's expressions of approval of the recommendation that had been made to her, that a menace was held out to this House by which the House was to be considered to proceed to wind-up the business which now lies before it under the threat of a dissolution. I say at once, on the part of the Government, there was no intention of that sort, and that no such menace was held out.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that, having listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government yesterday, he had failed to understand the exact situation of affairs, which, therefore, might not be so well understood by other hon. Members and throughout the country as it ought to be. He had been enlightened by the statement made in "another place," and he had listened to the further explanations that had now been made, and he was now more confused than he was before any explanation was given. He was inclined to
1802
to think this confusion arose from the fact hat the Prime Minister had given the House, not a statement of what took place between himself and his Sovereign, but a short summary of his own idea of the communications which passed between them. ["Oh!"] He must repeat that assertion, and adhere to it, because the right hon. Gentleman did not profess to give an account of the communications between his Sovereign and himself; but he gave only the effect of it; and the communications could not have been of the brief nature he had described to the House. In attempting to give a short version of what must have taken place he might have done justice to himself; but it was not so clear he had done full justice to his Sovereign. A very painful impression would be created throughout the country, and more especially in Ireland, when the full nature of the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the result of his communication with his Sovereign was understood. For what was that result? Did the right hon. Gentleman tell his Sovereign that a great majority of the House of Commons had, after full discussion, deliberately resolved upon a policy with the object of satisfying the people of Ireland, and that it was necessary, in the opinion of the great majority of the House, that that policy should be immediately carried into effect? Did he tell his Sovereign that he was determined to resist that policy to the utmost, and would use all the power and influence of the Government for the purpose of setting at defiance the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons? Did he ask to be left in Office for that purpose; and was it for that purpose his Sovereign said he should not resign, but should continue to administer public affairs? The House must know something more of the circumstances under which the right hon. Gentleman said he tendered his resignation, which his Sovereign refused to accept? Did the right hon. Gentleman advise his Sovereign to accept his resignation? This practice of tendering a resignation was unintelligible unless it was accompanied by the most solemn advice to the Sovereign to accept it, and unless all the arguments were used which were necessary to induce the Sovereign to accept it. ["Oh, oh!"] If this were not done, how could a Minister of the Crown suggest that the Sovereign was keeping him in Office for the purpose of resisting the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons? It was absolutely necessary to explain the whole interview,

1803
and not the effect of it, when that effect was to give a character to a Ministry at the expense of the Sovereign. Then, in a further communication with the Sovereign, language was used of a most equivocal character. This was when a suggestion was made that Parliament should be dissolved "as soon as the state of Public Business would admit." In the ordinary sense of those words they meant that Parliament would be dissolved within a fortnight. If such language were addressed to any hon. Member conversant with public affairs, and he were told that Parliament was to be dissolved as soon as the state of Public Business would admit, he would at once understand that there would be a dissolution within a fortnight. Was that the sense in which this recommendation was made to Her Majesty, or had it some different meaning? If so, it was an ambiguous piece of advice, leading to no satisfactory result. They had not as it appeared to him, had a fair and frank statement of what took place between the Sovereign and the First Minister, and he was prepared to repeat the assertion that the name of the Sovereign had been used towards the House in a manner wholly unjustifiable. What was the proposition that had been made to the House? The right hon. Gentleman asked the great majority of the House to come to this extraordinary bargain, that they should abdicate their functions during the residue of the Session, and refuse to proceed with the Public Business submitted for their consideration, and that for no purpose that he could conceive, save to keep the present Government in Office. He wanted to know whether, when such a proposition was made, the House did not feel itself outraged when it was asked to abdicate all its functions, forego all its privileges, and postpone all its business, for no other object than to gratify the ambition of the First Minister of the Crown?
MR. GRAVES: I would not have risen at the present moment if I were not ac-actuated by a strong feeling, which I believe to be shared by many of the Independent Members of this House, and I hope that they will not hesitate to express their opinion upon the present aspect of affairs. If I have hitherto remained silent on the obstruction to the business of this House which is caused by these discussions, it is not because the questions which now occupy so much of our time might not have been as well dealt with at the close of the Session, when they would not have stood
1804
in the way of others, but because I felt that any appeal to either side of the House would be received as useless. But if I have hitherto remained quiescent in this state of things, that is no reason for my continuing to do so, and allow, without observation, the ordinary business of this House to be obstructed night after night as it has hitherto been. I, for one, enter my protest against this state of affairs. I do not wish to use harsh words. I would rather throw oil on the troubled waters. But I think it deserves consideration, whether it is right or just that questions, however grave and important in themselves, should be allowed to monopolize the whole of our time, especially when suddenly interposed? The half of the present; Session is now run, and we have Estimates that are still to be approved by the House; we have the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills almost untouched; we have the Boundary Bill and the Bribery Bill to consider; we have the Education and the Bankruptcy measure to discuss. These might be small matters in comparison with the topics of factious party warfare; but they are matters of grave consideration for the country at large, and I urge them on the fair and candid consideration of the House at large, and not with a view to the interests of the one side or the other. We have these measures; and, what is more, we were told by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he had a measure prepared for the settlement of the land question in Ireland, and I, who know something of that question, tell the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that if he had taken up the Irish land question he would have earned the lasting gratitude of Ireland, and not the lasting bitterness which will follow his attempt to overthrow a Church. These are the reasons which have induced me to bring the House back to the business that lies before it; and I appeal to Independent Members on both sides of the House to condemn this system of perpetual party warfare. I do not wish to impute motives, or I should allude to the semblance of wilful obstruction. The business of the House has come to a dead lock, and unless those Members who are above party feeling will step in and interfere in a bold and decided manner, the present state of things will be anything but creditable to us. Men come here from different motives: some for amusement, some for occupation, some for place. But there are also some who come here from a simple and earnest desire to do their duty,

1805
and to assist in carrying out the practical legislation of the country, and to do this they make great sacrifices. But I begin to think that such men are out of place in this House. My experience has certainly not been of great duration, but I speak of the experience of the last few Sessions, and especially so far as the experience of the present year. I know I need not appeal to the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, because he has committed himself to a course which, however unexpectedly introduced to this House — however some may regard it as an obstruction to practical business—still he pursues it with an impetuosity and an impulsiveness which would render any appeal to him a mere waste of time. But I do appeal to those Members who last year so boldly and manfully asserted the rights of private judgment, and who by their independence saved their party from disgrace. To them we owe it to a large extent that we have a Reform Bill — to them we owe it that that Bill was carried through this House—to them, who represent, like myself, large constituencies and important commercial interests—to them I make my appeal to stop these party contests that are going on night after night. They are the men who have great weight and importance in this House; and I ask them to assist in bringing the House back to that state in which it will be possible to transact the ordinary and necessary business of the country.
MR. OSBORNE: I freely grant that the hon. Member for Liverpool, who has just resumed his seat, is an apt type of the purity and placidity of this House. But when he says that he is about to pour oil upon this debate, I must say—and with his commercial knowledge he will recognize the article—that there is an oil called petroleum, which has anything but calming effects upon the surface on which it is poured. When the hon. Gentleman undertakes to lecture Members on this (the Opposition) side in good round words upon the position of affairs, and talks of the stop which has been put to private business, I think he might have taken larger views, and recollected that there are questions of such great public import that a Member, whether private or having held an official capacity, is quite warranted in coming forward and expressing his opinion upon them. I do not wish to lay any stress upon ducal declarations in "another place." They are generally confused, and frequently ungrammatical. If I want an ex-
1806
planation of Ministerial policy I do not go to the subordinates of the Government, however distinguished by title; I come to the great man himself—to the Minister who sits in this House. Well, the right hon. Gentleman last night explained the course he pursued, and I am free to say that I am not disposed to quarrel with the decision to which Her Majesty's Ministers have come. And why? Because I think that a question so large in its import, so vast in its ultimate effects upon Imperial policy—I mean the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church—is a question which may be well referred to the enlarged public opinion of the new constituencies. I think so for another reason, which is that the present constitution of this House is so miserable, and many of its Members so weak and so vacillating, that the sooner they are got rid of and sent about their business the better for the country. But, Sir, while I agree with the decision to which Her Majesty's Government have come, I must say I condemn the means by which that decision has been arrived at. Why, Sir, what have we heard to-night? We have heard the personal claims of Ministers urged as a reason for the forbearance of the House; and, curiously enough, those personal claims have been put before the peace of this country. What else have we heard? For the first time at least in this century the authority of the Crown has been made use of almost as sympathizing with the difficulties of the Administration. Nay, more, the name of the Sovereign has been for the first time, I would almost say, besmirched in the arena of political conflict. Now I say that this is a most unhappy state of things, not only for the Crown itself, but for the House of Commons and the other House of Parliament. It would almost seem to me—listening to the enunciations made in "another place"—not by a noble Duke, but a man who uses the purest English and never is mistaken in his meaning—that there is a mysterious power behind the Throne who tenders most unconstitutional and obnoxious advice, and who, not content with being the presiding genius of the Government, strives to control the rights and privileges of this House. I hope—without adding my petroleum to that of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves)—the House will resist anything of that kind; and if this House is to be dissolved, I, for one, think the sooner the better, for, however inconvenient it may be to us, it is better

1807
that great public questions should be set at rest, once and for ever, and I hope, too, that the appeal will not be made, as I see signs of doing, on the old historic cry of "Our Protestant Queen and No Popery!" ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, I have seen signs of that in speeches that have been made on the other side, and I think I see an hon. Gentleman opposite, who is probably preparing to follow me, who will raise that ill-omened cry through the country. Let us get through the necessary business as soon as we may; and I, for one, much as I should dislike a visit to my constituents, and not looking for place in another Government, but looking to the vast interests of this country, and putting my "personal claims" entirely on one side—which, mark you, is not always done by other people—I for one say, the sooner this House is dissolved, and the great issue put before the country, the better will it be for the Sovereign of these realms and the Constitution of the country.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, he did not know whether he was the person alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. OSBORNE: No; I never thought of you.] At all events, what he would say was, "Justice to all, and no surrender of the rights which belong to us." His object, however, in rising, was to remind the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that it was only on Thursday last he accused an hon. and gallant Friend of his of want of courtesy in asking questions without notice. Now, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was only the Leader of a factious Opposition, after a meeting of the party at his house, one of the would-be leaders of whom—the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)—had lately called them "a rabble," who thought himself entitled to ask questions without notice; for it was evident from what had occurred that the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Disraeli) had received no notice of the Question that had been asked.
MR. HORSMAN: I hope, Sir, the House will not allow itself to be led away from the important Question before it by matter unconnected with that question, but that we shall receive from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government some further information with respect to the Audience with which he was honoured by Her Majesty last week, and as to the relations of the House to the Ministers of the Crown in consequence of the advice he gave, and the manner in which it was re-
1808
ceived. I confess I am one of those who, like my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Ayrton), find themselves more perplexed than enlightened by the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought I did understand his first speech; I felt myself rather embarrassed on hearing his second; and I am entirely confused on hearing his third. The first thing I do not understand, and it is one upon which my right hon. Friend endeavoured to extract an explanation, and upon which I hope we shall have a clear answer, is this—Did the right hon. Gentleman advise Her Majesty to appeal to the present constituencies or not? I cannot understand from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman whether he advised Her Majesty to allow an appeal to be made to the present constituencies, or to the new constituencies as soon as the state of public business would allow. That is an important point upon which we have a right to be informed. The statement I understood the right hon. Gentleman to have made yesterday was this—that he had advised Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament immediately, or, as I understood, as an alternative, to accept the resignation of Her Majesty's Ministers; that Her Majesty declined to accept the resignation of her Ministers, but gave an unqualified assent to the dissolution of Parliament. Well, when the right hon. Gentleman advised a dissolution of Parliament and Her Majesty gave an unqualified assent, it appears that the Government never intended to do what they advised; but at the second audience on Saturday morning the right hon. Gentleman recommended something different—namely, that Her Majesty should not for certain reasons at once dissolve the present Parliament, but that she should, with a view to circumstances unforeseen, intrust him with a general power of dissolution under the knowledge and threat of which the deliberations of Parliament would be carried on. Now that was what I understood to be conveyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and to be expressed more fully in the statement made by the Duke of Richmond. That noble Duke stated that Her Majesty, under the advice of her Ministers, had given powers so unconstitutional and placed this House in a position so novel that if we were to carry on our deliberations under such circumstances many of us would feel that we had scarcely a choice as to relieving ourselves from the task of coming to the further Sit-

1809
tings, I will not call them the deliberations, of the House. Then the Duke of Richmond, having more fully explained what was conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman, made very frequent, unusually frequent, use of Her Majesty's name, to show that Her Majesty had given her Ministers power to resort to dissolution at any moment or for any purpose whenever they might say they had a difficulty with the House of Commons. Now the points on which I wish on the part of the House to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman are these:—First, did he advise Her Majesty to dissolve or appeal to the present constituencies? The second question is, did he advise Her Majesty to intrust him with a general power of dissolution to be used whenever he thought fit to advise it; and the third is, did Her Majesty authorize her Ministers to communicate to Parliament that we were to deliberate subject to the summary exercise of that power? These are all points of importance, more especially as I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, confirmed and strengthened by that of the Duke of Richmond, that powers have been granted as stated, although I do not believe that such powers were for one moment thought of by Her Majesty. It is conveyed to us, however, that the right hon. Gentleman possesses those powers, And that we are deliberating under a threat of their summary exercise at any moment that we happen to place the Government in difficulties. I say we have a right to know, and must know, whether those are the powers which the Government profess to have; and we must enforce the knowledge, because the character of this House and its independence and dignity are involved in the answer.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had another question to ask, which he thought the Government should answer—namely, Whether, if the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills were passed, a measure would be introduced whereby the registration under those Bills should be made in the autumn? The right hon. Gentleman proposed to go on with the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, and immediately after to proceed to appeal to the new constituencies. He would ask, What, then, was the result of the vote of last Thursday, which was a Vote of Want of Confidence? It appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government had entirely disregarded the vote of Thursday last; and if the business of the House was brought to a deadlock, as the hon. Member
1810
for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had said, it was brought to a deadlock by Her Majesty's Ministers who clung to Office. It was a matter of complete indifference to him who occupied the position of Prime Minister, but it seemed to him entirely unconstitutional to hold over that House a threat of dissolution, which was to occur at an indefinite time.
SIR HENRY EDWARDSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), that it was high time that the private Members of the House, whether representing large or small constituencies, should speak out. When the present House of Commons was elected, nothing had been heard of the disestablishment or disendowment of the Irish Church. Reform was the great question of the hour, and it had remained so up to the present time. The English Bill had been passed, and the Government now asked the House to complete the Scotch and Irish measures and the Boundary Bills before venturing upon a dissolution, which might jeopardize its completion. On the new question of the Irish Church, the country had as yet had no opportunity of forming an opinion. On what grounds, and for what objects were these discussions continued then? During the past two or three days they had been maintained by some half-dozen hungry expectants of Office, and, if such a course were allowed to continue, the electors would justly complain that the whole of the most important business of the country was stopped, merely for the purpose of gratifying the ambition of certain right hon. Gentlemen. By such a course, however, they could probably remind their representatives that they were returned to legislate for the good of the country, and not until the right hon. Member for South Lancashire thought it necessary as a means to dislodge his great adversary from Office, for the personal interest of those who sought to obtain seats in a new Cabinet. It appeared to him that such an exhibition of faction was never before made by an Opposition, manifestly for the object of displacing one Government, and re-instating another.
MR. WHITBREADsaid he wished, as a humble Member of the House, to add his protest to that of his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Bouverie), when he denounced the impropriety of introducing the name of the Sovereign in the way in which it had been done by the Prime Minister.

1811
He had never expected to hear a Minister come down to the House, as the right hon. Gentleman had last evening, and shelter himself behind the Throne. He also wished to join with the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and insist on direct answers to the questions he had put. The House wished to know, whether the Prime Minister had it in his power to dissolve the House at any moment? He could not understand, nor could he believe that the Sovereign had given such power to the right hon Gentleman. He therefore wished to hear from the Prime Minister, whether the prevailing impression was founded on the truth; and, if not, to hear him distinctly deny that the Sovereign had given him the power his words had led the House to believe he possessed? On the other hand, presuming the right hon. Gentleman to have the power of dissolution in his pocket, he wished to know for what purpose and on what account it was to be used? Was it to be used because of the result of the first division on the Irish Church—the majority of 60? No; the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to let that vote pass if the House would permit him to continue sitting on the Treasury Bench. Was the House to be dissolved because of the second vote, when the majority against the Government was swelled to 65? No; the right hon. Gentleman was content to allow these votes to pass if the House would allow him to remain on the Treasury Bench. Was the power to be used if the House declared for the second and third Resolutions by a still greater majority? No; the right hon. Gentleman had told them that if he were still permitted to sit on the Treasury Bench he would regard those Resolutions as the natural corollaries of the first. Was it to be used if the House, on considering the Scotch Reform Bill, decided that the number of Scotch Members should be increased by some other means than by adding to the number of the House? Upon this point the right hon. Gentleman had not enlightened the House; but information on the subject was necessary; because he, in common with others, wished to amend the Scotch and Irish Bills, and he wished to know whether, they could do that freely and independently, or whether they would deliberate in the constant fear of dissolution? Was the power to be used after the Irish Reform Bill had been taken out of the hands of the Government and moulded by the House? Was it to be used if the Estimates were cut
1812
down? Or for what was it to be used? The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as possible that the question of the Irish Church would be advanced just as much this year with him in Office as it would be if he were in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had stated he was prepared to accept the second and third Resolutions, but was silent on the declaration of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that it would be necessary to proceed with a Bill to suspend the action of the Crown regarding the patronage of the Irish Church. Would the power be used when that Bill was passed by the House? The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that the Irish Church question would be referred to the country, whatever Government was in Office, as soon as it was possible to appeal to the new constituencies. He knew it was in the power of no Government unduly to delay appealing to those constituencies. Then for what did he sit on the Treasury Bench? What principle did he maintain by persisting in retaining Office? The right hon. Gentleman was not there to oppose the action of the Opposition on the question of the Irish Church; he was not there to defend his own view of the Scotch or Irish Reform Bills: respecting all these matters he was "in the hands of the House." If the right hon. Gentleman went to the country he had evidently only one available cry, and that was the old one of "No Surrender," with the clear understanding that it was limited strictly, at all times and under all circumstances, to the tenure of his own place.
MR. LOWE: I cannot persuade myself that it is the wish of hon. Gentlemen in this House, not even of the hon. Members for Liverpool and Beverley (Mr. Graves and Sir Henry Edwards), that this discussion should come to an end without some answer having been given to the Questions put by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the evening; and it is only as a forlorn hope, and on the adventuresome expedition of trying once more to get an answer to that Question, that I trouble the House for one moment. I do not offer any comment on the subject now; but I entreat hon. Gentleman opposite, out of regard for their own character, out of regard for the august name which has been dragged into this debate, out of regard for the character of this House and what will be thought of us in the country, not to have it said that a simple, straightforward Question has been put to the Government and that the Go-

1813
vernment has avoided answering it. ["No, no!"] Is it not so? My right hon. Friend, quoting the speech of the Duke of Richmond, asked the First Minister of the Crown whether he disavowed or adopted that speech. That was a very simple question; but how was it answered? The right hon. Gentleman re-stated what he said last night as to his own communication with the Crown; but my right hon. Friend knew his duty far too well to ask the right hon. Gentleman to describe to the House what took place between him and the Sovereign. It is in the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, as First Minister of the Crown, to decide what portion of his communication with Her Majesty it is consistent with his duty, subject to Her Majesty's Royal permission, to lay before this House. He was not asked to enlarge upon his own statement; he was asked whether he avowed or disavowed the statement of the Duke of Richmond; not what took place between him and Her Majesty, but as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement made by a Member of his own Cabinet in "another place." He was asked simply to say, "Do you endorse that statement—aye or no?" That question was in the first place evaded, and then followed up by the rejoinder, "You had better ask the Duke of Richmond himself." That is the whole answer given by the first Minister of the Crown, and it is one on which I think I need not dilate. But not only has the question been evaded; another has been substituted for it, because the right hon. Gentleman was followed by his Secretary of State for India. The right hon. Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) read the speech of the Duke of Richmond a second time, and added some words by way of a commentary, in which he characterized the speech as a menace. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India jumps up and says, "The question of menace is easily answered." But that was not the question put by my right hon. Friend; he wanted to know whether the construction put on the speech of the Duke of Richmond was a right construction or not; whether, in fact, that speech was the speech of the Government; whether the Government stood by it or not. Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow that in staling the case I have done it with all due regard for the amenities of debate; and therefore, if I enjoy his good opinion, which I am sure I must have earned by the manner in which I have in-
1814
troduced the subject, I will take the liberty of doing what I presume will be not disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman; I will read over the words of the Duke of Richmond, and again ask the Government whether the Government avows them or not. Well, Sir, for the third and last time of asking, the Duke of Richmond said—
"The result is that we still occupy the same position we did before, and intend to conduct the affairs of the country so long as we are able to do so; and in the event of any difficulties arising Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state that she would make no objection to a dissolution of Parliament. It, of course, will depend upon the state of affairs whether that dissolution shall be a dissolution under the existing constituency, or whether it shall be a dissolution under the new constituency to be formed under the Reform Act; but Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state that she would make no objection to either course being adopted by her Advisers whenever they should see fit to tender to Her Majesty a recommendation on that subject."—[3 Hansard, cxci. 1690.]
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, are these words the words of the Government—Aye or No?
MR. DISRAELI: I address the House for the second time; but under the circumstances perhaps they will allow me to do so. It has been stated that the name of the Sovereign has been improperly introduced into these debates—not so by me. I have introduced that august name in the spirit of our Constitution, with the permission of Her Majesty, and I know well, in a manner which cannot be impugned. A great many questions have been addressed to me, varying in terms, but probably having the same end, and when they have been answered, a new one has been proposed, a new form of inquiry has been made, and then we have been charged with not replying. Now, I do not approve myself the mode by which the inquiry as to the conduct of the Government is made. It consists of bringing before the House—without any notice whatever—an extract from a newspaper report of observations alleged to have been made by one of my Colleagues in "another place," with whom by no possibility can I have had any communication on the subject, and then founding upon that extract a variety of inferences which have immediately been fixed upon me, as if I had committed myself to every conclusion which every speaker has thought it right to make. I shall not address myself to points like that, but to the great points of interest to the House. The advice that I gave to Her Majesty to dissolve

1815
the Parliament was confined solely to the question of the Irish Church. And if any other difficulty arises in the conduct of affairs, upon which it occurred to me and my Colleagues that such advice should be given with reference to any other subject, it would be our duty then again to repair to Her Majesty and give that advice. The consent of Her Majesty is solely to the issue upon which Her Majesty's consent was required—namely, the question of the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. That is my answer, and I hope a complete answer to those various forms of questions which have been urged in this House. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) says—"You accepted the first and second divisions upon the question of the Irish Church, and you are no longer resisting our policy upon that question." I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am not going to assent at all, either to the second or the third Resolution. I said that for the sake of expediting Public Business, looking on these Resolutions as corollaries of the first, I should not sanction any lengthened debates or organized divisions, at the same time that I should urge against them my most decided negative. In making that admission, for the sake of the convenience of the House and with a view of expediting public business, I did not for one moment mean to say—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire never for a moment supposed that I admitted—because I undertook in the spirit which I have already described not to oppose the second or third Resolutions in as peremptory a manner as I should otherwise have done—that I was in consequence pledged in any way not to oppose the Bill that he is about to bring forward. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not for a moment pretend that he concluded I was not going to oppose his Bill. And therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Bedford is totally illusory, and founded upon an assumption for which there is no warrant whatever. I repeat, then, to the House that the advice which I tendered to Her Majesty respecting the dissolution, and the consent of Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, referred solely to the subject of the disestablishment of the Church, and was confined solely to that subject. Then I am taunted with this inquiry—"Why did yon not immediately dissolve Parliament?" Well, Sir, everyone must know that we are placed
1816
with reference to that point in circumstances of a peculiar and unprecedented character. In that situation it is for the public interest that we should endeavour to arrive at some understanding with the House, which, while it will facilitate the progress of Public Business, will be of the greatest advantage to the country. It is from no unworthy motive, from no desire to shrink from the consequences of our own advice, that we necessarily pause for a moment. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well the cause. But do not let the assumption remain for one moment longer—an assumption wholly unauthorized by anything I have said — that the permission which Her Majesty gave to dissolve the Parliament had reference to any other subject than the disestablishment of the Church.
MR. LIDDELL, speaking as an Independent Member, said, it was always a dangerous and hopeless task to attempt to carry on the Government in a minority of the House of Commons. The present occasion was one of extreme gravity, if not of danger—great and deplorable events had before now resulted from smaller beginnings; and, not being himself a strong partizan, he wished to make an appeal to both sides of the House. He regretted extremely that the resignation of Her Majesty's Ministers had not been accepted, because he could not see how they could continue to occupy their present position with either honour to themselves or advantage to the country. They all knew the acceptance or rejection of a proposal depended materially upon the shape in which the suggestion was preferred; and he thought that the name of the Sovereign had been brought forward on recent occasions too prominently, and that the First Minister had sheltered himself under that august name more than he was justified in doing. He wished to point out the danger of the present position of affairs. The name of the Sovereign had been used to retain in Office a Government pledged to a particular line of policy, which appeared to have been condemned by the House of Commons. It might be doubted — and possibly the result would prove that the doubt was well-founded — whether the opinion of the country was really in accordance with the expressed opinion of the House of Commons. Consequently, he rejoiced that the advice was proffered by the First Minister to Her Majesty of a dissolution; and he apprehended now that it might be an immediate dissolution. That being so, he wanted

1817
some further explanation from the First Minister. He believed, in common with many other Members of the House, that something in the nature of an in terrorem influence was being exercised by the Government over the House of Commons. What was the meaning to be attached to the words which had been used by the First Minister—"If, in the transaction of the necessary business, any difficulties should arise, &c.?" Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that, in the event of a collision, or opposition to any measure necessary to complete the business of the Session, the Government would use the power—which they undoubtedly possessed—of dissolving Parliament? A doubt existed in his mind whether those words were not intended to control the free action of that House, and he for one deprecated any such attempt. Having appealed to the Government for an explanation on that point, he would now appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House had unmistakably evinced its feeling on the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and they knew that the Government had obtained permission from Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament upon that question. Was it any use, then, to continue to battle upon this ground to the obstruction of all other business? Even if the Resolutions were all agreed to, no man in his senses believed that it would be practicable to pass a Bill founded upon them this Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire said he intended to bring in a Suspensory Bill. But, even if he succeeded in passing it through the House of Commons, he was hardly credulous enough to believe that it would succeed in the House of Lords. He therefore asked the House to set its face against any further waste of time. He had sat in that House for seventeen years, and he never remembered, and he did not suppose the oldest Member could recollect Public Business in such a state of arrear as at present. After the declaration of the Government, and knowing that a dissolution was to take place on the specific question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, he would ask the House to let them proceed to carry through the absolutely necessary business uncontrolled by any idea of menace or penalties. Let them proceed as quickly as possible to pass the measures necessary to complete the "Reform Programme," and then the country would respond to the appeal made to it.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that last year he said, in reference to the Reform Bill, "Pass the Bill, and then, if you please, turn out the Ministry;" and he now asked the right hon. Gentleman to keep his word.
MR. WHALLEYexpressed his feeling that the circumstances before them, which were alleged as a difficulty, were in reality the reason why there should be an immediate dissolution of Parliament. The question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church involved the English Church as well, and the right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of obtaining an expression of the opinion of the country under the present constituencies on a larger scale than any Minister had enjoyed on any question upon record. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman to act upon the authority he had received from Her Majesty, by dissolving Parliament in spite of all consequences as soon as the immediate exigencies of Public Business could be provided for, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt that course he (Mr. Whalley) should be prepared to support the right hon. Member for South Lancashire in a Vote of Want of Confidence, or in any other course he might pursue.
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to make an explanation with regard to an observation of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who found fault with me, not without some justice as far as the letter of the matter was concerned, for some words used by me this evening. I stated that it was not competent for me to speak last night after I had addressed the House once. That was not true in the letter, but it was true in the spirit. I followed the right hon. Gentleman last evening, and the Motion for the adjournment was not made till after I had spoken. I therefore thought I had lost my opportunity of speaking again, though, of course, I might have spoken again on the question of adjournment, as the right hon. Gentleman himself did.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, references had been made in the course of the discussion to noble Lords speaking in "another place" by name, and there had been quotations from the ipsissima verba of the Earl of Malmesbury and the Duke of Richmond. He wished to know whether that was justified by the rules of the House. He did not desire to narrow the rules of the House in this particular; but he should

1819
be glad of the opinion of the Speaker upon the point, in order that they might arrive at uniformity of conduct. It would be a great satisfaction to him personally if the Speaker declared that all Members of the House might make use of similar references whenever the occasion justified it, and that such privilege should not be confined to those who were more distinguished only.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the rule of the House was that allusion to debates in the other House was not in order; but it was hardly possible that under all circumstances that rule could be absolutely and literally complied with, especially when declarations had been made by Ministers of the Crown on points affecting the position of the House of Commons.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am anxious to state, for the information and convenience of the House, a point in connection with my third Resolution. The third Resolution, in point of form, hangs upon the second Resolution, because it refers to "the purpose aforesaid"—namely, the purpose of preventing the growth of new vested interests and restraining the operation of Commissioners. I propose, for the convenience of the House, in order that the Address upon the third Resolution may contain the whole substance of the Resolutions, to insert words in the third Resolution which will bring in that part of the substance of the second Resolution which is necessary fully to express its sense.
MR. DISRAELI: I should like to see those words in print.
MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly; most unquestionably. Besides putting them in print I wish to take this public opportunity of drawing attention to them. They will be in print to-morrow morning.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY—MILITARY EDUCATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in rising to move an Address to the Crown, on the subject of Military Education, said, he brought forward a similar Motion two years ago, when, in a House of 284 Members, it was lost by 20. On that occasion he was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, by the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for India, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, besides other Members of Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand,
  1820
  he had to deplore the opposition of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), more, he hoped and believed, from a natural disinclination to upset the determination of his predecessors than from any abstract love for the present system of education at the Military Colleges. He felt sanguine, however, that on a full consideration of the whole question, and of the events that had recently occurred at Sandhurst, his Motion would receive the support of many of those who had previously voted against it. Very few changes of importance had been made at Sandhurst College since he last brought the question before the House, and matters had gone on from bad to worse there. If half of what was stated to have occurred at Sandurst last autumn was true, not only was there a great want of respect for all discipline there, but also a want of respect for the property and even for the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. On the 28th October, 1867, a number of the cadets of Sandhurst College entered the shop of a jeweller of the Jewish persuasion, smashed everything in their way, and attacked and maltreated the jeweller himself. For several succeeding nights the cadets inarched about in compact bodies, letting off fireworks and creating great disturbances and universal alarm. On the 1st November they went again to the jeweller's shop, smashed the fanlight over his door, and discharged fireworks. Next day they endeavoured unsuccessfully to batter in his shop front, and did considerable damage; and on other occasions they seriously injured a woman, set fire to a skittle alley, and were guilty of exceedingly riotous conduct. On one of the days in question, which fell on a Sunday, strong measures were taken for the preservation of discipline; but the cadets in the evening assembled near St. Michael's church during the performance of Divine service, and kept up a hideous noise, consisting of catcalls, yells, shouting, &c. He would not pass any comment upon this picture of insubordination, riot, and irreverence, for it spoke for itself; but he wished to impress upon the House that these things must have had a cause, and that that cause was to be found in the present system of training and education at the Military Colleges. When he brought the question before the House before, he dwelt minutely upon the rigorous treatment of the cadets, who were not boys, but young men of eighteen ornineteen—but the fact was he had under-stated

  1821
  the case. The want of discipline was as much due to injudicious indulgence as to injudicious rigour. The cadets had uncomfortable dormitories and want of privacy; they were subjected to an irritating schoolboy treatment, and beyond all that they were exposed, by the very action of the authorities themselves, to every species of temptation. Until lately not only had the publichouses at Sandhurst been thrown open to them, but a canteen had been established within the College itself, where smoking, drinking, and billiard playing went on; and the attractions of these places, as compared with the bare walls and sanded floors of their dormitories, led to a spirit of lawlessness which vented itself sometimes in petty acts of wanton mischief, such as smashing lamps and windows; and at other times into acts of more serious insubordination. The large and increasing class of cadets who came from "cramming" establishments, and who, possessing more money than brains, found it easier to spend a year at College and purchase a commission than to compete for one at Chelsea, exercised a prejudicial influence; and something was also due to the pernicious distinction between the executive officers and the professors of the College—and that applied to both Colleges—by which the power of punishment was maintained in one set of hands while that of imparting instruction was placed in another. And that brought him to what was, after all, the object for which these Colleges were founded—namely, the nature of the education given them. He admitted that the education given in the Military Colleges was good in some points; but the question was, whether it might not be better. The right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), than whom there was no better judge of education, objected during the Recess, in one of those speeches which all must admire, even though they did not concur in them, to the unpractical character of our University and public school training. Now, the same remark would apply to the Military Colleges; yet the military profession was one which urgently required a practical education. Too many subjects had to begot up in too short a time, thus leading to cramming combined with the most absolute ignorance even of the elements of professional education. At Woolwich a cadet had to perfect himself in two years and a half in at least a dozen subjects, including the higher mathematics and natural science, but he was not taught riding until the last year of his academical
  1822
  course, and he was so badly instructed in drill, especially sword drill, that it had to be learnt over again on his joining the regiment. At Sandhurst, almost as many subjects had to be mastered in eighteen or—deducting vacations—in thirteen months; and it used to be, and probably was still, proverbial that young officers coming thence had to unlearn all their drill. Considering our East and West India experiences, it was strange that young officers were not instructed in military law, in the practice of Courts-martial, and regimental economy, which included a knowledge of the weight, price, and quality of the soldier's arms, necessaries, and accoutrements — subjects of the utmost value to the officer. A colloquial knowledge of a foreign language was also exceedingly useful; but examinations being no longer vivâ voce, he believed it was not to be acquired at Woolwich or Sandhurst; and if a cadet were able to string two sentences together in a foreign tongue, it was to be attributed more to his previous training than to collegiate instruction. The students were assembled thirty or forty together in a hall and were expected, while other teaching was going on around them, to solve the most difficult problems in mathematics and natural science—private study being so much discouraged that it was difficult to get permission to read for examinations after the lights were put out. The consequence of this Procrustean system, if he might so call it, was that no cadet really had his talents turned to advantage. Nobody took care to ascertain what speciality he was fitted for, and it followed that many young officers of great parts and attainments were completely lost to the State so far as their particular talents were concerned. He would next refer to the cost of maintaining the Military Colleges — a matter which the educational defects of those institutions brought out only the more prominently. Without troubling the House with an array of figures, he might mention the fact that, exclusive of all the expenses paid for education and maintenance by the parents and guardians of the cadets, the two Colleges at Woolwich and Sandhurst cost over £35,000 a year to the State. The cost of the maintenance of an individual cadet at Woolwich was £200 a year, or 30 or 40 per cent higher than the cost of the education imparted at the most expensive of our public schools, such as Eton and Harrow; 60 or 80 per cent higher than

  1823
  what was paid at less costly establishments, and, as he was informed, 100 per cent higher than the expenses of education at the French College at St. Cyr. If these figures were analyzed, it would be found that the education of the cadet, unlike that of the public school-boy, cost two-thirds of the whole sum, and the maintenance one-third; and the cause of this astounding result would appear to be in the fact that there was one professor, or executive officer to every six cadets, a number that could not reasonably be increased, if the professors were all dry nurses and the cadets all children in leading strings. There was a time when things were very different, for about twenty-five or thirty years ago, in the days of Sir George Scovell, not only did Sandhurst pay its own expenses, but it contributed £1,000 a year besides to the Treasury. He might possibly be told that all these things were thoroughly inquired into in 1857 in the days of Lord Panmure. That was perfectly true; but he would ask, what attention had been paid to the Report of the Commissioners of that time, confirmed as it was by the Minister of the day, and sanctioned by Her Majesty? In their Report the Commissioners recommended among other things the amalgamation of the two Colleges. Then followed naturally the question, why was that Report not attended to? The answer was to be found in the debate which took place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), on the 28th of April, 1858. It had, he believed, been erroneously supposed that the House of Commons on that occasion rejected the proposal for the amalgamation of the two Colleges. Had they done so, his Motion would still not have been affected; but an examination into that debate would, he thought, show that the House was not averse to the amalgamation of the two Colleges, but to the amalgamation of the two Colleges into the College of Sandhurst as it was then constituted, the objection arising from the fact that the House disapproved the system of selection which prevailed at Sandhurst, while it approved the system of competition which prevailed at Woolwich. In any case, the lapse of time, the outbreaks which had since occurred, and the reluctance on the part of every War Minister to deal with the question, on account of the adverse vote supposed to have been arrived at by the House of Commons, were in themselves reasons sufficient why a fresh
  1824
  inquiry should be instituted. In his Motion he had included the subject of military education, because he thought that the inquiry into the military organization and education at Sandhurst ought to be accompanied by an inquiry into the great question of the previous training and examination of all candidates for the army. He hoped, too, that the public schools might be induced to co-operate in this matter, and that by the establishment of classes for practical military education they might be able to strike a blow at what might be termed — whether viewed in a physical, educational, or in a moral point of view—a a most factitious system of education—he meant the "cramming" system. He thought, too, that it would be a very proper subject for consideration to inquire whether it would be possible to improve in any way the practical education of our Volunteer and Militia officers. It would also be in his opinion advisable that the reason for the falling off of the candidates for school-masterships at the Normal Schools at Chelsea should be inquired into, as well as the effect which the recent introduction of recreations and amusements for the benefit of soldiers had exercised upon drunkenness in the army. He had now completed the charges which he had thought it necessary to bring forward against the Military Colleges; he had endeavoured to prove that their discipline was bad, their education defective, and their cost extravagant. To his own mind the remedy was clear. What was required was, in the first place, a searching inquiry, to be followed by the amalgamation of the two Colleges, as recommended by the Council of Military Education, on an entirely different basis. If he was right in anticipating what would be the probable effect of a Commission of Inquiry, he might hope to see the day when a military University would be founded somewhat upon the basis of that admirable College of West Point which existed in the United States, and which had been the mother of so much military talent during the late American war, where candidates would receive a really practical education in military matters, and where those who passed would receive their commissions quite as much for their good conduct as for their proficiency in study. There was another reason why it was especially important that an inquiry should take place at the present time. The system of purchase might at no distant date be either abolished or considerably modified,

  1825
  and in that event it would be of the greatest importance that there should be a military University, through which officers should be compelled to pass; due provision, of course, being made for a certain number of promotions from the ranks. The noble Lord apologized to the House for having brought on a very dry subject after a very exciting one; but he felt assured that, although he might have detained hon. Members a long time, he should not have detained them too long if he succeeded in inducing them to accept his Motion, which he thoroughly believed would promote the interests of the army and of the country. He would conclude by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Royal Commission composed of Military and Civilian Members be appointed to inquire into the present state of Military Education in this Country, and more especially into the training of Candidates for Commissions in the Army, and into the Constitution, system of Education, and discipline of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, as well as into the rules and regulations under which Candidates are admitted into those Colleges."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am afraid my experience in connection with the army and military matters is not sufficient to justify me in pronouncing opinions to which any value can be attached on the various questions raised by the speech and Motion of my noble Friend; but when my noble Friend gave notice of this Motion I felt it my duty to give my most careful attention to the consideration of the subject; and I accordingly consulted a considerable number of those military men of long experience and high authority in whose judgment I felt I could confide. The result of my reflection and inquiry has been that I consider it my duty to accede to my noble Friend's Motion. I am quite sure that every Gentleman now present will feel that no apology was necessary on the part of my noble Friend for bringing forward a subject to which he has given great attention, and which he has now introduced to the House in a speech of great clearness; and, although he terms the subject a very dry one, I must differ more from him on that point than on the merits of the Motion, for, whatever our individual opinions on it may be, everyone must acknowledge that it relates to a subject bearing in the most direct and important manner on the interests of the army. Such inquiries as I have been able to make convince me that
  1826
  among military men generally there is a very strong feeling that the state of military education in this country is not altogether satisfactory. I cannot myself presume to give any opinion which would be worth considering as to whether it be desirable that our army should be made more a professional army than it is at present. It seems to me, however, that there are very strong grounds for believing that our army would be improved and our officers rendered more efficient and more competent to discharge their duties if the army were made a more professional army than it now is, and this is also the opinion of many officers who have given the most careful consideration to the matter. It is essential, in order to attain that object, that the early training of our officers should be more systematic and complete than at present; and here let me remind the House that this is by no means a new question. On the contrary, it was dealt with, and nearly completed, by the late Lord Herbert in 1860 and 1861, when he was Secretary of State for War. Lord Herbert was desirous that, as regards the Line, the Cavalry, and the Guards, all candidates for commissions should pass through Sandhurst, and that from 500 to 600 cadets should be taught there. This proposal of Lord Herbert was carried out so far that it obtained the approval of the Treasury; and, in the Estimates for 1861–2, a sum of £15,000 was actually introduced, and voted, I believe, by the House, for erecting suitable buildings for the accommodation of 500 cadets; and in the following financial year, 1862–3, though the number of cadets was then estimated at 400 only, a Vote of £12,700 was placed in the Estimates for carrying out the arrangements for extending the establishment at Sandhurst. But this intention to create a great military College was abandoned in consequence of an objection which was raised on the part of our great English Universities. At least, I have been told that that was the reason why the idea dropped after having been so far carried into execution; but I am not disposed to think that such objection on the part of the Universities ought to be entertained or persevered in. If my noble Friend's Motion should result in the recommendations which are likely to be made by the Commission, I should regret that the objections raised by the Universities should be allowed to interfere with the plan proposed. I can only consider the interference of the

  1827
  Universities as practically mischievous, for the result of it has been to bring to Sandhurst—the privilege, I may remark, does not apply to Woolwich—young men of an age which makes them utterly unfit for anything like education in a seminary of that kind; while, at the same time, the maintenance of discipline has been rendered extremely difficult. And here let me call the attention of the House for a moment to one very serious defect in our present system, in consequence of the ages at which young men enter the institutions at Woolwich and Sandhurst, and in consequence also of the reservation to which I have referred in favour of the Universities. The subject was under serious consideration by myself, in conjunction with the Commander in Chief, in January last, when—at the request of his Royal Highness—I attended a meeting at the Horse Guards. The Commander in Chief was himself present at that meeting, which was also attended by the Council of Military Education. The age of the students in the Colleges was taken into our serious consideration, and we came to a determination to make an important alteration in this respect. At present young men cannot enter Sandhurst or Woolwich before they are sixteen years old, nor remain there after they are nineteen. We agreed that it was desirable to reduce the period of instruction to two years, and to admit students from the fifteenth to the seventeenth years of their age. The House must, however, bear in mind that young men are at present allowed to enter the institution at Sandhurst when they are as much as twenty-one years of age, and to remain there, if intended for the cavalry, until they are twenty-three. The result is, that very few young men avail themselves of the opportunity afforded them by this system. Young men are allowed to come to Sandhurst from the Universities at twenty-three years of age, and the result is that they cannot obtain their commissions and commence their military career until they are twenty-five years of age. It therefore appears to me that the ages at which cadets are permitted to enter these Colleges should be reduced, so that the young men may commence their military career and training at an earlier age. This reduction in the ages of the cadets entering the Colleges was discussed at a meeting of the Council of Military Education, held at the Horse Guards in January last; but in consequence of the intention of my noble
  1828
  Friend to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission being communicated to us, it was resolved, with the concurrence of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, not to make any absolute orders that cadets must enter the Colleges at an earlier age than was now permitted until after the subject had been considered by that Commission. Let me now call the attention of the House to the result of admitting young men to Woolwich at the ages—namely, from sixteen to nineteen—to which I have already adverted. I hold in my hand a Paper giving the ages of the cadets who were at Woolwich on the 1st of the present month, from which I find the average age of the whole number of cadets at that establishment to be nineteen years and two months; that of the young men in the first class being as high as twenty, while the age of the oldest cadet in the first class was twenty one years and eight months, rendering it impossible that he could obtain his commission until he was twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, whereas cadets should commence their military career at eighteen years of age. My noble Friend, towards the close of his speech, touched upon a subject which I think is one worthy the consideration of the Royal Commission about to be appointed—namely, the system of what is commonly and familiarly called "cramming," from which great evils have resulted. There is, however, a subject of extreme importance and delicacy to which my noble Friend did not allude, but which it may be thought may well form one of the points for the consideration of the Commission. I must confess that I have never been a very zealous convert to the system of competitive examination; and I am disposed to think that those who believed firmly in that system have had their faith in it a good deal shaken in consequence of circumstances in connection with it that have recently transpired. I have been informed on unquestionable authority—and I can assure the House that I make the statement with great pain and regret, and I should, therefore, be extremely sorry were I in the slightest degree to over-state the case—that one of the effects of the system of competitive examination has been to lead to painful and serious irregularities and demoralization at the cramming schools. I quite believe there are many of those establishments which are conducted with every propriety and with every respectability; but these terms

  1829
  of praise do not, I am sorry to say, apply I to all of them. At some of those establishments—and I fear at not a few—the principle acted upon is this: "You, the pupil, must give me, the teacher, so many hours in the day"—which generally is a large demand upon the time of the cadet, usually some nine or ten hours in the day—"and when those hours are over you may go where and do what you like." I am informed upon authority I cannot doubt that this is the system in force in too many of these establishments. Indeed, among my own private acquaintance, I know of a few cases in which young men, or boys, sent to these schools have come to their parents and entreated to be removed from them, on the ground of the irregularities and demoralization that prevailed there. It is a most serious question that any system should be allowed to exist under which the youth of this country, the sons of our gentry, cannot be trained to this noble profession without being tainted and demoralized at these ill-conducted establishments. So strongly was I impressed by the statements made to me upon this subject that, at the meeting of the Council of Military; Education that was held at the Horse? Guards in January last, I thought it to be my duty to suggest that they should take the matter into their consideration with the view of putting an end to this unfortunate state of affairs. A Committee (of which the Rev. Canon Moseley was a Member) of that Council was appointed to consider the subject and to make a Report upon it, and in the Report they made they recommended that a system of inspection of these schools should be established; but, after giving the subject very careful consideration, considerable doubt exists as to whether we shall be able to carry that recommendation into effect. Had it been clear that we could have introduced such a system with effect I should not have now mentioned the subject. I think, however, that the House will agree with me that the existing state of things is a most painful one, and is worthy any amount of inquiry to see if it cannot possibly be put a stop to. If establishments of this kind must exist, and cadets must attend them as an indispensable step to military service, they ought to be placed under such regulations as would remove the dangers to which I have thought it right thus briefly to advert. My noble Friend gave many reasons for embracing so many topics in his Commission. I do not ask him to alter the terms of his Mo-
  1830
  tion; but I hope that when the Commission is appointed they will not extend their inquiries beyond what is absolutely required for a full elucidation of the subject. I regard the objects of this Commission as of great importance, and as being intimately connected with the efficiency of the army, and with the proper training of our youth who are educating themselves for that noble profession. I also agree with the noble Lord in thinking that the question whether the institutions at Woolwich and at Sandhurst might not be beneficially amalgamated is one worthy the serious consideration of the Commission, to the appointment of which I have now great pleasure in giving my assent.
  MR. MONSELLwished to say a few words with reference to the somewhat disparaging remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the system of competitive examination at Woolwich. Experience proved that system to be a complete success both intellectually and morally. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War had spoken of the cramming establishments, as if the system of cramming and the demoralization consequent upon its adoption were naturally connected with the system of competitive examination. Taking into consideration the number of cadets that had formerly to be sent away from the Woolwich establishment on account of the immorality that prevailed there, and the entreaties which were often formerly made by some of those cadets whose minds had remained uncontaminated to be taken away from that sink of vice, he thought the improvement which had been introduced into that establishment by the adoption of the system of competitive examination was enormous. With regard to the proposed amalgamation of Sandhurst and Woolwich, in a former debate difficulties were suggested that still existed with as much force as ever. It was clear that if they were amalgamated, by far the greater proportion of pupils would be destined for the Line, and not for the scientific corps; and the necessary and natural result would be that education would be conducted with regard to the requirements of the non-scientific rather than the scientific corps. On the question of reducing the age at which pupils were admitted, he would urge them to look at the practice in other countries. There was in France an institution corresponding to that suggested by the noble Lord, for the general education of cadets, and yet, although pupils were admitted to the Ecole Polytechnique

  1831
  from the ages of sixteen to twenty, there were hardly any admissions under seventeen, and very few between seventeen and eighteen, and the majority were between the ages of eighteen and twenty. It would be almost impossible for Artillery and Engineer officers to receive a proper scientific education, supposing the course to be two years, if they were to enter at an earlier age. It seemed to him it would prevent the possibility of the scientific corps receiving the education necessary to fit them for the proper discharge of their duties if the age were reduced. As to the results of the competitive system he was assured on the highest authority, that nothing could be more marked than the increased application and industry which had succeeded in his object, because the state of followed its introduction. Formerly young men who studied were laughed at, but now Study was the rule. Again, the standard of scientific acquirements was higher for cadets entering the Royal Military Academy than it was formerly, for the commission examinations. So far from the gentleman-like tone being impaired by the competitive system, he was assured it was exactly the reverse, and that the conduct of the cadets was exemplary. In every particular—knowledge, conduct, and ability—the new system answered perfectly. A large number of those who entered Sandhurst had failed at Woolwich; and there was a remarkable instance of two young men who failed at Woolwich attaining the top of the list in the competitive examination for direct commissions. The present condition of the Royal Military Academy was on the whole satisfactory, although improvements might be made, and the expenditure was, perhaps, excessive. There were two staffs of military officers receiving high pay, with very little to do, and there were too many of the traditions maintained, of rules suited, perhaps, to school boys, but not suited for young men. He sincerely trusted there would be no tampering with the competitive system, which worked so well, for no movement could be more retrograde than an attempt to interfere with it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had been rather misunderstood. Speaking generally as to the competitive system he did not wish to say it had produced bad effects at Woolwich; on the contrary, as far as he had heard, he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the results at Woolwich were quite as good as they had been before its introduction.
  COLONEL NORTH, referring to a Committee appointed on his Motion many years ago said, there was hardly a distinguished officer of the Royal Artillery and Engineers examined who did not express the opinion that the ages for admission into the Engineer and Artillery corps should be lowered, and that the educational test should be lowered also. The question was put whether the test now required from the officers was necessary for the daily performance of their duties, and the answer was that it was not. With regard to the entrance of officers into regiments of the Line, many of them began their duties as subalterns when they ought to be captains. He was delighted his noble Friend had succeeded in his object, because the state of Sandhurst College had been most extraordinary, boys of fourteen being in the same categrory with young men of seventeen and eighteen; and there must be great difficulty in framing rules suitable to these two classes. He hoped the Royal Commission would be able to take these points into consideration, and that some steps would be adopted by which such proceedings as his noble Friend had adverted to would no longer prevail.
  MR. O'REILLYcongratulated the noble Lord on his success, which rendered it unnecessary for him to detain the House with many observations. He wished, however, to draw two morals from the course of investigation which had been pursued on this subject. One was the great importance of perseverance. They were always told in making such a Motion that further inquiry was unnecessary, everything was already known, and it was idle, futile, to seek further inquiry. This subject had gone through these stages, just as that of recruiting had done. Another little moral related to the question how far the Government or the House of Commons were accountable for economy and efficiency in the expenditure of the country. It had been roundly stated that the House of Commons, having assented to the Estimates proposed by the Government, were fully as much accountable for the public expenditure as the Government who proposed them; and if there was any tiling to blame in the expenditure, it rested quite as much with the House of Commons as with the Government. He entirely dissented from the doctrine. It was impossible for the House of Commons in detail to enforce economy in the public expenditure. Even with regard to those military

  1833
  schools now to be inquired into by a Royal Commission, he had stated more than once that he believed the expenditure to be extravagant and unnecessary, and he undertook to demonstrate the fact. So long ago as 1862 he had called attention to what he believed to be the extravagant expense of the military schools of the country, founded on a comparison of Woolwich and Sandhurst with the Ecole Polytechnique and the Ecole Speciale Militaire, their correlatives; the expenditure at Woolwich being £160 per annum for each cadet, while in France it was only £115; and the teaching and superintendence, which in England was £85, cost in France only £40 each. At Sandhurst the expense of living was £70; at the Ecole Speciale Militaire, £50; while teaching and superintendence cost in England £70, and in France £34. The Secretary for War said inquiry was unnecessary; but next year he went a little farther, and ventured, having made careful inquiries throughout the country, and comparing the cost of teaching in military schools with the teaching in civil schools, to show that the teaching power in military schools everywhere was extravagant. The number of pupils at Woolwich was 180, and the number of teachers 35. There was great excess here, particularly in mathematics, there being not less than seven teachers in that department. Of course, they were met with the usual official stereotyped answers to such criticisms. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), then Secretary of State for War, was not very able to answer; but the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) came to the rescue, and stated that the subject had been exhaustively considered by the Commission appointed in 1857, which had reported when he was Secretary of State. He attributed the ignorance which prevailed on this subject to the fact that the Library contained no copies of that Report, and the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), as the result of that appeal, placed two copies in the Library. He devoted considerable time in reading that Report, and, strange to say, the Royal Commissioners corroborated most of the statements that had been made in that House, and made recommendations similar to those that had been suggested by hon. Members in the various debates that had taken place upon the subject. What steps, then, had been taken since 1857 to carry
  1834
  out that Report? With regard to the cost of education, this Commission reported that £100 per annum ought to cover the expense of a pupil at any military College. Did not that show that £160 was excessive? And so with regard to the teaching staff. The Commission reported that it was excessive. He then referred to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War, that the age of admission should be altered from sixteen to eighteen, to fifteen to seventeen, and observed that an earlier age should not be named for entering the College, but that they should diminish the time at which these cadets might reasonably hope for promotion. In conclusion, he said that it was futile to throw upon the House of Commons the responsibility of increased Estimates; the responsibility rested with the Government, which alone possessed the requisite knowledge of details.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reference to remarks from the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, said, he certainly did not understand his right hon. Friend to propose a reference to the Committee of matters under the jurisdiction of the Crown.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSK, referring to the late Sir George Wetherall, said, that officer seemed to have been placed at the head of Sandhurst, not because he was known to possess abilities as a teacher, but in order to reward him as a military man. But if it was intended to reward or honour a man it should be done directly, and not by placing him in a position for which he was not specially qualified. He found that Sandhurst cost £36,731 a year, and there were taught 300 cadets. He would ask any man accustomed to teaching, whether that was not a very large sum to pay. Again, Woolwich cost £38,581 for teaching 200 cadets. At Sandhurst, 300 cadets had 162 professors, teachers, and servants to look after them; and, at Woolwich, for 200 cadets, there were 149 professors, teachers, and servants to discharge similar duties. And yet it appeared from what had fallen from the noble Lord that these young men, notwithstanding all this looking after, were in the habit of going out to smoke, drink, and play billiards. The House could understand from that how it was that riots had occurred. One might expect that all these professors would be able to keep the young men in better order. There was one question which he

  1835
  wished to ask, and that was, whether those two institutions could not be put together and one large establishment formed, so that the expense of two sets of professors, instructors, teachers, and servants for 500 young men might be saved to the country?
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTwished to say a word with respect to the canteen established at Sandhurst, which had been referred to by the noble Lord. That canteen was opened for the purpose of supplying coffee, beer, and other things by way of luncheon and ordinary refreshment, but not spirits, to the cadets out of hours, and the object was to keep them from the temptation of the public-house. Billiard tables were established like racket-courts, with the view of giving the young men amusement and keeping them from low houses, where evil associates were likely to be picked up. He wished to express his satisfaction at the success of his noble Friend's Motion, and at the spirit in which the Secretary of State intended to meet it by recommending Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission. The state of Sandhurst and Woolwich ever since he had any knowledge of them had been very unsatisfactory, and that was owing to a matter which had not been mentioned during the discussion. The fact was the young men were, for the most part, put four or five together into rooms; there was not much more moral supervision over them than over soldiers in a barrack; and they were not looked after in the way that boys were at Eton, Harrow, or any other of our public schools. That was a great defect. The professors, who were many of them very able men, when they had finished their lessons, had nothing further to do with the cadet; and, though the officers who were placed over them did undoubtedly look after the young men according to their view of their duty, and a natural view it was, yet the moral influence which was found so salutary, and which tutors exercised over boys at public schools, was wanting. Military men for the most part were not suited to be schoolmasters, because the business of the schoolmaster was one to which they had not been brought up; but, though absolutely necessary as teachers of technical matters, such as military history and fortification, he must give his candid opinion that, as far as the tone of moral conduct went, they made very bad schoolmasters. His noble Friend wanted to establish a University which every one who went into the army should
  1836
  be bound to enter. No doubt, there were arguments in favour of a higher professional education; but, while he was perfectly willing to see a University established where persons might go to take a degree in military science, he did not wish to force young men three or four years beforehand to make up their minds to enter the army. In his opinion they could not get better officers than were to be had from our public schools.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSpointed out that the inquiry which had been promised was of a small and limited nature, and expressed his regret that it was not to be larger and wider. Speaking from his experience at the military College of Sandhurst, he must express his opinion that the education of officers with respect to general attainments was now placed on too high a standard. That standard would not secure for the country, active, courageous, and able regimental officers in the general service. His dread was that many most excellent young men, most competent to be regimental officers, would be excluded from the army by reason of the competitive examination. At a former period men who could not at the present day have passed the competitive examination distinguished themselves in the Peninsular War, some of them attaining the highest rank, fighting well, proving excellent regimental officers, and maintaining in most difficult times the honour of the British flag. It was not alone a knowledge of mathematics, or of history, or of many other things he might mention, that was required by a military officer. On the contrary, he thought that a man might have his mind over-crammed with general knowledge, and be thereby less fitted for the performance of his duties than would otherwise be the case. He had himself been educated at Sandhurst, and much did he owe to the education he received there; but he remembered that at that time of day the students were taught how to load and manage a gun, but they were not allowed to use powder. Some time after that they were instructed in riding, which was doubtless a very necessary part of their training, but this was not done while he was in the school. The grand object should be to investigate the question as to what education was respectively required for regimental officers, for Engineer and Artillery officers, for staff officers and commanders of high rank; and nothing could be more mischievous than that a young man should, after a

  1837
  competitive examination, enter the army as an ensign or lieutenant, with the fancy that he knew better than everybody who happened to be above him. For his own part he thought it would be much better to unite the two establishments of Sandhurst and Woolwich. It should be understood that when this Commission was appointed, its duties should not be limited to a mere inquiry into what took place at the Colleges of Woolwich or Sandhurst; but that the whole system of army education, including competititive examinations and appointments to first and second commissions, should be thoroughly investigated, and the effect of the competitive examinations should be inquired into, so that the Commissioners might report for the consideration of the House whether they would continue the system of competitive examinations, which he granted might give them good officers, but which might exclude the very best of officers.
  COLONEL SYKESreferred to the experience of the East India Company, in connection with their great institution at Addiscombe, as illustrating how scientific education for the Engineers and Artillery might be combined with instruction for regimental positions. Addiscombe had sent out very many distinguished Artillery officers and Engineers to India, and among them was Sir Robert Napier, now commanding the army in Abyssinia, who went out very young. Some of the most distinguished Engineers that we had in India obtained their swords of merit by the time they were seventeen. He regretted to hear an hon. Gentleman complain that men went into the army too young. It was desirable that those who were intended for service in any country like India should go out at an early age, in order that they might get acclimatized, and might hold on. He himself had gone out at fourteen, he was under fire at fifteen, and he attributed his present advanced age and health to youthful acclimatization. He was glad to hear that the Commission was sanctioned, and if it were properly carried out, and due inquiry made as to the working of Addiscombe, he had no doubt that the result would be the combination of the two establishments al Woolwich and Sandhurst, not only with great efficiency, but also with great economy.
  MR. ACLANDsubmitted that if there was one point more than another which required attention in connection with this question, it was the great secret of know-
  1838
  ing how to teach. He earnestly hoped that the Government, in framing the terms of the Commission, would leave it open to the Commission to consider, and would almost direct their attention to, the question—how could the drill instructors of the English army be taught the art of teaching? If England meant to go on paying for auxiliary forces, 180,000 Volunteers, besides Yeomanry and Militia, it behoved the Secretary at War to consider whether the officers of some 300,000 or 400,000 men ought to be intrusted with the duty of teaching their brother civilians without, at least, having had an opportunity of going to some institution where they might be taught—first, the facts they ought to know; secondly, the principles on which those facts rested; and, lastly, how to impart them to civilians, who had very little time, and were not now properly taught by the drill instructors. Some of the instructors were very able, but they were only a very few amongst the many.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Chambers) that under the present system the minds of officers were emasculated by over education. He hoped that the Commission to be appointed would include this subject in their inquiries—that they would consider why the two institutions alluded to were required at all, and on what grounds young men did not enter the army at as early an age as they entered the navy.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a Royal Commission composed of Military and Civilian Members be appointed to inquire into the present state of Military Education in this Country, and more especially into the training of Candidates for Commissions in the Army, and into the constitution, system of Education, and discipline of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, as well as into the rules and regulations under which Candidates are admitted into those Colleges.—(Lord Eustace Cecil.)

EAST INDIA CIVIL SERVICE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move a Resolution relative to Examinations for the East India Civil Service, said, that Her Majesty, in her Proclamation to the People of India in 1858, which had been looked upon as the charter of their liberties, declared it to be her will and pleasure

  1839
  that all her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be fairly and impartially admitted into her service, if they were qualified by education, ability, and integrity. He should be able to prove that if some scheme like that he intended to propose was not carried out that promise would not be faithfully fulfilled. Under the present system of admission to the Civil Service, a preliminary examination was necessary in London, to decide on the candidate's intellectual and moral fitness; and on succeeding in this he was required to spend two years in this country, taking minutes of the proceedings of Courts of Justice, and in other ways preparing himself for his duties. It was no doubt true that the Natives of India might compete in these examinations; but, as they could only do so by coming to London, at great expense, and then might be unsuccessful, to say that the examinations were practically open to them was an idle mockery. In fact, though the system had continued for many years, only one Native had entered into the competition. His proposal was that there should be examinations at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay; that there should be the same papers and the same tests as in London; and that the successful candidates, whether English or Native, should spend two years in this country. To this he had reason to believe, from memorials he had received from Calcutta and Bombay, the Natives would not object, though they naturally objected to coming over to England in the first instance without any guarantee of success. Their two years' residence here might be turned to good account; for conversation with many of the leading members of his own University enabled him to say that at Cambridge, as also, doubtless at Oxford, they would be welcomed and encouraged to spend the two years there, and they would thus be brought in contact with the best of our English youth. There would be no difficulty in carrying out this plan; for the examination papers might be sent under seal to India, and, the examination being fixed for the same day as in London, the candidates' papers might be sent home under seal, and inspected by the same examiners, the names of the successful candidates at all four examinations being arranged in the order of merit. This would be analogous to the plan pursued with the Middle Class Examinations, Cambridge University having a centre at Trinidad, and the examination there being
  1840
  conducted as fairly as at London or Liverpool. An objection might, indeed, be taken on account of part of the examinations being vivâ voce, but some of the best scholars from English Universities held professorships in India, and were perfectly competent to conduct vivâ voce examinations. The Secretary for India, while not resisting the claim of the Natives to a larger share in the government of the country, preferred a compromise, which was embodied in an Amendment to be moved by his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan)—namely, that a certain proportion of the appointments should be reserved for Natives who were properly qualified. The plan, however, unless the proportion were absolutely fixed, would vary with the changing opinions of each Governor General or Secratary of State, and it would not satisfy the just demands of the people of India. Even in the Uncovenanted Service there was only one Native. Some favoured the plan of permitting a given proportion of the Civil Service to consist of Natives; but if it were decided that one-third or one-fifth should be Native, it might happen that the quota could not be supplied in consequence of the inefficiency of the candidates. But under any circumstances the admission of Natives on the present terms would be very trying to them, because they would always occupy an inferior position; for Englishmen, who were prone to feel proud of their race, would say to the Natives that had they been obliged to undergo the same test that they as Englishmen had been subjected to, they never would have been admitted to the Civil Service, and they would therefore take care to keep the Native civil servants always down. The people of India were ready to undergo whatever intellectual test it was deemed wise to impose; all they asked for was to be subjected to precisely the same trial as the English. He had seen letters from Natives of India stating that, if they could only obtain this privilege of perfect equality, and the result should show that not one Native could prove himself equal to his English competitor, they would then have no longer any ground for complaint. He made no prediction as to the number of Natives that would be successful in the examinations; but he believed that it would be an intellectual rivalry which would benefit the people of England as well as of India. He felt confident, however, that a large number of Natives would be success-

  1841
  ful; and he based his confidence on the fact that they were a studious people and showed an extraordinary zeal for a high education. Intellectually, he was convinced the Natives were not inferior to the Engglish. A very eminent friend of his, who had been twelve years tutor at Cambridge, and who had also been tutor at Calcutta, said that he never had another class for high intellectual character such as he had at Calcutta. The Secretary for India might say that something beside intellect was needed, and insist upon moral qualities as well. He answered that moral qualities should also be insisted on when Englishmen were chosen to assist in the government of those whom they looked upon as a subject race. Sir Bartle Frere had said that those Natives who had received a good education were always foremost in their advocacy of the Imperial Government. He (Mr. Fawcett) saw no objection, however, to requiring that Native candidates should pass two years in some recognized English educational establishment where their moral character might be studied. It should be said, in defence of the Natives, that to make them fill inferior offices at a mean late of pay was not the way to cultivate integrity among them. Even a Native Judge who had power to decide cases involving sums up to £500 received no more than one-fifth of the lowest European Judge in India. Sir Thomas Munro had testified to the assiduity of the Natives; he had spoken of them as better men of business than Europeans, and more fitted to fill offices under Government, because they were acquainted with the manners and customs of the people; and, with reference to their alleged inferiority of character, he had asked, what would be the effect on English character if we, having been subjected, were debarred from all but the meanest Offices of State? our civilization and our literature would be destroyed, nothing would save us from debasement. It was an indisputable fact that many Natives competent to govern a province were fulfilling the humblest duties at salaries less than was received by the youngest member of the Indian Civil Service. Lord Metcalfe had well said that the bane of our system was that the advantages were reaped by one class and the work was done by another. The great reason why the people of India were not more contented with our rule was, not that we had not given them material prosperity, but that we had excluded them from social, municipal, and
  1842
  political offices. The great defect of our Indian system had been its rigid centralization. It was obvious that those who had been brought up upon the spot must be better able to understand the wants of the people, to enter into their feelings, and to appreciate their prejudices, than those who were completely strangers to them. Sir Bartle Frere, in one of his despatches, said he had been much struck with the fact that the ablest exponents of English policy, and our best coadjutors in adapting that policy to the wants of the various nations occupying Indian soil, were to be found among the Natives who had received a high-class English education. It was too often forgotten in that House that India was really not one nation, but it was composed of many nations, and therefore a system of strict centralization was peculiarly ill-adapted to that country. What was particularly wanted in India was that that there should be in the public service persons who understood the particular manners, customs, and prejudices of the varied and distinct nations of which it was composed. By carrying out the proposal embodied in his Resolution they would redress the grievance complained of, inasmuch as they would throw open the appointments in the public service in that country to all those Natives who were intellectually and morally qualified to fill them. Directly they educated a man they made him ambitious to take part in the government of the country, and, therefore, it became more hard each day on the people of India to quench the ambition which by these educational efforts we had called forth. It was very hard, again, that the children of English officers or civilians resident in India should not have the same facilities for obtaining admission to service under the Crown as were possessed by the families of officers or civilians resident in England. This consideration would become of even greater importance if, with increased facilities for locomotion, and with means of sending children to the hills every year, it became possible to rear the families of Europeans in India itself. The course which he advocated was based upon justice; and he was perfectly certain, that if adopted, it would have a most beneficial effect upon public opinion throughout our Indian territory. It had been well said of the subjects of Her Majesty's Eastern Empire—that in their prosperity was our strength, in their contentment our security, and their gratitude would be our best re-

  1843
  ward. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. M'LARENseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, whilst cordially approving of the system of open competition for appointments in the East India Civil Service, is of opinion that the people of India have not a fair chance of competing for these appointments as long as the examinations are held nowhere but in London; this House would therefore deem it desirable that, simultaneously with the examination in London, the same examination should be held in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I gather from the speech of my hon. Friend, with the spirit of which I cordially agree, that he has two principal objects in bringing forward this Resolution. First, he wishes, by placing the Natives of India in intellectual competition with our own countrymen, to vindicate their claims to mental superiority, and thereby to diminish the tone of disparagement and contempt which is too often adopted with regard to them; and, secondly, he aims at giving them a fair share in the administration of their own country. Now, Sir, if the House will lend me its attention, and I promise not to detain it long, I hope to be able to show that the first of these objects, so far from being furthered by the course which my hon. Friend calls on you to adopt, will, on the contrary, suffer from it a great and, what is more, an irremediable check; and that the second will be attained in a much more sure and satisfactory manner, by the course indicated in the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper, and which the Government has since embodied in a Bill: a Bill to which, as a humble but sincere well-wisher to India, I beg to give my cordial approval. Sir, I deplore equally with my hon. Friend, the manner in which European settlers and planters, and, in too many cases, the younger officers of our army allow themselves to speak of their Indian fellow-subjects. As a proof of sincerity on this point, hon. Gentlemen will perhaps not think it impertinent in me to state that I once wrote a book, whose only merit consisted in its being a protest against the high-handed, overbearing, and unjust way in which many Englishmen spoke of and dealt with the population whom it was their special national mission to govern and to elevate; a protest which called down on me the vigorous denunciations of the Anglo-Indian Press. But, Sir, the policy of my hon. Friend, instead
  1844
  of extinguishing those feelings of dislike and depreciation would only serve to embitter and perpetuate them; and the process by which this unfortunate result would come about is obvious and certain. What is this Covenanted Civil Service? What is its special object, and what is the public reason for its existence? It is the appointed channel through which the knowledge, the ability, the higher morality of the United Kingdom is applied to the administration of India, and not of the United Kingdom only, but of Canada, Australia, and the other British colonies. In order to ascertain who are the best and ablest among our young men, we hold yearly a searching competitive examination; and, in order to attract the greatest possible number of such young men, we hold out to the successful candidates the certainty of a highly paid and most influential, and interesting public career. To bring to bear upon India the highest governing powers of the United Kingdom and the whole British Empire, is, therefore, the object of the Covenanted Civil Service, and the justification for its existence. And hon. Gentlemen must remember that it needs such a justification, for this Civil Service is guarded by monopoly, and fenced round with privileges. It is exclusive to such a degree, that the Government are bound to continue in their service, and to promote according to the ordinary routine, every civil servant who is sent out under covenant, unless he commits some act of gross misconduct; and they are also restrained from looking abroad for persons of experience and ability, and are bound to confine themselves to members of this privileged class, unless circumstances should occur of such a special and exceptional character, that practically they never have occurred, and the monopoly of the Covenanted Civil Service remains to this day uninfringed and absolute. The civil servants sent out to India are untried young men, and, owing to moral and physical defects which cannot be absolutely tested in an examination, a proportion of them are certain to turn out unfit for the highly difficult and important administrative career to which they have been designated; and yet the conditions on which they entered the service must be observed. The Government must fulfill its side of the contract. Good or bad they must be promoted in their turn, or in something like their turn. Posts worth their acceptance have to be found for them. Men are made Judges

  1845
  who are notoriously deficient in discrimination, and are appointed to govern provinces as large as an English county, though they have never learned to govern themselves. And yet, for the honour of our nation, it must be said that the number of bad bargains is surprisingly small; and the reason is evident. Success in the competitive examination is a guarantee that an English civil servant possesses industry, and intellectual ability, and an Englishman who is industrious and clover is very seldom deficient in the moral qualities of force, energy, honesty, and courage; qualities which are absolutely essential to all who aspire to be enrolled among the governing caste of an Oriental people. But it is far otherwise with Hindoos. The Natives of Bengal are remarkable for extreme quickness and cleverness; but, as compared with Europeans, are singularly deficient in the bolder and hardier virtues—in pluck, self-reliance, and veracity—the three great national attributes by which we gained, and by which we retain our hold upon British India. In such a competition as is proposed by my hon. Friend, they would be eminently successful; for remarkable as is their capacity, it is not so peculiar as the premature ripeness of their intellect. Their turn for mathematics is extraordinary. A Cambridge contemporary of my own, who was professor at the Calcutta University, a distinguished wrangler, assured me that the young men whom he was engaged in instructing, rushed through his course of subjects at such headlong speed that he began to be afraid lest, at the end of six months, he should have nothing left to teach them. There is no doubt that if you adopt my hon. Friend's Resolution; if you open these doors at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, the Natives would come in by shoals, and just reflect a moment on what you will be doing. The Hindoos are strong in intellect, and confessedly weak in morale. You submit them to an intellectual test, which the great number are pretty sure to pass. You dispense with the moral test, by which the great number are pretty sure to fail. You will have the service full of bad bargains. And why? Why, Sir, because in old Haileybury days, when the service was close, and there was no competitive test, a bad bargain meant a man who was a fool. In these days, when there is a competitive test, when every successful candidate must have, at the least, some book learning, a bad bargain means a man who is a muff.
  1846
  And, Sir, if 5 per cent of the English competition wallahs are found wanting in the vigorous and manly virtues, indispensable to the members of a ruling caste, what will be the percentage among the Hindoo competition wallahs? Why, many times as great, Sir; and everyone, who thinks for a moment, will see that it must be so, and no one more clearly than the hon. Gentleman, who, in discussions of this nature, has the immense, and almost unique advantage of being equally versed in practical education and practical politics. Of course, where you find one young English civil servant unequal to the duties and responsibilities of his career, you will find ten or twenty Natives; for the very plain reason that we, as a race, are far superior to them in force of character. We know that it is so by observation; by their own confession; by the overwhelming testimony of fact. If it be not the case—if the average of what I may call the governing qualities is as high among the Hindoos as among the English, how did we ever get to India, and how do we contrive to stay there? We are there because nine Englishmen out of ten are born to rule, and ninety-nine out of 100 Hindoos are born to be governed; because we are manly, and they are effeminate; because—but instead of giving reasons to ourselves why we are in India an Imperial race, ask the first Native, and what is he sure to tell you? He is sure to say—and I appeal for confirmation to every old civil servant in the House—that the secret of our power in India is not so much our valour, not so much our enterprise, as that we, as a nation, speak the truth, and never take bribes. And, therefore, Sir, if, in an evil day for our rule in India, you listen to the advice of my hon. Friend, you will fill the service with men who will succeed in the examination, and altogether break down in practical life. The Indian career is of such a nature that the youngest civilian has constant demands upon his stock of determination and self-reliance. Contingencies are frequently occurring when he is looked to to put down a dangerous outbreak; to coerce or cajole a refractory potentate; to arbitrate between religious sects inflamed against each other by mutual injuries. On such an occasion the great majority of these unhappy Hindoo competitition wallahs would succumb to the difficulties of their situation, and then what would become of the philanthropic motives of my hon. Friend? Would this be a state of the case likely to in-

  1847
  duce English planters and subalterns to moderate their tone towards the Natives of India? No, Sir! On the contrary, they would imagine that everything harsh and unkind which they were accustomed to say and believe had received an additional justification. Their taunts and sarcasm would acquire fresh point, and they would believe that they had now good ground to upbraid the Hindoos for inferiority of character, whereas, up to that time, they had only abused them on speculation.
  But, Sir, if we reject the proposition of my hon. Friend we are bound in honour as a nation to substitute for it some machinery by which Native Indian talent may be brought to bear upon the administration of India. I say, in honour as a nation, because in the 87th section of the Charter Act of 1833 we solemnly pledged ourselves to open all employments to Natives, without distinction of caste, sect, or religion. And how have we redeemed this pledge? We have extended the line somewhat as regards the subordinate class of employments to which Natives are eligible. If this had not been done the business of the country could not have been carried on, and public affairs must have fallen into utter confusion; and, at the same time, we have appointed Natives to the honorary unpaid situation of Legislative Councillor, and to a very small number of Judgeships of the High Courts—two or three for the whole of India. But as regards the great bulk of judicial revenue and other offices the monopoly of the Covenanted Service has not only been practically maintained, but has been confirmed, and has had a new legal sanction given to it by the Civil Service Act of 1861, whereby all the situations previously held by the Civil Service have been scheduled and declared to be tenable only by members of that Service, as well as all similar offices which may be created hereafter. That is the manner in which we fulfil our solemn national engagements. We ordain that the entire people of a great country, who from time immemorial had governed themselves, and managed their own affairs, should be entirely excluded from their own administration, except as regards those subordinate offices which could not be filled by members of the Covenanted Civil Service, without involving intolerable expense and certain inefficiency, and a very small number of high situations most of which were unpaid. And hon. Members must observe that, by declaring
  1848
  the Natives eligible for the high situations of Legislative Councillor and judge of the High Court, we have admitted their fitness for the large class of situations which lie between the Judgeships of the High Court and the principal Sudder Ameenships and other subordinate posts which they are permitted to fill; and yet we take no steps to give practical effect to this inevitable inference. We ignore this fact; and give another proof, if another proof were wanted, that injustice always involves inconsistency. This injustice must be redressed; and the means of redressing it are fortunately at hand. In every Presidency there are two, three, or four Natives of tried character, ability, and official experience. These men are well known to the authorities of the district in which they reside, and the authorities would gladly employ them in the most elevated and responsible situations if the law did not place an obstacle in the way. In the Regulation Provinces—that is to say, speaking roughly, in three-fourths of British India, all the Governor General can do for Natives who have earned their promotion is to refer them back to the competitive entrance examination. What mockery this is! I appeal to those hon. Gentleman opposite, who do not love the modern system of competition, to put off men who have earned an honourable public reputation, by twenty or thirty years' practical service, by directing their attention to a competitive examination in English poetry and pure mathematics, held in a class room 6,000 miles across the sea. There are plenty of Natives, Sir, fit for any public employment, however weighty and dignified. I need not remind the House of the names of those great ministers of Native Powers—Sarlar Jung, Madhava Rao, Pinker Rao, and Jung Bahadoor, the famous Mayor of the Palace of Nepaul. And just as all the Indian world knows the fame of these eminent men, so the public opinion of every province can point to Natives intellectually and morally not one whit inferior to the best among our own countrymen. In Madras, for instance, when there was a question of a complicated operation connected with the annual assessment, it was universally allowed that, throughout the whole Covenanted and Uncovenanted Service, there was no one so fitted for the job as a Native employée called Ramiah. And how was this man rewarded? The Government gave him the best post they legally could: that is to say, they made him a sort of subordinate adviser to the

  1849
  Revenue authorities of the Presidency. Now, would the position of such a man be bettered by my hon. Friend's proposition? When you have such a man ready to hand it is a farce to examine him in geology, and to ask him what play the quotation "When Greek meets Greek" comes from. The evils which the system of competition is intended to remedy are two. First, the ignorance of those who are possessed of patronage, as to the merits of the candidates for that patronage; and next, the tendency in all human beings to nepotism and favouritism. But in the case before us neither of these dangers exists. The resident, authorities who have the patronage are well informed as to the merits and services of their Native subordinates; and there is no temptation to jobbery, for in the eyes of an Englishman, as far as favouritism is concerned, one Native is much the same as another. And therefore, Sir, the House might safely adopt my Amendment, which could be carried into practical effect by the least possible degree of change in the law. The 3rd and 4th clauses of the Civil Service Act allow the Authority; in India to appoint any person to any office whatsoever, under special circumstances; provided he has resided at least seven years in India. Now, all that is really required is, that the provisions of these sections should be relieved from their exceptional character; and that it should be declared, on the authority of this House, that the selection for vacant appointments of qualified persons on the spot is to be considered as regular and normal a mode of recruiting: the Civil Service, as nominating young men to it from this country according to the result of a competitive examination. Thus we should have two permanent sources of supply for the India Civil Service: one would be derived, as at present, from the competition at home of the youth of the whole Empire; the other, from a careful selection made in India itself of persons distinguished in the Uncovenanted Service and at the Native Bar. We should take a signal step towards raising the character and educating the intellect of the Natives, and so gradually rendering them fit to govern themselves. And for what other purpose are we in India at all? No purpose, at any rate, which we can confess before Europe and before the tribunal of history. We should imitate what was wisest in the policy of old Rome, as expressed by Gibbon in a most eloquent passage. But we need not go so far back,
  1850
  nor to such a distance from the country whose future we are discussing. There are examples nearer India. Akbar, the greatest of the great Mahomedan Emperors, opened the field of employment and distinction, in the most liberal manner to Hindoos—the conquered and subject race; and his fame and power were equally brilliant and durable. Aurengzebe pursued a different course. He sent orders to all governors and persons in authority to employ no more Hindoos, but to confer the higher offices on Mahomedans only: and from that day the Mogul Empire began to go to pieces, as must be the fate of all empires which rest on force, not on affection; on national monopoly of rule and honour, not on open and entire confidence between the governors and the governed. He would beg leave to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the words "open competition" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as regards the appointment of untried young men to the East India Civil Service, is of opinion that natives of India who have proved in, the Uncovenanted Service or otherwise their superior fitness for situations at present held exclusively by Members in the Covenanted Service, should be appointed to them without undergoing a competing examination,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that annually a number of Native young men of the highest intellectual and mental calibre took degrees in India by passing similar examinations to those which were necessary to the conferring of the same degrees in this country. And yet men who exhibited such capacity and attained those degrees were excluded from the Civil Service of India unless they passed examinations in this country which were by no means so hard as those they had already gone through. This was the practice, in spite of the fact that the Vote for the Education of the Natives of India amounted to £904,190, or more than was at present expended in the same direction on the people of this country. He certainly thought that those Natives who obtained such degrees as those of B.A., M.A., and M.D. ought to be permitted at once to enter the Civil Service and not be compelled to come to England for the purpose of undergoing a fresh examination. Certainly it would be advantageous to Indian aspirants

  1851
  to pass some time in England, as it would enlarge their views and give an improved tone to their minds, and young Indians might be induced to come to Europe if scholarships should be established in this country for those who looked to rise in the service of the Government. These scholarships would enable young Indians to obtain advantages which they could not procure in their native country. The support which we received from the Nepaulese troops in the suppression of the mutiny in 1857, we owed to the visit which Jung Bahadoor had paid to England. He (Colonel Sykes) was enabled to learn from his friendship with Jung Bahadoor, that when the Bengal mutiny broke out, delegates were sent by the mutineers to the Nepaul Court inviting co-operation against the English. A great meeting of the Court nobles and chiefs of the army was held, find the general sentiment was in favour of joining the mutineers; but Jung Bahadoor rose and said he too would have concurred in the opinions expressed, had he not paid a visit to England; but he saw there such industry, such energy, and such indomitable perseverance in conquering difficulties, that although the mutineers might at first succeed and drive the English to the coast, they would be involved in the end in defeat and ruin. Happily his advice prevailed, and the Nepaulese army joined the English, and Jung Bahadoor's prediction was verified. On the whole, therefore, he (Colonel Sykes) would encourage Natives to finish their studies in England.
  MR. FAWCETTexplained that it was part of his scheme that successful competitors should reside two years in England.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was also opposed to the Amendment, believing that it would be worse than of no service to the Natives; but he believed the time was arriving, and educated people were accumulating so fast in India, and the self-respect and importance of the Native population were extending so rapidly, that some suitable and dignified positions must be obtained for them in our service, in order to ensure their attachment, instead of exciting their jealousy and resentment.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that having for two years been brought, in his capacity of Examiner, into contact with the candidates for the Indian Civil Service, he wished to make some brief remarks on the subject before the House. The question of competitive examinations was indirectly raised
  1852
  by the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and he was obliged to confess that his experience led him to doubt very much the efficiency of that system, and to doubt whether it was better than the old system of patronage. It was far from a good method of providing for the Civil Service of India. He had had a good deal to do with the people of India; and the feeling among them undoubtedly was that the class of men now sent out to represent this country were inferior to the men sent out under the old system, and could not acquire in the same degree the respect of the Natives. The civil servants were now degenerating into a lower class of society, and there was rising up in the different Presidencies a new class of independent Englishmen, especially at the Bar, who looked down on the Civil Service. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had said that he intended by his Motion to provide that those who were appointed to the Civil Service by the competition by examination in Calcutta should reside two years in England. If the Motion expressed that, he should view it in a different light—not on the ground put forward by his hon. Friend who sat near him (Mr. Trevelyan), that the candidates would be more impressed with the irresistible power of this country, but because they would have learnt the principles and morality of this country. As to the mere question of learning, however, it might happen that the English competitors would be placed at a disadvantage as compared with young Indians of the same age, who, though less fit to discharge the responsible duties imposed upon them, would have greater facilities for preparing themselves for an examination. If he were to chose between the Motion and the Amendment, he should prefer the latter; because it was based on the principle that our great object was not so much to secure men who were able to pass a good examination in languages and mathematics as men imbued with the spirit and tone of this country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was not without some regret that he felt himself obliged to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, for in the object aimed at he was disposed to agree very much with the hon. Gentleman, as he naturally desired to promote, as far as possible, the employment of Natives of India in the Civil Service and government of that country. He was con-

  1853
  scious that the offer now made to the Natives of India—that they should present themselves at the competitive examinations in this country—was at all events at present little more than a nominal opening for Natives, though he hoped, that by-and-by, it would become something more. At present, however, it was only with great difficulty that Natives could pass such an examination. Although he was unable to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Brighton, he should be extremely glad to adopt a system by which competition might be adopted in the first cities of India. This matter was brought under his attention some time ago by a deputation which waited upon him—he believed in July or August last—at the India Office. He listened to their statements, and promised to consult the Governor General and other persons of authority on the subject. He did so, and one or two objections of a subordinate character had been suggested, such as the difficulties of a mechanical kind as to the mode of carrying the examination into effect; but he believed, from representations he had had from the Civil Service Examiners, that those objections might be very readily got over. He believed that examinations upon paper might be conducted in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman; but with regard to vivâ voce examinations, it would be difficult to find a proper standard of comparison. The difficulty would be to compare the vivâ voce examinations conducted in one place with those conducted in another. He attached great weight to these vivâ voce examinations, as they showed that the candidate was able to make use of the knowledge he had acquired on the spur of the moment, when unexpected questions were put to him. Another objection to the proposal would be that the examinations should be held in many more centres than the two or three suggested by the hon. Member, if they were intended to be accessible to certain classes of the Natives. A further objection that might be suggested was, that if the proposal were adopted, it might at some future period be urged that the nature of the examination was of a character not suitable to the people of India, and considerable pressure might be brought to bear for the purpose of getting the standard of examination altered, under the pretence of adapting it to the capabilities of the Natives—an alteration that would be much to be lamented, as the service as now constituted was one of which England
  1854
  had every right to be proud. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had made some observations upon what he called the deterioration of the Civil Service in India under the system of competitive examinations; but it was doubtful whether, upon a full and impartial inquiry, any grounds existed for that complaint. It was quite true that when a change of system occurred, the minds of the Natives were prejudiced against those who were appointed under the new system, and were disposed to look jealously upon them; but, from recent information, he had reason to believe that that feeling on the part of the Natives had passed away, and that the merits of the new coiners as a body had been acknowledged by them. The present system was still going on, and those appointed under the competitive examination system had scarcely yet risen to the higher posts in the Service; but, within his own knowledge, two of those gentlemen who were now in this country, and who were among the first of those who were appointed under that system, were as promising and as distinguished young men as were to be found in the service of the country. On the whole, he had reason to believe that the system answered exceedingly well, and was likely to prove of the greatest advantage to the service. Another danger he should apprehend from the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal was this:—It was not improbable that a large number of Natives who might succeed in passing the competitive examination, and who might be perfectly fit for the lower posts of the service, would be totally unfit for its higher and more responsible posts, and the Government of India might hold it contrary to their duty to promote those persons to those positions—a course that would be likely to promote jealousy and heart-burnings among the Natives, who might consider that they were not fairly treated by being excluded from the more important positions in the service. In such an event the Government of India would probably feel called upon to obtain the required strength of will and of mind by having recourse to the Uncovenanted European Civil Service, instead of to the Covenanted Civil Service. He was exceedingly jealous of the Uncovenanted Service being employed in posts that should be filled by the Covenanted Service; because although there were, doubtless, many posts that might with propriety be bestowed upon those who had not passed through

  1855
  the test of competitive examination, still there should be great jealousy in admitting persons into the service through any other door than that furnished by examination, otherwise considerable pressure would be brought to bear upon those who had the patronage of those appointments. Everyone conversant with the subject must feel that the great safety of the service in India lay in recruiting as far as possible the European branch of the service from the Covenanted Service. These were the reasons which induced him to pause and hesitate before he could sanction any such proposal as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman; and these reasons were confirmed by the views of those who were well qualified to speak upon the subject, being those who were practically engaged in carrying on the Government of India—men who were favourable to the employment of Natives in India, whose sympathies were in their favour, and who were desirous of making the Native Indian our friend—and they were of opinion that the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member would be a measure fraught with much inconvenience and even serious danger. He wished to say a few words upon what appeared to him to be the rationale of the competitive examination system. He had always been an advocate for that system as a mode of obtaining young men for the Civil Service both for this country and for India. While that system did not necessarily secure that all those who passed through the examination were the fittest for discharging the duties of Government clerks and those which fell upon our civil servants, still upon the whole it was the fairest way of ascertaining, who among a large number of young men, had established, by their previous good conduct and application, a character for industry and ability, which was strong evidence to show that at least they formed a fair average of the class from which they were taken. But then the question arose, whether the average of the class of Native Indians from which the selection would have to be made was possessed of the necessary ruling and governing qualities to the extent those qualities were possessed by the corresponding class in this country—whether the Native Indians were possessed of the fibre required in men who were to be intrusted with political power and authority? It must be borne in mind that these men were selected to fill very important posts. They might be well fitted to fill the lower posts, but
  1856
  those who filled the higher posts of the service were frequently placed in situations where great responsibility fell upon them, and where men were required who were not only truly trustworthy as to integrity, but who in trying positions would not be afraid to act, and who could stand alone. They must have the vigour to control those who were under their authority, whether of the same race or another, because there would always be a considerable number of Englishmen and Europeans with whom superior officials would have to deal. Without casting any reflection upon the Native character as a whole, he much doubted whether an average Native was able to stand alone and to control the Englishmen under his jurisdiction. Therefore the competitive system, applied in an unfettered way, was not suitable for providing the class of men wanted. He was afraid the effect of it would be to bring in a large number of individuals of intellectual ability who would not have the strength required for administration. It was urged that we should do all we could to benefit the people of India. Everybody admitted that; but who were the people of India, and for whose benefit were we to to rule? If they adopted the theory of the hon. Member for Brighton, it would only be that class or section of the people of India who would carry off these appointments—a very small section of the community. It should be carefully remembered that we had to provide for the government of 150,000,000 of people, amongst whom only a small class could be described as intellectual. Our duty, therefore, primarily was to provide the best possible machinery for the good government of the whole mass, rather than for a small portion. Even were the system of competitive examination advocated by the hon. Member introduced, what would be the result? The Bengalese and other sects of the less vigorous but more educated races of India would be the class chiefly benefited. They would carry off the prizes in an examination of a purely intellectual character; but they were just the men who would conspicuously fail if you placed them in positions of difficulty, or set them to rule over the more vigorous races that we had under our sway. They would be employed without the advantages of Englishmen, without the prestige of the English race, and without the energy of the English character; and we could not rely upon their being treated with that esteem which in the East is attached to

  1857
  persons distinguished by birth and family connection. Under these circumstances, we ought to be cautions how we throw open the door by competitive examinations. This opinion was coincided in by many of those most favourable to the employment of Natives, including Sir John Lawrence, Sir Bartle Frere, and Sir Herbert Edwards; and the latter, in a paper lately read before the East India Association, spoke with great hesitation as to the morale and integrity of the great mass of the people of India. Attached to the pamphlet in which this was published were a number of letters, all purporting to be in favour of the employment of Natives; but there was scarcely one writer who boldly stated his opinion that the Natives, as a class, were to be relied on for the moral qualities required in rulers. He was afraid that any kind of test that could be applied in the shape of testimonials and inquiries as to character would be feeble security. Another reason for pausing was, that if once they entered into the system, they would be obliged to go on with it, no matter what might be the difficulties into which it might throw them. He would not close the door for ever against examinations; but there were other measures more suitable to the emergency which would do much towards introducing Natives freely. The first was that of scholarships; and if young men could be assisted to present themselves for examination in this country, and to receive a certain education here, much would be done to imbue them with English feelings; and even if they failed on examination, they would not have had their time thrown away, because they would have learnt much that would be useful to them. There was every disposition on the part of the Government to assist those who gained scholarships, and it was proposed to pay their passages out and home. It was suggested that, if the system succeeded, further scholarships might be created by the Government; and, by degrees, young men might be brought over and passed through the mill with competitors upon equal terms. This would provide a test of moral qualities, for it would show courage, vigour, and self-reliance for a young man to expatriate himself, and it would indicate that he was above the average in moral strength and fibre. There was another measure substantially the same as that embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trevelyan), who, however, did not draw a sufficiently sharp dis-
  1858
  tinction between the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Civil Service. That distinction was a matter of great importance. At present there were about 870 covenanted civil servants in India, with salaries ranging from about £360 to upwards of £5,000, few having more than that. The Uncovenanted servants, leaving the lowest appointments out of consideration, and including those whose salaries ranged from £250 to £1,000 and £1,500 (a few reaching £2,000), numbered 2,336. The average of the salaries of the Covenanted servants was £1,800, and that of the Uncovenanted servants £520. [Colonel SYKES remarked that Europeans held the highest paid positions.] Not exclusively, for there were fifteen Natives receiving salaries of upwards of £1,000, and several receiving upwards of £500. Unquestionably the number of Natives admitted into the Service was miserably small, and that the Government was endeavouring to remedy as soon as possible. Last year he had drawn the attention of the Governor General to the fact in a despatch, and had asked his opinion as to the possibility of finding a better opening for the employment of Native talent. The Governor General replied that steps were being taken to introduce a larger proportion of Natives in the non-Regulation Provinces. To that he replied it would not be necessary to confine the measure to the non-Regulation Provinces, but that it should likewise be carried out in the Regulation Provinces. With regard to the judicial service, Sir John Lawrence thought that, while it might be dangerous to throw it open widely to Natives, much might be done to employ Natives in it. His intention was to insert in his India Bill a clause giving the Government power to introduce Natives of India into appointments held by the Covenanted Service, if they were proved fit for them; and that would be a better mode of selection than the system of competitive examinations. At all events, it would be safe; and if it proved inefficient they might resort to other measures in order to give it extension. It was the earnest and sincere desire of the Government both here and in India to introduce the Natives into important positions in the service. It would be for the benefit of our rule, it would be of importance for India itself, that the Natives should be educated to govern themselves mid their own affairs. They believed that an immense improvement was going on among the Natives, and would be

  1859
  gradually productive of beneficial change; but it was most important that nothing rash or hasty should be done. He believed that the step taken would give considerable impulse to that improvement, and to the real interests of Native agency, far beyond anything that had hitherto been done. He hoped, therefore, that having introduced a clause to give effect to the principle of the Amendment, it would not be thought necessary to press either the Motion or the Amendment to a division in order to commit the House to any positive view. He was very glad this discussion had taken place. They were taking action on the subject both in their correspondence with India, and in the measure they were submitting to Parliament, and he hoped the feeling of the House had been sufficiently manifested without taking a division.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not divide the House on his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to impugn his Motion, but simply wished to try something else first. He should be doing an injustice to the question by now dividing, and he would have the opportunity of expressing his opinion when the Bill to which the Secretary of State for India had referred was before the House. He should support a scheme to enable the Natives to take a part in the government of their country. The Amendment, indeed, was not antagonistic to his proposal. It was simply to enable officers to pass from the Uncovenanted to the Covenanted service without coming to England to pass an examination. At the same time he thought that the people of India would not be satisfied at their being obliged to spend so many years in the Uncovenanted Service before they could enter the Covenanted, when, if they came to England and passed the examination, they could enter at once. All that the proposition of the Government meant was to admit persons that the Governor General thought fit to enter the Covenanted Service, and he thought that that would not be quite satisfactory to the people of India.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION'S (METROPOLIS) BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. J. STUART MILL, in moving for leave to introduce two Bills, one for the purpose of providing for the establishment of Municipal Corporations in the Metropolis, and the other for the creation of a Corpora-
1860
tion of London, observed that both were substantially the same as those which the House permitted him last year to lay on the table. The alterations were extremely slight. He was quite aware that no private Member could expect to carry through such measures. In order that they might succeed Government roust take them up; but the Government had not shown any disposition to take up the subject, and in the present year, considering all the circumstances of the case, he could not blame them. No Government was likely to embarrass itself with such a subject until much discussion had taken place, and public opinion had been called forth to give them a sufficient degree of support. The introduction of the Bills had already produced considerable effect. This was shown by the number of petitions, which were almost all in favour of the Bills. The opposition to the Bills had chiefly proceeded from persons connected with the present local administrative bodies, who were not likely to be wholly unprejudiced on the subject of their own mode of administration. The passing of the Reform Bill last Session had paved the way for such legislation. One marked feature of the political movement, of which the passing of the Reform Act was a part, is a demand on the part of the people, he would not say for more government, but for more administration. It is not only sanitary measures, properly so called, but control over the dwellings provided for the working classes, and a hundred similar arrangements, which are now required at the hands of Government; and the effecting of these things has been again and again prevented by the want of any sufficient local authority. When much has to be done for society, it cannot be all done by the central Government, and there was in this country great jealousy of intrusting too much to that authority. It was a national principle that a great part of our administration should be local, and the constitutional mode of giving local government to different parts of the country, especially to towns, was by means of municipalities. Now, London had only the benefit of a municipality in that which was originally the whole of its extent—the City proper. With that exception the local government of the metropolis was a parish government. What other town in the kingdom would be satisfied with a parish administration extending over the greater portion of its area? The government of London by means of

1861
vestries had endured long enough. To show the magnitude of the questions which were involved in the local administration of the metropolis, he might mention that in the year 1840 London was rated upon an annual value of £6,000,000 Sterling. In 1861 the annual value of property had risen to £12,500,000, and in 1866 to nearly £14,500,000. The expenditure of the metropolis was growing, and now amounted to nearly £3,000,000 a year. The Metropolitan Board had during the twelve years of its existence raised by rates £2,182,000, and by loans £5,581,000. The vestries collectively expended £2,784,000 per annum, while to show the quantity of legislation required to deal with local questions arising within the metropolis, Lord Brougham, so long ago as 1837, stated that the Acts relating to the parish of Marylebone alone, passed since the year 1795, filled a volume of 480 pages, being much greater in size, he would not say than the Code Napoleon, but certainly than the Code Civil. Parliament had attempted, and did attempt, to provide for this local legislation; but Parliament could not possibly do it, and it only continued the attempt because there were no local authorities in whom Parliament or the country sufficiently confided to turn over to them this important business. What had occurred with reference to the Dwellings of Artizans and Labourers Bill, introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) was an illustration of the want of some more satisfactory authorities than at present existed in the metropolis. As originally introduced, the powers conferred by that Bill were entrusted to the vestries; but the Select Committee would not trust the vestries, and gave the powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Board itself was, however, regarded with great distrust; and he had received many letters urging him to oppose that part of the measure which empowered that Board to levy any rates in addition to those which they were already authorized to raise. If there were municipalities in the different metropolitan boroughs, with a general central municipality, there would be authorities upon whom Parliament could confer the many powers of local administration and local regulation which at present it was necessary to provide for by separate Acts. The difference between London and other cities, arising mainly from the great size of the metropolis, was, that while for
1862
provincial cities a single corporation sufficed, in London it was necessary to have a double system. There would in London be too much for a single body to do; and any single body which was so constituted as to be able to do the work, would be so powerful that it would excite the jealousy of the other civil authorities of the country. What was proposed by the Bill which he had been requested to introduce, but of which he was not the author, although he approved of all its provisions, was, that there should be for all the Parliamentary boroughs of which the metropolis was composed, separate municipalities grouped round the City municipality, which would be the type of all; that these municipalities should discharge all such duties as did not require that the whole of London should be taken into consideration at once; and that in addition there should be a central municipality, which should deal with those questions in the decision of which the interests and wants of the whole metropolis were involved. The first of these proposals was strongly recommended by the Commission which was presided over by the late Sir George Lewis. But there was also a necessity for a general municipal government of the metropolis, and this necessity was so strongly felt that, without intending to create a municipality. Parliament had created one in the Metropolitan Board of Works. The purpose for which that Board had been called into existence—namely, the Main Drainage—was now nearly completed. But the necessity for a general government was such that, almost as soon as the Board was created, other new and important duties began to be intrusted to it. But when Parliament was creating this body, was it aware that it was establishing a municipal body for the whole of London? Did it take that large subject into consideration, and examine whether this was the best way of providing for the municipal government of a great capital? Certainly not. The Board was created for a limited and temporary purpose, and it had gradually become a central municipality, without due consideration whether it had been constituted in the way best calculated to perform the duties of such. He did not propose to supersede this body, but to leave it standing, and also to leave standing the Corporation of the City of London; but to make such changes in its constitution as would render it an adequate municipal constitution for the whole metropolis. The first Bill proposed to give muni-

1863
cipal institutions to the different Parliamentary boroughs in London; and the second, to create a central body into which the Board of Works would be absorbed: to constitute this central body in such a way as Parliament might think best, and to define its duties and powers, marking them off from those of the municipal bodies. He would conclude with a saying of Lord Coke—that no good measure of legislation was ever proposed from which, in the end, some amount of good did not result. Though in the present Session he could not hope to carry the Bills, and though great modifications might be made in them before they were carried, still he was doing that from which, according to Lord Coke's maxim, good must eventually result. The hon. Gentleman moved for leave to introduce the first Bill.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON, on the part of the Secretary of State, had to say that the Government would offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bills, considering that they would conduce to the ultimate satisfactory settlement of the question if marked, as he was sure they would be, by that careful consideration of the subject which all would expect at the hands of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had no objection to make to the creation of municipal bodies for those parts of the metropolis which are now without them—such as Westminster and Chelsea; but the great difficulty would be with the central body, and how that difficulty was to be overcome the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart Mill) had not satisfactorily explained. How he was to reconcile the powers of the Corporation of the City of London with those of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or in what manner both bodies were to be amalgamated, the hon. Gentleman had omitted to say. The City of London was one of the most ancient institutions of the country, and claimed exclusive jurisdiction within its own limits; and the City was the only representative body in this great metropolis. Supposing a Princess of Wales or the Sultan were coming into London, the City, headed by the Lord Mayor, was the only body to receive them. Before the Bill proceeded further a considerably larger amount of information would be required by the House than the general philosophical principles which the hon. Member for Westminster had laid before them.
Motion agreed to.
Bill to provide for the establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILL, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. TOMLINE, Mr. BUXTON, and Mr. LAYARD.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION'S (METROPOLIS) BILL.—LEAVE.
  CORPORATTON OF LONDON BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MILL, Bill for the creation of a Corporation of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILL, Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. TOMLINE, Mr. BUXTON, and Mr. LAYARD.

  STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PIM, Bill to amend the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in Ireland in the thirty-ninth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, intituled "An Act for the better Regulation of Stockbrokers," ordered to be brought in by Mr. PIM and Sir BENJAMIN GUINNESS.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment* (89).
Second Reading—Friendly Societies (43).
Report—Medical Practitioners (Colonies)* (78).
Third Reading—Marriages (Frampton Mansel)* (85), and passed.

NEW PEERS INTRODUCED.
The Right Honourable Sir John Trollope, Baronet, having been created Baron Kesteven of Casewick in the County of Lincoln—Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.
Sir Brook William Bridges, Baronet, having been created Baron Fitzwalter of Woodham Walter in the County of Essex — Was (in the usual Manner) introduced.

THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
(The Earl of Lichfield.)
THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

  (NO. 43.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that great misunderstanding appeared to have prevailed respecting the 3rd clause of the Bill, petitions having been presented against it from many societies, one of them having 500,000 or 600,000 members, and another upwards of 100,000 members. It appeared to him from a careful perusal of these petitions that the object of the clause had been purposely misrepresented. The
  1776
  evils arising from the admission of children under a certain age into these societies had been brought prominently before the public by proceedings in the police courts, from which it appeared that, in some cases, persons insured the lives of the children of their fellow-lodgers in order to obtain the burial money in the event of the death of those insured. The 3rd clause did not in any way interfere with the provisions of the 9th clause of the present Friendly Societies Act—the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63—by which it was expressly provided that members of Friendly Societies should have the power of insuring the lives of their children for the purpose of securing a sum sufficient to defray the expense of the funeral in the event of their death; and the 15th clause empowered minors to become members. He was not prepared to say that he sought for any interference with this system, if parties chose to carry on that description of business; but, at the same time, he could not refrain from saying that such operations were not contemplated at the time of the passing of the Friendly Societies Act. One of his objects was to carry out what he believed was the true sense of the 18 & 19 Vict., which was merely to recognize the power of members to insure their children's lives in the society to which they themselves belonged. The 5th clause of the Bill was intended to prevent the transfer of members from one society to another without their express consent. It often happened that members were transferred from one society to another without being aware that such transfer had been made; and as the collector did not call for subscriptions due to the society to which the member transferred was in the habit of contributing, he found himself "out of benefit" in it, while his claim on the new society was often found invalid in consequence of his not having been properly admitted. The next point to which his Bill referred was the forfeiture of benefits—a thing which frequently occurred in consequence of the failure of the collector to call for the subscriptions of members. It appeared only fair that a member should not forfeit his claims on his society without distinct notice that forfeiture would take place if arrears were not paid by a certain time. The Bill next provided the means of a more certain and speedy redress in cases of dispute between the members of these societies. The difficulty of obtaining redress in ordinary Friendly Societies was

  1777
  very great; but it was vastly increased in the case of burial societies. The members were often scattered over the whole country, and the redress provided by the rules was arbitration in the place where the society's business was carried on; and where a society had branches in almost every town it was often necessary to go to headquarters in order to obtain redress. The Bill proposed that redress should be had by members proceeding against the collector or agent in the place where the members lived. There was a clause which prevented a society enrolled or registered under the Friendly Societies Acts from being incorporated under the Companies Act, 1862. At present members frequently found that, without their consent, the Friendly Society to which they belonged had become a company, and they thereby lost all the privileges to which they would be entitled under the Friendly Society, he would now call their Lordships' attention to the petitions which had been presented against the Bill. Their Lordships were aware that there were in this country numerous Friendly Societies, admirably conducted, and doing most useful work among the labouring classes. The Odd Fellows and the Foresters numbered respectively 400,000 and 200,000 members, he desired to call their attention to the manner in which the petitions which had been presented against the Bill had been got up. A circular had been issued by the President of the Liver Society, which described the Bill as an attempt to curtail, crush, and destroy Friendly Societies and working men's clubs, and to place them entirely under the control of a paternal Government. Another circular had been sent out by the secretary of a different society, urging its collectors and agents to get up petitions signed by all persons above fourteen years of age, on the allegation that the Government were attempting to set up a system of assurance themselves, and to rob the poor by taking from them the management of their own affairs. In this case the petitions came from societies in which it could not be said that the members had any voice in the management; they were managed by committees composed only of collectors and agents in the different places where the members resided. Three societies which had presented a large number of petitions against the Bill were the Royal Liver, the Victoria Legal, and the United Legal. It appealed from official Returns printed
  1778
  for the House that, in a considerable number of cases, the expenditure of Friendly Societies amounted to considerably more than the income; but in that list the Liver Society and the Victoria Legal did not appear. However, from inquiries which he made, he found that the income of the Liver was £140,000 a year, the management expenses £53,000, and the funds in hand £117,000. That Society, which was established in 1850, had more than 600,000 members. He would call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the funds in hand were considerably less than one year's income; and all actuaries concurred in stating that any society which had been in existence only half the time of the Society he had just named, and had not a reserved fund of more than one year's income, must inevitably be insolvent. With regard to the Victoria Legal Society, he found that many returns called for with respect to that Society had not been filled up; but, according to the last annual report of the Society, it appeared that the last year's income was £28,431. The expenses and sums paid for burials were placed in one lump sum at £24,140. Thinking that there was something extraordinary in the manner in which the accounts were made out, he referred them to two persons of great experience, who confirmed his conviction that the accounts were clearly inaccurate; and an actuary of great experience had since stated, as the result of his experience, that there was an inaccurate statement in respect to no less a sum than £1,400. The funds in hand belonging to that Society amounted at the present moment to exactly; half a year's income. That Society was established in 1843. The other Society petitioning against the Bill had among its honorary representatives a Member of their Lordships' House, who concurred with him in thinking that the expenditure of the Society was extravagant. These three Societies not only petitioned against the Bill, but prayed to be heard against it—a proceeding which simply meant that statements might be made by the various collectors employed by the Societies as to what they considered the importance of the business carried on by the Societies. One of the clauses of the Bill, bearing on all societies alike, was to the effect that in all cases where a person was admitted a member a policy should be given to him, and also a copy of the rules. He found that this clause also had been petitioned against; but he had mentioned the matter to a depu-

  1779
  tation which he had received from the Odd Fellows' Society, and he found that there could be no practical difficulty in giving such policies. He thought that their Lordships would see that it was the right of members of these societies to have something to show what their claim really was upon the society. He knew that it frequently happened that persons who had interested themselves for complaining members found that these persons had nothing to prove what their claim upon the society was, or to show what proceedings should be taken. The next point provided for by the Bill was that the Annual Report, or General Statement of the Funds and Effects required to be made to the Registrar under the Friendly Societies Act of 1855, should be made before March, instead of before June, in order that more time might be allowed for taking proceedings, in the event of any proceedings appearing necessary in consequence of irregularities in the accounts. The Bill also required a detailed statement of accounts to be made, specifying the sources from which the income was derived. The Bill also provided for an audit of accounts. He was perfectly well aware that great difficulty attached to any action taken with the object of providing for the auditing of the accounts of those societies; and he did not for a moment mean to contend that the Government should take upon itself so great a responsibility as the duty of seeing that their rules were sufficient, and ascertaining from time to time that they were solvent would involve. He was, however, of opinion that the mere publicity which would be given to the state of their affairs by means of the audit provided for by the clause, under the authority of a County Court Judge, would have the best possible effect in the way of warning persons not to going a society which was shown to be in an unsatisfactory position. He came in the next place to two clauses, the 9th and 10th, which related to affiliated societies, such as the Odd Fellows and the Foresters. The 9th clause had been framed expressly for the purpose of facilitating the operations of those societies, by saving them the trouble and inconvenience which were the consequence of their being obliged to have the rules of their different branches and lodges throughout the country separately certified; but, as he understood there was some objection to the chaise on the part of these affiliated societies, he should offer no opposition to its being withdrawn. The 10th clause, be
  1780
  might add, was meant to give a greater amount of control to the societies to which he had referred over the small branches and lodges which formed a portion of the great whole. It appeared that when the lodges connected with any of those large affiliated societies refused to comply with the rules of the central body, although that body might declare those lodges to be no longer connected with it, the responsibility still rested with it of providing a certain amount of support for some of their members under the operation of the general rules. He would therefore provide that in the event of a lodge being separated from the main society, under the circumstances which he had described, a County Court Judge might make an order that the interest of a member in that lodge should be handed over to the central society, the society taking upon itself the responsibilty of that member's support. He thought that all the provisions of the Bill were well considered with reference to the great object of promoting those habits of frugality among the working class the expediency of which was universally recognized. He now asked their Lordships to read that Bill the second time, he having already assented to an appeal that had been made to him to allow it to be referred to a Select Committee. At the same time he must repeat what he had said the other day, that he attached the greatest possible importance to the Select Committee, if it were appointed, confining itself strictly to the clauses of the Bill, and not going into the general question of Friendly Societies in all its bearings. A subject of such magnitude, and so vitally affecting the interests of the working classes of this country, ought to be fully and searchingly investigated; and it would be worse than useless for their Lordships to attempt to do that in a Select Committee. That very wide question could be properly inquired into only through a Royal Commission, having power to scud sub-commissioners into all the large towns of the country, in order to obtain on the spot evidence and information for which they must look in vain in a Select Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Lichfield).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had been entrusted, for presentation to their Lordships, with a number of petitions emanating from the class of societies on which the noble Earl had commented, but

  1781
  which he was prevented by the forms of the House from presenting at that stage. It was not for him, without an investigation, to contradict the noble Earl's statements in regard to those societies. No doubt the charges for agency and management of Friendly Societies were often heavy; but, on the other hand, it was stated by the parties, that, when they came to carry on transactions of a very minute character, receiving pence from poisons who were scattered over a wide area, a very considerable percentage must be expended on collection. But the point to which he wished chiefly to call the noble Earl's attention was this—the noble Earl told them that the whole question of Friendly Societies required a fuller investigation than it could have before a Select Committee of that House, and that he hoped a Royal Commission, for which he intended to move next year, would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. There were, he understood, ten Acts of Parliament already in existence on that subject; and he should therefore like to know on what ground the noble Earl now proposed to add an eleventh Act to them before the investigation which he desired had taken place into the whole question.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he thought that very great credit was due to the noble Earl (the Earl of Lichfield) for the interest and trouble he had taken on a subject of vital consequence, he might almost say, to millions of persons in this country. No one was more anxious than he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was to see so important a question placed on a footing satisfactory to the Legislature and the classes who generally constituted the societies. Yet he could not help being struck, like his noble Friend who had last spoken, by an apparent contradiction in the statement of the Mover, who had said that a vast amount of information was still required on that subject, and that that information could be obtained only by means of a Royal Commission. Now, that seemed to be a good reason for postponing, until after a Royal Commission had reported, legislation on a subject, relating to which, as he was informed, there were not ten or eleven, but twenty-four Acts on the Statute Book. He would, therefore, suggest that the noble Earl, for the very reason he himself had given, that having made a very able and ample statement to the House, and thereby brought the subject before the public, he should wail till another year,
  1782
  hoping that a Commission might be appointed to investigate the whole question; after which he might proceed if he thought fit—and nobody would be more able to do so — to bring the matter to a satisfactory issue.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 19 th instant.

ENDOWED GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TAUNTONasked the Lord President, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to provide that offices given in Grammar Schools shall be subject to such regulations in future as Parliament may lay down? It was not his intention to enter into the merits of the Report on Middle Class Education; but he thought it was impossible for anyone to have read the part of that Report which related to the present state of the endowed grammar schools of this country, which were about 800 in number, without seeing that the time had fully come when, if Parliament intended to do its duty by the education of this country, it ought to insist upon putting those schools on a very different footing from that on which they now stood. There could be no security for the good management of these institutions unless power was placed in the hands of the trustees and visitors to dismiss the masters, unless they showed themselves competent to attract scholars and to conduct the schools in a satisfactory manner; and it was also highly necessary that any appointments that might be made to the masterships of grammar schools should be subject to the future action of Parliament. Many of these masters received salaries of £300 and £400 a-year, with a house, and they were bound to receive the pupils that presented themselves. He was far from bringing any charge against the whole body of masters, but many of them had very few pupils, and some were without a single pupil, and pursued a course which was calculated to deter pupils from coming to their schools. One of the Assistant Commissioners reported that he found a case in which the master of an endowed school had but a single pupil, whose education was by no means what might have been expected. When the Assistant Commissioner hinted to this master that he must have mistaken his vocation, and that it

  1783
  was desirable he should retire, he replied, "I do not want pupils. I have £300 a-year, and I will not retire unless on my full salary." And it was doubtful whether anyone could turn him out. The circumstances of the Session were not such as to induce the Government to bring in measures which were likely to be much controverted; but it was important that such a measure should be passed during the present Session, and a Bill of a single clause would be sufficient.
  THE DUKE OF MARYBOROUGHsaid, that great weight and importance should be attached to the observations of the noble Lord, who was Chairman of the Commission on Endowed Grammar Schools. These masters enjoyed a kind of freehold position, and the difficulty of legislation to meet the cases referred to by the noble Lord was increased by the necessity of compensating the masters whose retirement might be thought desirable. He quite concurred in the opinion that no new interests should be created pending legislation on this subject, and he had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to the introduction of a Bill to limit the interests of those who might be appointed to offices in endowed grammar schools, so that Parliament might be left free to deal with the matter in the next Session. A measure would be prepared at once, and it would be his duty to lay it upon their Lordships' table as soon as possible.
  LORD TAUNTONsuggested that the Bill might also be applicable to the appointment of new trustees.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that this matter would be considered by the legal gentleman entrusted with the preparation of the Bill.

  MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in Ireland—Was presented by The Marquess of CLANRICARDE; read 1a (No. 89.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.