Sitting of 25 July 1870

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Diplomatic and Consular Services [No. 382]; Conventual and Monastic Institutions, &c. [No. 383].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 21, 22] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act (1858) Amendment* [236]; Census (Ireland)* [237].
Second Reading — Census (Scotland)* [234]; Siam and Straits Settlements Jurisdiction* [232]; Corrupt Practices Acts Amendment* [235].
Select Committee—Shannon Navigation* [192], nominated.
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.*[125]; National Debt* [213]; Forgery* [214]; Statute Law Revision* [215]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* [226].
Considered as amended — Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment* [189].
Third Reading—Greenwich Hospital* [229], and passed.
Withdrawn—High Court of Justice* [180]; Appellate Jurisdiction* [181]; Pilotage (recomm.)* [207]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment* [216]; Habitual Drunkards* [197]; Charities, &c. Exemption* [109]; Sequestration* [202]; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (No. 2)* [224].

ARMY—SUPPLY OF AMMUNITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the amount of ammunition of all kinds now in stock was up to or below the average quantity maintained in past years; and, whether the Government had means at their disposal for increasing the supply at short notice if necessary?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, in view of the deterioration of cartridges by time, and of occasional changes of pattern, it has not been considered desirable or advisable to keep the stocks very high; but the Government have means at their disposal of increasing the supply at short notice. In a few days we could make all the small-arm ammunition, and in a few weeks all the projectiles of every kind that were discharged at Sebastopol.

POOR LAW BOARD—OFFICERS' GUARANTEES.—QUESTION.
MR. BRODRICKsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the European Assurance Society is the only Company whose security can be accepted by guardians on behalf of their officers, tinder the regulations of the Poor Law Board; and, whether under all the circumstances, it is still their intention to compel guardians to accept such security?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that the Poor Law Board did not compel guardians to accept the security of any particular assurance company. The general order required the officers to give a bond with two sureties, and if they preferred to give the security of any company whose statutes expressly authorized them to guarantee the faithful discharge of duties, they were at liberty

869
to do so. It happened that the European Assurance Society was the only company of the kind whose statutes expressly authorized them to give such security, and their Act of Parliament stipulated that they were to keep a certain reserve fund, under the control of the Lords of the Treasury, to meet any claims on the part of the Government or local authorities, which fund was not available for any other creditors. The Board would gladly extend their sanction to any other company which would take upon itself similar obligations.

ARMY—COMMITTEE ON SMALL ARMS—MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, his Question required some explanation. It was said that the Committee now sitting on Small Arms did not confine themselves to the rifles furnished by the manufacturers, but that they produced improved arms of their own. He would, therefore, beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Committee on Small Arms have made experimental changes in the Henry Martini rifle, and had these changes carried out in the Government factory at Enfield; and how many improved forms of the rifle they have so had made?
MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, it was true the Committee did not limit themselves to testing the rifles that were submitted to them, but that they tried experiments of their own, chiefly in relation to improvements in the chamber and the springs: 24 rifles had recently been issued for this purpose, all of one form.

NAVY—ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HOPE JOHNSTONE.—QUESTION.
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called, to the letter published by Admiral Sir William Hope Johnstone concerning a conversation between the First Lord of the Admiralty and himself at the interview which took place between them at the Admiralty in reference to Sir William Hope Johnstone's retirement; and, whether he adheres to the version of his speech, which represents him as having said that Sir William Hope Johnstone stated at the said interview—"You have done me justice;
870
you have retired me at the full value of the office; I have nothing to complain of, but I cease to hold the nominal office of Rear Admiral of England?"
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, some two months since, the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), without any Notice on the Paper or private intimation to me, called the attention of the House in a somewhat long speech to language supposed by him to have been used by me two months before in conversation with a very gallant officer, Admiral Sir William Hope Johnstone, who had been recently retired in his 72nd year. In reply I said that his description of the conversation was far from accurate, and I pointed out the absurdity of the language he attributed to me. I added that, to the best of my recollection, the gallant Admiral had said that he had no complaint to make as to his treatment in a pecuniary point of view, but that he was anxious to retain the titular office of Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom, to which he had been recently appointed; and I explained in general terms the reasons which I had assigned why this was impossible. The hon. Baronet (Sir Graham Montgomery) now asks me whether on this occasion I used the ipsissima verba of one of the newspaper reports. My only answer is, that I spoke in the sense of that report, which as usual is accurate and careful; but that it is quite out of my power to pledge myself to the exact words of a long reply to a long question about a conversation four months ago, which I was not aware was to be the subject of debate.

CASE OF GEORGE MAW.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department Whether, in the case of Mr. George Maw, who, while undergoing a sentence of fourteen days' imprisonment in the Durham County Gaol, received twenty-four lashes of the cat-o'-nine-tails by order of the Reverend Canon Greenwell, and into whose case he recently made some inquiry, Messrs. Bowser and Ward, the Solicitors acting for a Committee appointed by a public meeting of upwards of five hundred inhabitants of Bishop Auckland, did not inform him that they had evidence to show that Mr. Maw was labouring under an attack of delirium

871
tremens during a part of the time of his incarceration, and was discharged from prison in a most deplorable condition both in mind and body; and, whether the evidence, the existence of which was thus brought to the Home Secretary's knowledge, had not been disregarded, and the inquiry confined to the gaol officials?
MR. BRUCE: Sir, I had received and considered the memorial sent to me by Messrs. Bowser and Ward before answering the Question relating to the punishment of George Maw, put to me some weeks, ago by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). The answer of the visiting justices and the evidence with which they supplied me satisfied me that there were no sufficient grounds for further inquiry by the Home Office into the circumstances of his punishment. The facts are these—In the absence of the visiting justices, Mr. Canon Greenwell was called in as a magistrate to adjudicate on an assault committed by Maw upon a warder on the 28th of April. The assault was a most violent and brutal one. Without any provocation, Maw, in the words of a witness, "struck the warder violently in the face with his clinched fist, kicked him on the body, seized him by the hair of his head, pulled him on the ground, and kicked him when on the ground. He then struck the witness with great violence and cut his lip and ear." The assault is not denied; but it is stated that the prisoner committed it under the influence of delirium tremens. Into that statement I also inquired. It appears from the statement of Mr. Boyd, the surgeon of the Durham County Prison, that he saw him on every day from the 20th of April to the 28th, the day of the assault, and that "on neither of the said days, nor at any time during his incarceration, did he exhibit any symptoms whatever of being afflicted by any mental or bodily disease;" that he carefully examined him on the 29th, the day he was flogged, and he found "that he was perfectly free from delirium tremens, or any other mental or bodily disorder, and was in a fit state to undergo corporal punishment to the extent of 24 lashes." Mr. Boyd was present when the sentence was carried into execution, and says that there were "no symptoms exhibited to show that there was any danger in carrying it out." I also received evi-
872
dence which proved to me that there was no necessity to resort to delirium tremens as an explanation of the unprovoked violence of the prisoner, for he was represented to me as a man known for the outrageous violence of his temper; and, in confirmation of this statement, I received proof of his convictions at various places on no less than six different occasions between 1862 and 1870 for assaults, besides being convicted on several other occasions for being drunk and disorderly, for obstructing an Inspector of Nuisances in the execution of his duty, and for wilful damage to property. Taking all these circumstances together, I certainly did not and do not think that I should have been justified in directing further inquiry into the case.

CHINA — OUTRAGES ON CHRISTIANS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has come to the knowledge of the Foreign Office, officially or otherwise, that the Chinese have perpetrated outrages on Christians in China, attended with the loss of life?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he regretted to say that it had come to the knowledge of the Foreign Office, both officially and otherwise, that outrages, attended with loss of life, had been perpetrated by Chinese. By a telegram received from Sir Andrew Buchanan at St. Petersburg, which was dated Tientsin, July 6, and which arrived at the Foreign Office on July 23, it appeared that there had been an insurrectionary movement in Tien-tsin against the French missionaries, that 48 French persons were killed and three Russians, and that the French Consulate was burnt. The Lieutenant Governor of Hong Kong telegraphed by another route, stating that serious disturbances had arisen at Tien-tsin, that the French Consulate was burnt, and French missionaries were attacked and murdered, in consequence of a rumour that children had been put to death by the French missionaries. Great excitement prevailed in Shanghai and the Northern ports, and a gunboat had gone with 600 troops ready to be disembarked in case of necessity.
  COLONEL SYKES: Is there no Report from our Minister at Pekin?
  MR. OTWAY: Not from Pekin; the massacre took place at Tien-tsin.

ARMY—BREECH-LOADERS FOR THE VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and, if any, how many Militia Regiments in Great Britain are still unsupplied with the Snider Enfield Rifle; whether in his opinion the time has not arrived when energetic steps should be taken to supply the whole of the Militia and, after them, the Volunteers, with breech-loading rifles; and, further, whether it is or is not a fact that 60, 000 rifles have been lying useless at the Tower since February last, when a question upon this subject was asked by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, 51 regiments of Militia are still unsupplied with breech-loaders: 61,000 breechloaders have been issued to the Reserve Forces—Snidors and Westley Richards carbines—arming 64 regiments of Militia, and 25 of Yeomanry, and all the permanent staff of the Militia, including Ireland. I am of opinion that it is expedient to arm the rest of the Militia, and after them the Volunteers, as rapidly as our stock will enable us; but I do not share the opinion that a reserve is useless of an article which you desire to have ready for use upon occasion.

NAVY—OFFICERS OF THE ADMIRALTY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, For a Return of the Names and Salaries of Officers appointed to do duty at the Admiralty, and which were not provided for in this year's Estimates? It had been stated in the papers that Captain Willes had been appointed to do duty as Captain of the Coastguard; and that a Paymaster had been appointed in the place of one of the clerks of the Admiralty.
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman placed his Notice on the Paper I referred it to the Accountant General, whose reply, which I hold in my hand, is that no officers have been so appointed. Rear-Admiral Seymour is discharging Commodore Willes's
  874
  duties for a month, while the latter is with the First Reserve squadron, and a Paymaster is being employed for two months at the Admiralty to assist in connection with Court-martial and Punishment Returns.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask for a Return of the salaries of those officers?
  MR. CHILDERS: The officers are not appointed on salaries at all. They have merely been called up on sea-pay for a few weeks to the Admiralty.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is intended to proceed with the High Court of Justice and Appellate Jurisdiction Bills in the present Session of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say we have been obliged to abandon the hope of being able to proceed with these Bills; but we propose to call the attention of Parliament to the subject early next Session.

THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the increasingly onerous duties of the Minister responsible to this House for the Department of Education, the Government will consider the expediency of his being relieved from departmental functions other than those relating to Education?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, taking into consideration the increase of duties which must devolve on the Education Department, in connection with the great measure which we hope is about to receive the sanction of the Legislature, no doubt some change will be necessary; but as it will obviously not be in our power accurately to estimate that increase till a somewhat later period, it would be perhaps premature if I said more than that the Government are anxious to ascertain what change may be necessary.

SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Government will take steps, during the Parliamentary Recess, to procure full information regarding the amount and quality of the education furnished in the existing schools of Scotland, in anticipation of legislation on the parochial and other schools in Scotland during the next Session of Parliament?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that the Government would, during the Recess, consider whether it would be advisable to obtain further information on the subject than that which they already possessed, in anticipation of the Scotch Education Bill to be introduced next year. They had considered whether it would be desirable to ask Parliament to assent to a short Bill giving power to obtain Returns similar to those which they had obtained relative to the English Bill. But, looking to the fact that they already possessed a good deal of information with regard to Scotland, and also that it would be difficult to frame a Bill that would not prejudge the Scotch Education Bill, they had decided not to apply for any legislative power during the present Session.

SPAIN—INSURRECTION IN CUBA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in accordance with the Resolution of the American House of Representatives, on the 16th of June, authorizing the President to solicit the co-operation of other Governments in order to put a stop to the barbarities in Cuba, any communications have yet taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States, with a view to effect that object?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that they were informed that a Resolution had been passed by the House of Representatives of the United States of the nature described by his hon. Friend; but no communication had been addressed by the Government of the United States to Her Majesty's Government in consequence of that Resolution up to the present time.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE ON BOARD VESSELS.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARDSsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Privy Council do not very much rely upon the information supplied by Pilots for the detection of infectious disease on board of vessels arriving from infected ports, and whether the abolition of compulsory pilotage would not have a tendency to remove one of the best securities for the enforcement of the Quarantine Laws, inasmuch as under an optional system of Pilotage, masters would not, by declining to take Pilots, hope to conceal the fact of infected cases?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had found on inquiry that the Privy Council did not rely upon the information given by pilots, because they were not bound by any statutory regulations to furnish it; but he did not doubt that in some cases they obtained such information. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member, the proper time for him to give an answer would be when the Bill referred to was under discussion.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. SARTORISsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will be prepared to introduce a comprehensive University Tests Bill in the early part of next Session, so as to afford the Upper House enough time for deliberation?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid, Sir, my hon. Friend has framed his Question in such a manner as to imply that we have not afforded the Upper House sufficient time for deliberation on the present University Tests Bill. Now, I am not prepared to make that admission. The Bill which has gone to the House of Lords, so far as I am aware, is not definitively disposed of; and until it has been definitively disposed of, I think it will be better not to state anything on the part of the Government, being unwilling to abandon the hope that the Bill may still be destined to pass during the present Session.

WAR BETWEEN FRANCE AND PRUSSIA.—BLOCKADE OF BALTIC PORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  877
  Affairs, Whether, by virtue of the understanding come to among the Powers at Paris in 1856, on the conclusion of the War with Russia, cargoes of herrings or other British produce, not being munitions of war, proceeding in German vessels to Stettin or any other German or Prussian Port, will be secure against capture and confiscation; and, whether it is in his power to give any information as to the probability or otherwise of the establishment by the French of a blockade of German Ports in the Baltic, by which all traffic, whether conducted in English or in Foreign bottoms would be prevented?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that in order to avoid any mistake in a matter of so much importance, he would beg to refer his hon. Friend to the declaration already made on this subject, and to assure him that Her Majesty's Government will immediately publish any further information that they may receive in this matter. Although an enemy's ship was liable to capture, the cargo on board was not liable to confiscation; but the burden of proof would be on the owner of the cargo to show its innocence. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it was quite out of his power to give any information of that character, and he should think it very improbable that the Government of a belligerent Power would give the information his hon. Friend seemed to desire.

FRENCH SHIPS OF WAR IN THE GAMBIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether in accordance with the Proclamation of Neutrality, the French ships of War have been requested to withdraw from the Gambia, or whether the advantages of that naval station are to be available for the naval forces of the belligerent Powers?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that he had received no information which led him to believe that there were any Frenchmen-of-war in the Gambia, but the instructions given to the Governors of all our Colonies desired them to prohibit all ships-of-war of either belligerent Power from making use of any port, or roadstead, or water in any of Her Majesty's Colonies or Foreign Possessions, and further authorized them to prevent any men-of-war of a belligerent Power
  878
  from entering any port, roadstead, or water belonging to Her Majesty, either in the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Colonies or Foreign Possessions. There was a French ship which went up the Gambia some few weeks ago, but he believed it was to assist some British subjects.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What course the Government intend to pursue with respect to the Union of Benefices Bill, the Sequestration of Benefices Bill, and the other Ecclesiastical Bills which have come down from the House of Lords?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that there were four Bills on ecclesiastical subjects, none of which were promoted by the Government, but all of which dealt with questions of considerable importance and required careful consideration—namely, the Resignation of Benefices Bill, the Union of Benefices Bill, the Sequestration Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Bill. The first three of these could not be advantageously discussed at this period of the Session, and although it had been suggested that portions of these measures might be dropped, and the remainder proceeded with, he did not think such a mode of dealing with them would be satisfactory. The Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Bill, although lengthy, raised no question of controversy; and if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), who had charge of it, were present, he would ask him to state what course he intended to pursue.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. GLADSTONE: I have, Sir, to make the Motion which, I believe, is usual at this period of the Session—
"That To-morrow, and every succeeding Tuesday during the present Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having the priority."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I should be very sorry to appear for a moment to resist any Motion which, at this period of the Session, is not unusual. But we must remember that the Session is terminating under very critical circum

879
stances, and that the effect of this Motion will be to give a monopoly—one which I do not grudge under ordinary circumstances—to the Government in the disposal of the time of the House. And as we have not yet received the important public Papers respecting the breaking of the peace of Europe which we had a right to expect, I think there ought to be an understanding as to the terms on which this Motion is assented to. If there should be a desire to express the opinion of Parliament with regard to those Papers when presented, or even to bring those Papers under the consideration of Parliament, I think the right hon. Gentleman, who asks us to give up our Tuesday mornings to the Government, should take care that the necessary opportunities are afforded for such a discussion.
MR. GLADSTONE: Private Members, Sir, will still have Wednesdays and Friday evenings, on going into Committee of Supply. But I entirely agree in the justice of the demand made by the right hon. Gentleman, that if a desire exists—there may be such a desire, or there may not—to discuss the subjects contained in the Papers, which, I hope, will be in the hands of Members this evening, that desire should have an opportunity afforded for its gratification.
Resolved, That To-morrow, and every succeeding Tuesday during the present Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having the priority.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—ALLEGED DRAFT TREATY.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I thought it convenient, under circumstances which it is unnecessary for me to dwell upon, not to confine myself strictly to the limits of a Parliamentary Question in the matter which I wish to bring before the House. It is possible that the document to which I shall have to call attention may be contained in the Papers which are to be laid upon the Table, and may be accompanied with explanations. If the Papers about to be distributed among hon. Members contain that docu
880
ment and a satisfactory explanation, my observations will be useless; but I am bound to say that if those Papers do not contain that document and a satisfactory explanation, they, perhaps, may merit the same epithet. I must say I regret very much that these Papers are not in our possession. No one feels justified, under ordinary circumstances, in hurrying a Government in the production of diplomatic documents; but—speaking, of course, with that want of knowledge which all but those in Office must be influenced by—I cannot understand that the awful events that have occurred, or are about to occur, in Europe, were preceded by any voluminous correspondence on the part of our Government with the belligerents, or with any other Powers. If not an official, we have a public declaration by the Minister most concerned in such matters—the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—that about the time when this startling intelligence alarmed Europe—he having then just accepted the seals and being about to assume the duties of Secretary for Foreign Affairs—he was informed by the highest authority that the diplomatic atmosphere was never so serene, and that he had the advantage of acceding to Office under circumstances which would probably occasion him less anxiety than ever fell to the lot of a Minister of State. And, therefore, though one may be mistaken, it seems a natural inference that the correspondence which is to be laid on the Table is not of a very voluminous character. Then why has it not been produced? Weeks have elapsed—at least I believe this is the third week since the announcement of the present state of Europe was officially made. The Government were asked immediately for Papers. And I must say for myself that I was surprised that so great a delay occurred in their presentation. It appears to me that it would have been natural, and even agreeable to the feelings of any Ministry, in the position in which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues found themselves, to have lost not a moment in placing before Parliament the information, scanty but sincere, which it was in their power to give to us. However, the Papers, after a delay which is unaccountable under the circumstances as they occur to us, were presented and laid on the Table on Friday last, and I certainly was under the im

881
pression that on Saturday morning they would be in the hands of every hon. Gentleman. So far as I know, that has been the custom with Papers presented by the Foreign Office. They are generally, if not Universally, printed, I believe, at the private press of that office, before they are presented; and accordingly there is nothing to prevent their being in the hands of Members on the following morning. I do not know whether any change has arisen in the administration of the Foreign Office with regard to matters of this kind, or whether the delay is attributable to motives of economy; but, if so, the House is, I think, entitled to information on the point. But even if we had to appeal to the resources of the private presses of the country, I am at a loss to conceive what could occasion this extraordinary delay. The Papers presented on Friday were naturally expected by Members of the House to be in their hands on Saturday, but this is now Monday, and no Papers are in our hands. It appears to me that, considering the awful issues that are at stake, some explanation should be offered by the Government with respect to this delay. That being the case, I have to address the House with the difficulty which must attend one who has no public documents to which he can refer. I have stated sincerely, and I think I have shown to the House, when questions of this importance have been before under consideration, that nothing would induce me to take any stop which would have for its principal object to embarrass the Government. But, although we are not desirous of embarrassing the Government, but would rather scrupulously avoid doing anything that would have that effect, we must recollect that there is a duty to perform to Parliament and the country. When the peace of Europe is broken, I think it is not unusual to expect that the Parliament of this country in due time, and as soon as possible, should learn the cause, and, at all events, if that is an expectation which we are justified in indulging, it has peculiar force when the Session is about to terminate, and when Members are about to disperse, when, under no circumstances, can our Sitting be much prolonged, and when, under ordinary circumstances, we cannot be re-assembled for a considerable period of time. It seems to me
882
somewhat absurd that the peace of Europe should be broken on a scale so vast, and in a manner so threatening as the present, and that Parliament should really have no conception of the causes of such an event, and that Members, on going to their constituents, should, when asked any questions—as they always are in the autumn—be perfectly unacquainted with what has occurred, and be therefore unable to satisfy their justifiable political curiosity. And, Sir, it is the more desirable we should have some clear conception of the present state of affairs, because there are no want of alleged causes, and no want of statements made, and by persons of authority, but unfortunately they are all of a contradictory character. It is not for me for a moment to impugn the declaration made by a Minister of State in any country, or by individuals superior in station even to Ministers of State. I take it for granted that such persons are gentlemen influenced by a high spirit of honour, and actuated by a due sense of the grave responsibility that attends all their words and all their acts. I attribute the discordant statements that are made to the rapid and imperfect mode of communication which is the characteristic of the scientific age in which we live. But it is not a state of affairs that an English Parliament can find very satisfactory, to depend only upon broken telegrams of public declarations made by persons, however great or however distinguished may be their position. What we want are documents. And now, Sir, a document to-day has appeared, and respecting that document I wish to make inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman. That document appears in the form of a projected Treaty between Prussia and France. It involves considerable modifications of the present arrangements of Europe, and among other provisions it contemplates the military occupation, and finally the conquest, of the kingdom of Belgium by the Emperor of the French. Now, I do not know what may be the date of this projected Treaty, but it refers to a state of affairs which proves that the date cannot be a very remote one. I should like to know when this project was first proposed; and, if that was at some interval from the present day, whether it has come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government

883
that it has been renewed? I need not touch upon the importance of accurate knowledge upon this subject to the Parliament of this country. I do not want to-night, indeed I entirely wish to avoid entering into, any discussion as to the merits of either of the belligerents in the war which may now, I am sorry to say, be described as having commenced. If the House thinks it its duty to come to some opinion upon it, I am sure it will not shrink from the fulfilment of that duty; but I am equally sure that it will not attempt to exercise its privilege of so doing without being in possession of the best information it can obtain, and without giving to it mature consisideration and thought. And I may be permitted to say, without at all adverting to the causes, the merits, or even the possible consequences, of the present struggle, that I think the policy which is indicated in this project of Treaty is one which this country has never approved and never can approve. I must say that I should look upon the extinction of the kingdom of Belgium as a calamity to Europe and an injury to this country, and I therefore trust that such an attempt will not be made; nor can I forget that, if such an attempt is made, the engagements into which the Soverign of this country has entered with respect to that kingdom will demand the gravest consideration not only of the Government, but of the House and the country. I will now take the liberty of making the inquiry of which I have given Notice to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government can throw any light upon that project of Treaty which has been published this morning; whether they are in possession of information which may enable them to inform Parliament whether it indicates a policy which, in their opinion, may still influence the belligerents, or either of them; and whether they will give to the House such information as is in their power with respect to a subject which, I think I may venture to say, has occasioned great disquietude in the public mind?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will first refer, Sir, to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the anxiety of the House—and a very natural anxiety, to be in possession of the Papers which may, more or less, serve to illustrate the origin of the present unhappy
884
war. Of course, I need hardly remind the House that the simple fact of the outbreak of a great war in Europe does not by itself imply that it should be—should necessarily be, in the power of a Government, however much they may desire it, to obtain for themselves, or to place in the possession of the House of Commons, full information upon the subject. That must depend upon the degree in which they themselves have been made parties to any transactions connected with the outbreak of the war. So far as we were made parties to any of those transactions, we have the means and the disposition to afford every information, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that the Papers are not yet in the hands of Members. But I think he will find, when they are in his hands, that they contain information coming down actually to the day before, if not to the very day, when they were laid upon the Table of the House. Possibly, the right hon. Gentleman may think that the earlier part of the communications which preceded the final rapture might have been separated from those of later days; but I mentioned upon a former occasion that every effort was made on the part of the Government before presenting these Papers; but the rapidity of the whole transaction was extreme, and it was absolutely necessary, in conformity with usage and obvious motives of policy, that we should give opportunities of communication with our chief representatives abroad, a process which necessarily occupied some time. That is all I can say, and I can only express a hope that when the Papers are laid upon the Table of the House the right hon. Gentleman will see that they contain sufficient to support the statement I have ventured to make—that there has been no voluntary or needless delay on the part of the Government. Now, with regard to the document to which the right hon. Gentleman has more particularly referred, I regret to say that it is not in my power to give the House any information in reply to the detailed Questions of the right hon. Gentleman. I will make to him such answer as, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, can properly be made under the circumstances. We, Sir, like others, have read the document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, a document which deals with a sub-

885
ject-matter of the deepest interest to us, and a subject the gravity of which the right hon. Gentleman has not in his remarks in the slightest degree overstated. That document, Sir, is of a nature to excite attention, and even astonishment. I can give no information to the right hon. Gentleman or to the House as to the mode in which it has come to be communicated to the world through The Times newspaper. From its character it may be deemed incredible, but it purports to be a proposal which has reached a certain stage of promise. Upon the actual contents of that document it is not at the present moment within the limits of my duty to offer any opinion. But I would venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what I think admits of no doubt whatever. We consider that the publication of such a Paper as this professed project of Treaty between France and Prussia, and for the objects set forth in it, must immediately draw forth from the spontaneous action of the two Governments concerned all the declarations that can be necessary for the fullest elucidation of the subject. They are not in our possession; but we have not a doubt that the next few days must place them at the command of the world. This is a very grave matter, and, therefore, I think I am not at liberty to enter upon it, and that no one can discuss it with any advantage after the present statement. The time must be close at hand when the surprise which generally must have been felt this morning will be cleared up, and cleared up effectually, by full information; and that being so, I think I shall best perform my duty by confining myself at this moment to these brief remarks, fully admitting that when the information shall be given the right hon. Gentleman and any other Member of this House will be perfectly in their right in addressing any questions they think fit to Her Majesty's Government.

OFFICE OF LORD PRIVY SEAL.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he rose to move a Resolution as to the expediency of abolishing the sinecure Office of Lord Privy Seal. So long ago as the year 1831 Lord Durham, in giving evidence before a Parliamentary Committee on Public Salaries, recommended the suppression of that Office, or rather its
  886
  amalgamation with the Office of Keeper of Signets, with so small a salary for the two combined Offices as would practically amount to the abolition of the Office of Privy Seal. In 1850 another Parliamentary Committee, one of great weight, reported in favour of the abolition of the Office and the transference of its duties to other Departments of the State. That Resolution, which was arrived at upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman now President of the Board of Trade, was carried by a large majority. It was not necessary for him to prove that the Office was a sinecure, because that had been admitted by Cabinet Ministers over and over again, even Mr. Pitt having said, when questioned on the subject, that where the Premier was a Peer the duty of the Lord Privy Seal was to sit near him in the House of Lords and keep off the moths. The Committee of 1850 examined several witnesses, among whom were Lord Halifax (who now held the Office), Lord Minto, Lord Palmerston, and Sir Robert Peel. What were the reasons why the recommendation of that Committee had not been acted on? The other night, when the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) asked a Question on the subject, the answer was, that both in 1859 and 1860 the opinions of the House had been taken upon it and a majority had declared against it. He believed, that as a matter of fact, the opinion of the House was taken only in 1860, when the present Chief Commissioner of Works brought the subject forward, and Sir George Cornewall Lewis then used the argument that it was not proper to raise the question as a matter of Supply, but that the opinion of the House should be taken on a regular Motion upon the point. Before the Committee of 1850 the present Prime Minister took the same strong line which he had done on a recent occasion, when he said that, in a Cabinet and Government constituted as ours, it was for the public advantage that we should not have anyone who held Office too heavily laden with the immediate duties of his Department. In 1851 the right hon. Gentleman who was now President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Hume, brought the subject before the House, when a long discussion ensued, and the argument that it was necessary to have in the Cabinet persons not connected with departmental duties was stated in

  887
  the clearest way. But, even admitting for the sake of argument, that it was necessary to have such advisers, it would be far better that their salaries should be paid to them as unofficial Members of the Cabinet. There were some Members of the Cabinet, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who were overburdened with work, and some assistance might be necessary; but there were others with leisure enough to perform other duties than those of their own Departments. When so many reductions were being made by some Members of the Cabinet in the lower ranks of their Departments, it was not right that a sinecure Office like that of Privy Seal should be retained. When the Government were called to account for dismissing persons occupying humble positions in the Civil Service, their reply was that they were responsible to the taxpayers, and that their first duty was towards them. But if that was their position in regard to the lower Offices, why make a difference in the case of the higher ones, such as that of Lord Privy Seal? In the lower Offices the men were needed at a certain time, and then a break occurred, after which, however, they would be sure to be wanted again; yet durthe interval they were dismissed. But ing the duties of the Lord Privy Seal only came in periods of great pressure, and were not continuous but intermittent, and of no long duration. If the Government could reconcile their action in respect to the Office of Lord Privy Seal with the recommendation of the Committee of 1850, and with their sense of duty to the country, he feared there were others in the House who could not reconcile such a state of things with the pledges they had given to their constituents. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that, with a view to the reduction of public expenditure, it is expedient that all unnecessary offices should be suppressed; and that at a time when reductions are being made in the lower appointments in the public service, it is fitting that the sinecure office of Lord Privy Seal should be abolished,"—(Sir Charles Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he admitted that there was a primâ facie case made
  888
  out, nor could he be at all surprised that, from time to time, the attention of Parliament should be directed to subjects like the present one; nay, it was very proper that that should be done. As he understood, an hon. Friend of his (Mr. Lambert) intended to ask next year for an inquiry into the higher Offices and their salaries, and without entering into the particular motive which governed the hon. Gentleman, on which he (Mr. Gladstone) would have a word to say if necessary—though he feared it would not advance his hon. Friend's views—he would say that the subject was one which ought to be brought under the notice of Parliament; and seemed it to him desirable to postpone the whole matter until that period. What his hon. Friend (Sir Charles Dilke) had urged—namely, that it would be preferable, if gentlemen were needed to assist the heads of overworked Departments, to pay them a salary, leaving them without any Office whatever, was worthy of consideration, though he did not agree with his hon. Friend. However, his object now was to point out that some supply or other was really requisite for the efficient discharge of Public Business over and above that which could be fully met by those immediately connected with the various Departments. It was not possible to exaggerate the importance of what he might call the non-departmental work of the Government, and if men had their minds full of departmental subjects, it would not be possible for them to give that disengaged and concentrated attention to the work which was so absolutely necessary. This non-departmental business arose in various forms. Sometimes it arose in the form of Bills intended to be introduced into Parliament which might be in the charge of a particular Department, but which might be of such magnitude as to require the concentration upon them of many minds. Such a Bill was that dealing with land tenure in Ireland, to which the Chief Secretary for Ireland applied himself with his great ability and wide knowledge of the subject, but which was too vast to be dealt with by any one Department. He (Mr. Gladstone) spent a full half of his Recess upon it; but neither his right hon. Friend nor himself would of themselves be equal to the construction of such a measure, and it was absolutely necessary they should receive assistance from others

  889
  not so absorbed by the business of Departments. His noble Friend who was then Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Kimberley), but who now filled an Office very much worthier of his abilities, gave them the most valuable aid. Again, it was a standing practice with all Cabinets in which he had sat to appoint Committees. On these Committees it was impossible, as a general rule, for the heads of the most laborious Departments to serve; and, in order to strengthen them, it was necessary that there should be on them one or two Members of the Government who were little employed in other duties, thus enabling the subjects these Committees might have to consider to be vigorously grappled with from time to time. Then, taking legislation in the House of Lords, where they had six Members of the Government, four of these — the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Lord Chancellor, and the Secretary of State for India—were all hard-worked Officers of State, who were unable to take charge of all the legislation to be conducted through the House of Lords; the fifth was the President of the Council, who could devote time for this important purpose. Now, it was only to-day he had been asked whether, considering the immense pressure of the duties which would devolve upon the Office under the Elementary Education Bill, it would not be necessary to effect a separation of Offices in the Department of the Privy Council in order to relieve that Department from a great portion of its duties, so as to enable those duties to be efficiently discharged. The Lord Privy Seal was now the only Adviser of the Crown in the House of Lords to whom, as a general rule, they could look for the conduct of measures not connected with particular Departments. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) said they had effected reductions in the lower officers, who were dismissed in an interval of repose, only to be re-employed again when the demand for their services arose. He hoped his hon. Friend would not make the point that the Members of the Government should be dismissed at the commencement of their holidays. His hon. Friend said that the Lord Privy Seal had duties only occasionally; but he (Mr. Gladstone) contended that the Lord Privy Seal in an
  890
  active Government, and when Parliament was in a state of great vivacity, was for nine months of the year a hard-worked officer, because between the end of October—about which time the Cabinet Councils commenced—and the beginning of February, he would usually be employed in considering the measures of the coming Session, and then when Parliament met he was actively employed till the Prorogation. What he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped was, that if his hon. Friend was disposed to prosecute this subject, he would not confine his attention to the Office of Lord Privy Seal, but take a broader view of the matter, and bring together the duties to be done, and the strength appointed to do them; and thus they would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion on the whole question. He must say the Government did not shrink at all from comparison with the lower Officers as to the amount of work they got through, nor were the reductions made such as to render their own Offices comparative sinecures. He thought it was quite right that the subject should be brought before the House, as it would be very unfortunate if it went abroad that they were disposed to show a favour to the great Officers of State which they would not, and had not, extended to the poorer ones. He had himself already that day admitted that it was quite possible, if the Education Bill happily passed into law, that when they came to watch the development of the great machinery of that measure, it might be necessary to re-organize the Privy Council Office, and perhaps they might be able, without burdening the State, to do something in the way of re-adjustment, though he thought that must be done upon a consideration not of one isolated Office alone, but of various Offices in conjunction. What he had said was, perhaps, sufficient to show that there would be, on the part of the Government, a disposition to give a fair consideration to the whole subject; and, in conclusion, he would suggest that it would be well to adjourn the further consideration of the matter until the House was disposed to think that a more comprehensive view might be taken, and a thorough inquiry made into the general provision for the discharge of executive duties, and the comparative amount and weight of those duties. At the same time, he was thank

  891
  ful to the hon. Baronet who had raised the question.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he was glad that Her Majesty's Government had expressed themselves disposed to reconsider the various Departments. He had a Notice on the Paper relating to that subject. His own view was, that it would be best for the English people to work the Departments by Boards.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he agreed in an opinion once expressed by Lord Brougham when in that House, that Boards were nothing more than screens. He did not approve of Boards; but, at the same time, he would not be any party to taking away from the overworked Members of the Cabinet the assistance which they already possessed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) must admit, if he looked at the row of faces on the Treasury Bench, and observed their complexions and appearance, that the heads of the great Departments of State were very much overworked. The tendency of this overwork was to make the Government of this country one of Departments merely, for it deprived heads of Departments of the leisure they required for thought, deliberation, and consultation, especially in critical times like these. To abolish the Office of Privy Seal would be to deprive the head of the Government not of the opportunity of giving a place to a supporter, but of the opportunity of enlisting the assistance of a man of experience in the conduct of public affairs, and of one whose freedom from official duties would leave him free to give the assistance that might be required, while his strength might not be equal to the labours of an exigent Department. If the Motion of the hon. Baronet were carried it might dam up the public service very considerably by throwing additional work upon heads of Departments, who had now too much to do, and therefore, in the event of a Division, he should join the Government in resisting the Motion.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he did not think a case had been made out for the abolition of the Office of Privy Seal. He agreed that all unnecessary Offices should be suppressed; but he thought the House would unanimously agree that this was not an unnecessary Office. The Mover of the Motion ought to have gone further, and said that all
  892
  necessary Offices should be put upon a proper footing. A Fourth Lord of the Treasury without salary was in an invidious position, and his Colleagues who were paid were also placed in an invidious position by the fact that one of their number was not paid. Another semi-amateur official was the unpaid Ecclesiastical Commissioner who sat in the House, in addition to the one who was paid. If Offices were considered necessary, those who held them ought to be properly paid. It was beneath a country like this to accept the services of unpaid volunteers, and such services were often regarded with suspicion.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) had been scarcely well treated by the House, as his Motion only carried out practically the recommendation of a Select Committee, upon which a Member of the present Cabinet (Mr. Bright) sat, and to the conclusions of which he had given his assent. Nothing had been said to alter the view taken by the Committee that the Lord Privy Seal had very little to do, and it was impossible to maintain that a Cabinet Minister sitting in the House of Lords had work to do anything like so hard as one sitting in the House of Commons; at all events, in the case of the former he must have comparatively much leisure. Hon. Members must not deceive themselves by putting the Lord Privy Seal in the same category with the First Minister of the Crown, who, indeed, was overworked. But why was it that those two Offices—the President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal—were always held by Peers? Why were Members of the House of Commons precluded from them, and from thus accepting a share of the labour that devolved on the Ministry in that House? He agreed so far with the President of the Board of Trade that he should vote for the Motion, of which by anticipation that right hon. Gentleman had approved.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, that having had the honour of being Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, he did not wish to give a vote without offering a word of explanation. He quite agreed that not only the salaries in the Office of the Lord Privy Seal exceeded the duties to be discharged, but the Office might be entirely dispensed with. But he con-

  893
  fessed that he agreed with, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that, owing to the mode in which the Government work was carried on, it would better to take the whole question first into consideration, with a view to a redistribution of duties and responsibilities. Since the Committee sat he (Colonel Wilson-Patten) had watched very carefully the way work in the Cabinet was performed, and he was bound to say he had seen occasions in which it would have been quite impossible that the Cabinet could perform their duties without the assistance of a few men with leisure. He had occupied an Office in the Government to which, there were no very important duties attached—that of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but during the time he filled the Office the Home Secretary was so overworked that he had to perform duties which, in strictness, did not appertain to him, and especially he had to attend to the question of local taxation when it came tip. The chief work of the first Reform Bill fell upon Lord Durham, who held one of these Offices. [Mr. GLADSTONE: And Lord Russell was Paymaster.] He, therefore, would suggest that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) should wait until the whole matter could be dealt with; and his belief was that if these two Offices were abolished now others must be created in their place. He would, therefore, vote in favour of the Government at the present moment.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had not heard anything advanced to induce him not to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Chelsea. His hon. Friend did not wish to deprive the Cabinet of whatever assistance was necessary; he only objected to the maintenance of a sinecure Office.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 60: Majority 110.

ROEHAMPTON GATE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he rose to call attention to the fact of Roehampton Gate being closed to the public, owing to a dispute between the Government and the owner of the road leading to it, and to urge upon the First Commissioner of Works the neces-
894
sity of having the gate opened, in order that access through it to Richmond Park might be obtained by the inhabitants of London. Efforts had been made by successive First Commissioners of Works to have the gate thrown open, but without success; and the only result of the negotiations was to have the road closed absolutely not only to the public, but to the carriages of the Queen and Royal Family, who formerly enjoyed the privilege of driving through the gate. His opinion was that both the owner of the road leading to the gate and the Government had been wrong in their negotiations, and the public had consequently been the sufferer. Were the First Commissioner of Works, however, now to bestir himself in the matter, he believed a satisfactory result would be obtained. He contended that as the Government, by having offered to pay £2,000 to the lady who now owned the adjacent lanes, had shown their willingness to purchase them, a fair price ought to be ascertained and the matter settled by the Government giving the full value for the whole property, including the two private roads, whatever the value might be, recouping themselves by the increased value which would be thus given to the portions for building purposes. He was given to understand that all that the owner of the approaches to this gate—who had hitherto maintained the roads at her own expense—wanted was a fair price for her ground, and that if this were given the public would obtain the right to use Roehampton Gate as an entrance to Richmond Park. Should it ultimately turn out, however, that the lady refused to give up the road at a fair valuation, it was the duty of the Government to introduce a Bill asking compulsory powers to take the road. Had he not been precluded by the forms of the House from taking a Division upon the subject he would have moved a Resolution, but, as it was, he would very strongly urge upon the Government the necessity of taking immediate steps to have the Gate opened.

NATIONAL GALLERY.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that as the First Commissioner of Works was precluded, by the forms of the House, from speaking twice, he begged to call attention to the Question which stood in his name upon the Notice Paper before

895
that right hon. Gentleman rose to reply. Last year he (Mr. B. Hope) moved for and obtained copies of certain correspondence that had passed between Her Majesty's Office of Works and the architect of the new National Gallery. This year he moved for other correspondence in continuance of that of the previous year; but, when he obtained it, he found to his surprise that one-half of the documents he had a right to expect did not appear, and that much of what was printed had nothing whatever to do with the subject to which the correspondence referred. The Government had made him a present of documents for which he did not ask, and which were calculated to confuse the question. His Motion was for a continuation of a correspondence between the Office of Works and the architect of the new National Gallery, who was appointed on the 16th of June, 1868, by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). During the previous year, while the same noble Lord was at the head of the Department, a competition, originated by the right hon. Member for South Hampshire, took place between architects with regard to the National Gallery, and the Judges reported that, while none of the designs as they stood "were such as would be recommended for adoption," the one for a new gallery by Mr. E. M. Barry, and the one for an adaptation of the present one by Mr. Murray, "respectively exhibited the greatest amount of architectural merit." In consequence of this recommendation, and considering that the partial failure was due to the incompleteness of the instructions given to the competitors, Mr. Barry was appointed in 1868 as architect of the new National Gallery—not to carry out his competition design, but to make a new one. This was the beginning of a new era; and yet the First Commissioner had appended to the Return copies not of Mr. Barry's competition plan, but merely of its façade, and also of that of Mr. Murray's adaptation, while on the face of each was printed the passage he had quoted from the Judges' Report, which, standing as it thus did alone, carried on its face a perfectly unwarranted appearance of depreciation, both of Mr. Barry and of his fellow-competitors. A pamphlet with illustrations by Mr. Layard, incidentally referred to in the correspondence, was also given; but of that
896
he did not complain. He was bound, however, to make a protest, when he only obtained half of the Papers he moved for, and was put off with documents which only tended to complicate a question already sufficiently entangled. It was clear that a stranger who knew nothing of the progress of the whole affair, and of Mr. Barry's present position, but who came unprepared upon Mr. Barry's and Mr. Murray's designs and the accompanying Report, would think that the whole matter was still in uncertainty, and not — as was the fact—settled, and only waiting for the word of order to proceed. He complained of the colour which the unusual procedure of the First Commissioner was calculated to give to the affair. Having thus established his complaint, he wished to ask what was the present state of the case in relation to the National Gallery, and whether it was likely that one or two blocks would be built on the ground already purchased at the back, so that our pictures might be housed safely and in a creditable manner, leaving the building in front to be dealt with at some future time?
MR. A. GUESTsaid, reverting to the subject of the Roehampton Gate, he must repeat the complaints of the hon. Alderman (Alderman Lawrence). Access to Richmond Park by way of Roehampton Gate would be a great convenience to the inhabitants of the metropolis. He regretted that the subject had been re-opened; but the difficulty would be solved if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) would bring in a Bill to buy up the private roads and land in question.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the wall of Richmond Park abutted upon the estate of a lady owning considerable property in the locality. Two private roads had been made through the estate, and they converged at one point on the wall of the Park. The administration of the Park had made a gate at the point of convergence, and by an interchange of courtesies, the lady was allowed to enter the Park from these roads, and members of the Royal Family passed over them from the Park to the public highway. This permission was extended from time to time to persons occupying lodges in Richmond Park, or residing in the immediate neighbourhood, and whose names were registered in a book kept for that purpose. Some time ago a desire was ex

897
pressed to convert these private roads into public thoroughfares, and, negotiations being entered into, the Treasury sanctioned the payment of £2,000. In doing so they made a great concession, inasmuch as it did not necessarily come within their functions to make public roads for the convenience of the inhabitants of the metropolis; and it was only the circumstance of its being connected with the Royal access to the Park that made it reasonable to comply even with so small a request. A demand, however, was made for a larger sum, and it then became the duty of his predecessor (Mr. Layard) to consider whether the Government should make public roads while the local authorities stood by with folded hands. No offer having been made to contribute towards the undertaking, either out of the local funds or out of the general metropolitan funds, the matter was allowed to drop. As had been mentioned, some personal questions were raised, and he stated that he was prepared on the part of his Office to tender an apology. A dispute afterwards occurred as to whether he had offered an apology, and he then stated that if requisite he would make an apology again in any reasonable terms. Therefore there could not be any doubt as to his willingness to remove anything which was disagreeable to the feelings of the lady in question. He had heard nothing more since that time, and he was not aware of their being any prospect of successful negotiations. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) proposed that the Crown should buy the whole property; but his Department could not engage in speculations of that kind. Probably, if the hon. Member could satisfy the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that this estate, which was now in the market, would be a profitable investment for any funds they might have in hand, they would be ready to consider the scheme. For his own part, all he could say was that if any proposition was made to his Department, coming within the terms previously sanctioned by the Treasury, it would be his duty to consider it; and, in fact, he should be happy to do all in his power to aid in the formation of a public carriage road into the Park. But it was not for him to bring in a Private Bill; the local authorities could pursue that course if they thought fit. He had
898
done all he could in the matter so far by making arrangements, with the approval of the Government, for providing a footpath to give uninterrupted access to the Park to the million, who could not go to the Park in carriages. He would now proceed to the question raised by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope). He could assure the hon. Member that there had been an entire misunderstanding as to his wishes. The Department had been under the impression that he wished for a continuation of the Papers relating to the construction of the building, and not of the correspondence with regard to the remuneration of the architect. But there would be no objection to the production of the additional Papers which he desired to have. The hon. Member had taken advantage of certain omissions to comment upon the explanatory Papers he had received, and to the publication of which he objected. It was only right, however, that Papers should be laid on the Table in such a form as would enable the House to understand the question to which they bore reference. The first of these Papers was Mr. Barry's Report, in which allusion was made to Mr. Layard's document. As he could not comprehend the Report without that explanatory document, he thought he was justified in assuming that no hon. Member could understand the one without the other, and therefore Mr. Layard's pamphlet was added to the Return. The drawings, and Mr. Murray's elevation were also added for similar reasons. His desire had been to afford such information as that the plan might be intelligible to hon. Members who had not sat in a former Parliament as well as in this.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, as a question had been raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), I with respect to the National Gallery, he had to say that the Government, owing to recent changes, and the practical advice they had received from the Board of Works, had come to the conclusion that it would be possible this Session to take a step in the direction indicated, and a Supplementary Estimate for that purpose would be laid on the Table in a few days. He hoped that, with a moderate sum, they would be able to accomplish all that might be required for a considerable time. He was glad to find they

899
could now take a step which at one period of the Session he had stated, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member, he despaired of.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when he had the direction of this matter he considered that the question was between the erection of an entirely new building and the patching up of the old one. What he had instructed Mr. Barry to do was to prepare a plan for a new Gallery in the ordinary sense of the term.

SOUTH AFRICA—TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC AND ORANGE FREE STATE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he rose to call attention to the relations between the Cape Colony and the South African Republic and the Orange Free State. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had had a Notice in regard to the Basutos, and he therefore should leave that question, confining himself to expressing his hearty sympathy with the views of his hon. Friend on that subject. The Papers which had been laid on the Table of the House on this subject showed that the statements of the horrors of slavery carried on in the Transvaal territory, which he submitted to the House last Session, were not exaggerated. The most horrible cruelties were perpetrated. He believed that 6,000 orphan children were being held in slavery. The Governor of Natal wrote that 3,000 native children were annually apprenticed, and apprenticeship was only another word for slavery. He had letters before him which led to the belief that such a state of things continued up to the present moment. When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was at the Colonial Office he expressed his opinion of the enormity of the state of things which then existed, and all hon. Members who had considered this subject would come to the conclusion that the conduct of the Transvaal Republic was disgraceful to a nominally Christian and civilized country. As regarded the future of South Africa, it was said to be the object of the rulers of that State to consolidate South Africa into a large Republic, of which the Orange River; Free State should form the principal part. For himself he should be glad to see the European population of South
  900
  Africa consolidated into a Confederation after the example of that which had been so successfully inaugurated in Canada and the adjacent countries. That, he believed, would supply the best means of meeting the difficulty. He had heard with regret that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Imperial troops from the Cape. He looked upon it as a policy not unattended with risk, for it must be remembered that there was a large Dutch population to be dealt with, on whose part there was not to be expected the same feeling of loyalty to the British Crown as existed among the population of British origin.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that he had placed a Notice on the Paper relating to the question, but he had forborne to press it on account of the late period of the Session at which they had arrived. He, however, thought they were all agreed as to the importance of the question. A relative of his who had recently returned from South Africa informed him that slavery in South Africa was not only not put a stop to, but was actually increasing, and that it was a very common thing to find a family of Transvaal Boers served by slaves kidnapped in violation of the Treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the Boers. He should like to raise the question as to how far it was the right of a Colonial Government and the Colonial Office to alienate British territory, as they had done in the case of the land of the Basutos, without the knowledge and consent of this country. He considered that the Parliament of England should be the ultimate arbiter in this matter.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he concurred in the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin). He greatly disapproved of the Treaty made by Sir Philip Wodehouse as being unjust. The Basutos were guaranteed as much as any nation could be the possession of their land; they trusted to the Government for redress and no redress had been given. He was sorry that Government had not soon their way to suspending Sir Philip Wodehouse.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, there could be no doubt that the statement which had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) with regard to slavery was in no degree exaggerated. Native children called orphans, and perhaps made

  901
  orphans by the murder of their parents, were registered as apprentices for 21 years, and during that time they were sold from hand to hand as a marketable commodity. On account of the gross breach of the Treaty between this country and the Transvaal State Her Majesty's Government had considered that Convention no longer binding which placed restrictions on supplying the Natives with arms. We now gave the Natives the same facilities for acquiring arms and ammunition as the Boers, and as far as that went the means of defending themselves against aggression. It was a notorious fact with regard to the Zulus, that while they cultivated their land, and had herds up to the very borders of our territory, they kept a district uncultivated on the side of the Free State, as they desired to have some notice before the approach of the enemy. Our conduct in Natal and the other districts had been such as to give us considerable moral influence, and he trusted that influence would in the end be sufficient to overbear the cruelties of the Boers. He did not sympathize with the hon. Member in his regret for the loss of the Orange territory, and he did not think that there would be many Members of that House who would sympathize with the hon. Member. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) stated some time ago that to maintain it we should have been obliged to keep on foot a force of 2,000 foot and 500 cavalry, and it was idle to suppose that the people of this country would have borne such an expense for that object. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friends, the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) and Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), as to the Basutos, the facts were that the Basutos when conquered by the Boers entreated the British Government to take them under its protection, and Sir Philip Wodehouse, in order to rescue them from destruction, proclaimed the Basutos to be British subjects, distinctly stating, however, that the question of boundary was one which he entirely reserved for future consideration. There was, no doubt, much good land which the Basutos had been compelled to give up, but Sir Philip Wodehouse recovered for them from the Boers, by pacific means, a large amount of land, sufficient for their support, and they were deeply grateful
  902
  for the advantages secured to them by his interposition.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,170, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had to ask the Committee to vote the sum of £10,170 as a Supplementary Estimate for the amount required for the buildings connected with the Houses of Parliament. The purpose for which it was proposed that this money should be spent was for the convenience of hon. Members in the discharge of their duty while attending that House. That subject had long engaged attention in successive Parliaments. In 1863 the Committee annually appointed to watch over the refreshment department of the House made a Report calling attention to the insufficient accommodation afforded by the existing refreshment-rooms, and recommended a plan which had been brought under their notice by Mr. Barry for pulling down the side wall of the present refreshment-rooms, and thus making them broader and more commodious. Towards the end of the Session that Report was brought under the consideration of the House by the Chairman of the Committee, and somewhat discussed; and he himself took the liberty of condemning that proposal as very unsatisfactory, and suggested that a better arrangement would be to make two or three of the rooms, forming part of the magnificent range in front of the river available, for the refreshment department of the House. Practically, the conference-room had ceased to be used for its original purpose, and he suggested that it should be regarded as the centre of operations; but the scheme was virtually negatived by public opinion. In 1867 a plan was brought under the notice of the Refreshment-room Committee, as he

903
learnt from the record of their proceedings, but the plan was not to be found in the Office. Next year a Committee was appointed to consider the subject, and Mr. Barry submitted to the Committee plans which would have cost £24,000, and which the Committee rejected as unsatisfactory. Again, last year his predecessor (Mr. Layard) submitted plans to a Committee, which was not satisfied with them; and thus it happened that when he entered Office there were no plans before the House which met with general approbation. He first set himself to inquire what were the real wants and wishes of hon. Members, and then considered the most likely way of meeting them. He arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable that the conference-room and the adjoining room should be appropriated as the principal refreshment-room, and that the present refreshment-room should be made available as a tea-room and a newspaper-room—by which means would be concentrated under one roof on the left-hand side of the House the rooms set apart for Members exclusively, which they could have access to without passing through a public lobby—and that the rooms on the right-hand side of the House should be made available for more public use, and apartments should be provided in which Members might see their friends with more convenience than was at present possible. In this way he would draw a clear line of demarcation between the parts of the House that were private and those that were accessible to the public. At the same time, he concluded that, if it were possible to avoid it, no part of the permanent structure of the building ought to be pulled down. Submitting these views to intelligent officers of the Department, skilled in adapting public buildings to the wants of the day, he received plans showing how the desired changes could be made by simply pulling down party walls. That scheme he asked the House to refer to a Select Committee, which was done; and as the House of Lords had some claims on the conference-room, he communicated with the Committee of the Black Rod. That Committee desired that a room should be substituted for the conference-room, and that there should be a communication between the Lords' committee-rooms and the Commons' com-
904
mittee-rooms. Against the latter proposal he felt it to be his duty to protest, on the grounds of interference with the structure of the building, and with the convenience of hon. Members hurrying along the corridors to the House, as they were often called upon to do. The Committee of this House unanimously approved the scheme, and expressed no opinion on what concerned the House of Lords. Instead of requiring a new room in lieu of the conference-room the Committee of the Black Rod might have been content to take advantage of the enormous accommodation to be found in the House, but the Lords were entitled to express a judgment, and they insisted upon having a new room; and all he had to do was to submit the matter to the Government, who entered into communication with the Committee of the Black Rod. The result was, it was agreed that a new committee-room, should be erected, though not in such a way as to interfere injuriously with the structure of the building; and the Committee of the Black Rod made a Report adopting the plans which had been submitted to this House. He had suggested that there should be, what everyone desired, a joint service in respect to the refreshment-rooms for both Houses, which should consist of three rooms; but the Lords declined to participate in that arrangement, and determined to continue the occupation of their separate refreshment-room, although, singularly enough, they had made a Report on the kitchen arrangements of the House of Commons. But, inasmuch as the Report was based on a not very accurate knowledge of the facts of the case, it was not necessary to refer more particularly to it. With respect to other matters they were of a comparatively minor kind, and were arranged on the same principle of not making any serious inroad on the permanent structure. An additional room now used for another purpose would be appropriated for providing additional accommodation in connection with the Ladies' Gallery, which would prevent the ladies visiting the House being so cramped as at present. A refreshment-room would be provided for the reporters by appropriating a portion of the building not used for any other purpose. Those gentlemen were at present subjected to great inconvenience and annoyance, being obliged to take

905
their refreshments in a small and inconvenient room, in which they had to carry on their very useful duties. It was also proposed that there should be a better access to the strangers' refreshment-room. A sum of money was asked for in order to complete the arrangements of the iron gates at the landing-place at the north end of the building, the arrangement at the steps leading from Westminster Bridge to the arcade, and for altering the windows at the end of the division lobbies of the House of Commons, in order to meet the complaints of want of air which some hon. Gentlemen had made with regard to those lobbies. Another proposal was to make an alteration in one of the windows of the smoking-room. There was felt to be great inconvenience in having windows out of which no one could look on sitting down. It was, therefore, proposed to alter the central window of the smoking-room; and, if that experiment succeeded, it might be repeated on the other windows. He hoped, for the sake of the general convenience which the arrangements would effect, the Committee would not object to the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that a sum of £10,170 be granted for the purposes he had mentioned.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,000 odd. He felt bound, after the extraordinary statements made by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to traverse some of the allegations contained in that statement. The right hon. Gentleman had always been known as the possessor of a strong imagination; but he had now taken a very high flight, and asserted himself to be the entire inventor of this plan for the improvement of the Houses of Parliament. According to his own statement, the right hon. Gentleman himself had done everything, Mr. Barry nothing; but that assertion had no foundation in fact. No doubt, Mr. Barry did, in 1863, suggest a plan for enlarging the refreshment-room by altering the walls of the present structure; but that plan was not adopted, and Mr. Barry afterwards maintained the best plan would be to secure the conference-room and the tea-room for the purpose. There could be no doubt that the plan, as ultimately presented to the House, was entirely Mr. Barry's, and was part of the plan which
906
was laid before the Committee of the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), in 1867. In all the proceedings of that Committee, and in the correspondence which took place upon it, the plan was recognized and acknowledged as Mr. Barry's; and he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could now calmly appropriate it in this way, without one word of acknowledgment to its real author. It was preposterous to say that, because, some years ago, the right hon. Gentleman had made a similar suggestion, therefore the whole merit of the plan belonged to him. The contrary of his statement was proved by the Kitchen Committee of 1867, who reported as follows:—
"Mr. Barry has now suggested a plan for improving the accommodation by converting the present conference and adjoining rooms into a large dining-room for both Houses of Parliament, in lieu of the present separate dining-rooms; and they are of opinion that this plan is preferable to any yet produced before your Committees."
In 1868 Mr. Barry was instructed to prepare a plan in accordance with this Report, and the proposal for the dining-room on the ground-floor was the result of the objection on the part of the House of Lords to give up the conference-room, which objection of course rendered a new arrangement necessary. But Mr. Barry met this objection by proposing to give the Lords a new room in the space beyond the lower waiting-hall, which the Commissioner of Works now intended to take, and this plan was approved by the Lords' Committee last year and also by the Kitchen Committee of the Commons, who, on the 12th May, 1869, reported that—
"They saw with satisfaction that in the new plans of Mr. Barry it is proposed to adopt the original proposition of converting the present tearoom and conference-room into dining-rooms."
In July, 1869, Mr. Barry, by the direction of the Lords' Committee, sent a plan and also a letter to the Office of Works. He (Mr. Bentinck) had moved for these documents; but the letter was not forthcoming, as it fully established the facts he alleged, though no one could dispute their accuracy. On the 9th of August the Commons' Committee appointed to consider "a joint service for both Houses," reported. Mr. Barry was examined before that Committee, and as he had received insufficient instruction, he was only able to say that the covering estimate for the whole work would be about

907
£22,000; but then it must be remembered that this estimate comprised more than double the works now contemplated—a fact carefully concealed from the House by the First Commissioner; and nothing could be more unfair than to say that the Commons' Committee of last year decided the plans to be unsatisfactory, because their Report merely stated that they were not prepared to recommend to the House that so considerable an outlay should be made at once, but thought the subject should be deferred until next year. Mr. Barry continued to be recognized as architect during Mr. Layard's tenure of office; but the instant the right hon. Gentleman succeeded he reversed the policy of all his predecessors, and put into practice the fixed idea which possessed him that the worst man to be employed in these works was the man who knew what he was about. The right hon. Gentleman replied upon the Report of the Committee of May last upon his plan; but this Report was wholly defective for want of evidence. Two witnesses only were called, and they were both officials of the Office of Works. Mr. Barry was not summoned, or he would have shown how his plan had been stolen, how his estimates had been grossly misrepresented, how he could have done the present work for £6,000, and also the patent defects of the First Commissioner's plan. But the right hon. Gentleman had made a most egregious blunder by not examining before the Committee a single witness connected with a refreshment department, either there or in any other place, or who knew how to serve a dinner, and the result was that no satisfactory kitchen service could by any possibility take place under the proposed arrangements, and it was manifest that the subject required reconsideration. The Reports of the Committees of the House of Lords of this Session advocated and confirmed all his (Mr. Bentinck's) objections; and, though the Lords had agreed to accept the new conference - room, they had not withdrawn anyone of their unanswerable objections to the scheme. But if common sense and expediency did not demand the employment of Mr. Barry, the Government were bound to this by their own declaration. On the 13th of May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed an opinion that Mr. Barry ought to be employed on architectural works
908
in the House; and how could he retreat from that position with honour in the case in point, where main architectural features of the House were proposed to be obliterated and altered. The architectural objections to this scheme were: — 1st, that the lower waiting hall would be entirely destroyed in effect by cutting off the branch which intersected the corridor; 2nd, that the continuity of the corridor, one of the main principles of the building, would be permanently interrupted; 3rd, that the new conference-room, which was to be architectural in character, was supported upon columns in the court below, carrying a projection of above 11 feet, and darkening all the rooms below. It was manifest that such works could not be properly executed by obscure clerks, but only by a competent architect. The practical objections were, if possible, even more serious. The kitchen was small, and ill ventilated; and it was impossible the kitchen service could be carried out, the kitchen being only 90 feet from the serving-room, which, according to the testimony of the managers of two of the largest clubs in London, would render it impossible to dine 50 or 60 gentlemen who might rush in for dinner on a busy night. The place where the dinners would all be brought up he proposed to construct out of an elaborate Gothic porch, which would bring all the dinners of the House into a place where there was neither light nor air, the effect of which would certainly be to create unpleasant odours and intense heat. Then he proposed that the bar should protrude into the room itself. But it was impossible to have wines and liquors served properly in such a place, because there was no air, and the heat would be too great. A place for wines had been entirely forgotten. Now, it was absolutely necessary, where wines might be called for in a hurry, to have the place in which they were kept on the same floor as the dining-room. Apart entirely from æsthetics, this plan would not do. The best thing for his right hon. Friend to do would be to leave out the item, and let the matter be considered next year. The so-called Liberal party invariably had an official to "meddle and to muddle." Lord Russell used to fulfil this function; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) had taken his place with great aptitude and effect. He

909
begged to move the omission of the Vote, in order that the question of rearrangement of the refreshment-rooms should be more fully considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £7,160, for the Re-arrangement of the Refreshment Department, and for Alterations connected therewith, on the Basement and Principal Floors, and for the Erection of a Committee Room for the use of the House of Lords, with Entrances thereto from the Peers Corridors, he omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, the Motion raised two questions—the treatment which had been dealt out to Mr. Barry, and the increased accommodation the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) proposed to give to the House by his present plan. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had a very slight acquaintance with Mr. Barry, and was, generally speaking, no great admirer of the architecture of the Houses of Parliament; but he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) must say that although the building did not please him, it was yet a great work, and he could not help thinking that the son of the architect had been treated with something like ingratitude. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly not treated Mr. Barry properly, for he practically took his plan, and after the manner of gipsies who kidnapped children, defaced it in order that it should not be known. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) contended that Mr. Barry had great cause of complaint in being removed from his position; for though he had only about £180 a year for giving advice, he had the satisfaction of feeling that he was associated with the Houses of Parliament which his father had built, and he regarded his position as a testimony of respect to the memory of his father. All these matters should not be looked at exclusively from a money point of view; but the right hon. Gentleman had no sympathy with such feelings. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had referred to a Committee on which he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) sat in 1868. That Committee recommended that a large amount should be spent on rearranging the House, and for £130,000 they would have had a place worthy of the House of Commons. But no, they would go on in the old way, squandering money by false economy, and he believed that the course which the right
910
hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt would show once more how easy it was to dribble away large sums of public money by false economy, to the inconvenience and disappointment of all concerned. It was the case of the Serpentine over again. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had said, they were about to bring all their cooking in where there would be no ventilation, and the continuity of corridor would be broken; and he believed if the plan, which was a thoroughly bad one, was carried out, they would have the smell of cooking all over the House.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he regretted that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) had unnecessarily introduced the name of Mr. Barry into the discussion, and compared his own skill in architecture with that of the son of the builder of that house. So far as the plan was Mr. Barry's it was good, and wherein it differed it was wrong. It seemed to him (Mr. Cowper-Temple) especially faulty in the distance between the kitchen and the refreshment-room. If they looked at the details they would see that Mr. Barry's estimate, taking into account the much larger amount of work, which on the recommendation of the Committee he was to perform, was as low as that of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would get rid of those portions of his plan to which objection was justly taken, and that in particular he would take care that the intended refreshment-room should be conveniently constructed and properly ventilated.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that those who like himself were of opinion that Mr. Barry had already been badly treated, certainly could not be induced to regard with much favour a scheme which did that architect still farther injustice. The plan which the Kitchen Committee requested Mr. Barry to make ought to be called not Mr. Barry's plan, nor the plan of the Kitchen Committee, but the plan of Mr. Alderman Cubitt, a very excellent judge, no doubt, of what was required. As to the charge that Mr. Barry threw over the excellent design which he (Lord John Manners) first started of dining-rooms on the same floor as the House of Commons, and invented a more costly plan, putting them on the basement floor, the right hon. Gentleman must know that

911
was not Mr. Barry's plan. But when the House of Lords declined to give up the Painted Chamber, Mr. Barry had to find some other mode of accomplishing the end in view. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman treated the claim of the House of Lords to the Painted Chamber in a very cavalier manner. But the fact was, the House of Lords from the beginning were in possession of the Painted Chamber, and they stated plainly that they would not give it up unless they got a convenient committee-room in its stead. He regretted that Mr. Barry's plan had been departed from. True, it would cost more than that of the right hon. Gentleman; but then it should be remembered that it was a far larger, more complete, and more suitable plan. Moreover, it was one which included accommodation for the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons; whereas the scheme now proposed was only designed for the accommodation of the House of Commons. If, therefore, the new scheme were carried out, and should it afterwards be proposed to alter it, so as to include dining-rooms for the Lords, much additional expense would be incurred. His opinion was that the best thing to do would be to carry out a perfect and comprehensive improvement, instead of always making alterations, and that that would save money in the long run. He protested against the dismissal of Mr. Barry, and the handing over to other men the works designed by him; and he further protested against the Houses of Parliament being pulled about and altered by gentlemen who, however trustworthy and eminent in their profession, were not professed and skilled architects. He trusted that whatever works were agreed upon would be executed in a proper architectural style, under the superintendence and upon the responsibility of a competent, skilled architect.
MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he was afraid that that Vote was only the beginning of troubles. He concurred with the preceding speaker in thinking it essential, in matters like that before them, to have the assistance of a man of acknowledged architectural skill and taste. A high professional authority had characterized the changes now proposed in that great building as "barbarous;" and, in his own opinion, patchwork alterations of that sort were invariably
912
the most costly in the end. Without negativing the Vote, however, he would recommend its postponement, and that the Government should do nothing till next Session.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, he also thought it might be advisable, under all the circumstances, not to proceed with the Vote at present. He had been a member of the two Committees which had been mentioned. The Committee, the year before last, came to the unanimous opinion that the plan and estimate proposed by Mr. Barry ought not to be sanctioned; but the second Committee allowed the plan which the right hon. Gentleman declared that he was prepared, with the sanction of the Government, to carry out at less expense, to pass. At the same time, he agreed with his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) in thinking that, in regard to a building which they hoped would be a credit to the country for ages to come, any alterations that were decided upon should be made upon the best skilled authority they could obtain.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, having served on the right hon. Member for Newcastle's two House of Commons Arrangements Committees, he claimed for Mr. Barry the credit of originating the idea of utilizing the conference-room, and must deny to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works the title of being the inventor and patentee of it. Mr. Barry's estimate of £24,000 included, besides the new dining-room, a series of extensive changes, which were, in reality, a fragment of the valuable scheme originally propounded by the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and therefore it was not fair to quote that large sum as an argument against the dining-room plan propounded by the eminent architect in question. A Committee, which was wrong in its measurements by as much as 30 feet, had hastily recommended the carrying out, at a smaller expense, of an arrangement which would produce a most uncomfortable eating-house, and spoil the architecture of the building; but there was still time to remedy the mischief. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the unanimous expression of opinion on both sides of the House and withdraw the present scheme.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he did not concur in that wish. He hoped that hon.

913
Members, who had been complaining for years of the want of accommodation, would act on the unanimous recommendation of a Committee, to whom the matter had been referred.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped the House would put a stop to interminable discussions on the subject. He was sick of hearing so much about architects. He would support the scheme proposed by the Office of Works.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that in regard to the serving from the kitchen, this scheme would challenge comparison with any other, for the communication would be in the centre of the room, instead of at one end.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own plan, the kitchen was 90 feet from the lift. He understood Mr. Barry's plan would afford a room very similar to that at the Reform Club; so that hon. Members who belonged to that club could readily form an idea of what convenience the proposed room was likely to afford.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £21,674, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
(3.) £80,437, to complete the sum for Royal Parks.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that two years ago it was proposed to replace the wooden paling in Regent's Park by an iron railing, and now it was proposed to pull down the iron railing, so that the result would be that the Park would be left without any railing at all. He would suggest that it might be as well to allow the iron railing to remain round the particular enclosure where it now stood, even if the right hon. Gentleman should not think it necessary to continue a similar railing round other enclosures.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, he wished to ask whether it was contemplated to cut down any trees in the vicinity of those trees which the intervention of the House had prevented from being cut down?
MR. BOWRINGcalled attention to a promise made by the First Commissioner of Works last Session to improve the present desolate appearance of the north side of Kensington Gardens by fresh planting, and further pointed out
914
the desirability of placing more drinking fountains in the public Parks for the use of the poorer classes.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that to have plenty of water to drink was a good thing; but there was a proposal last year to establish a beer-shop in Victoria Park, and that he protested against. He hoped the First Commissioner would not allow such a thing.
MR. AYRTONsaid, with respect to the iron railing in Regent's Park, it was found that £35,000 would be required to complete it entirely, and as the general feeling among the residents in Regent's Park was in favour of the old rustic wood paling, he thought it better not to complete the iron railing for the small enclosure, as to do that would have cost £2,500, but to restore the wooden paling at an expense of £100. With regard to the trees in Hyde Park which had been alluded to, one plan proposed was to have no trees in the neighbourhood of the Prince Consort's memorial, so that it might stand out plainly, and be seen in all its beauty. That was the idea of a committee of architects, who had considered the subject; but as it might not seem satisfactory to those who looked at the matter from a horticultural point of view, a compromise was come to—it was arranged that only a sufficient number of trees should be removed to allow of the public seeing the memorial. No one would desire such an outrage on common sense perpetrated as that that magnificent work should be obscured by plantations of trees, and it was, therefore, proposed to remove those trees which stood in the way of a view of the memorial. The exact details of the plan had not yet been settled; but the greatest care would be taken to add to the general effect of the monument; and the trees would be replanted in close proximity to their present site. With regard to the north side of the Park, he could not hold out any hope of large expenditure at present, while he was dealing with the south side, which required it more; but he was quite ready to admit that the fountains ought to be sufficiently supplied with water, and if there was any deficiency in that respect, he would do what he could to meet the public requirements. As to beer, he thought its sale within the Park was not a thing to be desired. People who wanted it might go out of the Park to get it.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he would suggest that the number of fountains in the Parks might well be increased. The visitors at present complained that they were frequently unable to obtain a drink of cold water.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to know what had become of the colonnade removed from Burlington House? It was understood that it would be re-erected on some suitable spot as a public decoration.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that he believed the colonnade—or more accurately the gateway—in question existed—at least the remains or ruins of it—somewhere in Battersea Park. He had no present intention of disturbing them. If the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope) would only mind what was written upon it when the gateway was first put up, he would not be so anxious to have it re-erected, at least in any place where it could be seen.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he hoped that the First Commissioner would promise that the colonnade would not at any rate be broken up to repair the roads. The right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in calling it a gateway, and was evidently ignorant of the understanding come to at the time when Burlington House was pulled down. The colonnade was specially exempted from the sale of building materials, and it was most undoubtedly the intention of Mr. Layard, who had more than once spoken to him about it, that it should be re-erected. He hoped the First Commissioner would give him some assurance that the colonnade should be preserved.
MR. AYRTON: No steps shall be taken to destroy whatever is remaining of it.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £83,807, to complete the sum for Public Buildings.
(5.) £11,700, to complete the sum for Furniture of Public Offices.
(6.) £22,587, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
MR. A. GUESTsaid, he wished to know whether the decoration of the Central Hall would be continued and finished in the same style in which it had been begun?
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished to ask, whether a better system of ventilating the House could not be secured by
916
opening more of the windows above? During the last fortnight almost every hon. Member had suffered extremely from the heated air whenever the House was full; and there was no medium between the oppressive atmosphere on the floor of the House and the strong currents of air that were being continually forced through the galleries.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, the item of gas and fuel for the two Houses showed a very large increase, which required explanation.
MR. AYRTONsaid, with regard to the Central Hall, after the first mosaic was placed in, it became necessary to consider the question of cost and of the general effect of extending that system of decoration. It was evident that mosaics could only be mechanical copies of the works of others; whereas the strongest opinions had been expressed that the embellishment of the Houses of Parliament ought to be made a means of encouraging original work of art of the highest order. The Royal Commissioners, also, had unequivocally condemned the adoption of any glazed surface in the ornamentation of the Palace. He had, therefore, invited the artists who had already taken part in decorating the walls to meet and examine all the Reports of the Royal Commissioners, and to give him the benefit of their views upon the subject, among these artists being Mr. Poynter, the gentleman by whom the design for the mosaic had been painted. Those gentlemen unanimously concurred in thinking that it was not desirable to continue the system of mosaic decoration, at all events until a number of professional points which they suggested had been thoroughly examined and solved to their satisfaction; and to enable them to prosecute their inquiry they asked for certain assistance. The Government approved of that view of the matter, and had sanctioned the requisite expenditure for that purpose; and he thought the Committee would agree with him that it was far better that thoroughly competent artists should deal with this question, than that it should be left to the decision of any Commission, however distinguished its members might be. With regard to the question of gas, no doubt the gas was a great expense; but his Department were exerting themselves to bring it down as low as possible. The question of improved ventilation

917
would be met by the proposal to increase the number of windows.
MR. A. GUESTsaid, he wished to understand a little more than he did what were the right hon. Gentleman's views with regard to the mosaic decorations in the Central Hall. If he did not proceed further with these mosaics, would he remove that which already existed; or were they to have mosaics on one side of the Hall and frescoes on the other?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would be guided by the opinion of the artists to whom he had referred.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he must ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House the name of the artists as an indication of the value of their report? He had already named Mr. Poynter; but who were the others?
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVTLLEsaid, he wished to know whether the plate-glass put in front of some of the frescoes had the effect of preserving them; and, if so, whether it was intended to apply some protection to the other pictures?
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was intended, whenever it was necessary, to apply glass to the other frescoes. As to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), he had not a list of the artists with him, but they had all been concerned in the wall-paintings of the Palace.
MR. CADOGANsaid, he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the expediency of repaying to the metropolitan police rate from Imperial taxation the amount now paid for the police in charge (internally) of the Houses of Parliament. The rate for the police employed about the building was only £429, while the cost to the public was £3,983. Now if there was any duty that might be called an Imperial duty, it was the protection and preservation of that House, and he protested against the unfairness of so much of the cost being thrown upon local taxation.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not understand the objection of the hon. Member. It was true the House did not pay police rates; but it paid its own police, so that it did the very thing the hon. Gentleman complained of them for not doing. If the hon. Gentleman wished to raise any question on the general incidence of taxation, he must do it when the general police rate was under discussion.
MR. CADOGANsaid, he admitted that the House did pay a portion of its policemen; his objection was that it did not pay the whole.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £12,500, to complete the sum for the Public Offices Site.
(8.) £24,083, to complete the sum for the Public Record Repository.
(9.) £4,395, to complete the sum for the Chapter House, Westminster.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished for an explanation. There was no contract of the work to be done. The work went on bit by bit, and no party seemed definitely to have charge of it.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he had over and over again called attention to this Vote. He wanted to know when the work was to stop, and what was to be done with the building when finished?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had caused the work to be carefully estimated, and it was found that for the sum of £30,480 the shell of the building would be completed—that is, it would be covered in, and glazed, and made water-tight. But, of course, there would be no decoration. When it had arrived at that stage it would be for the House to consider whether it should continue to be maintained by the public or be handed over to some public body.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £10,067, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
(11.) £11,200, to complete the sum for the University of London Buildings.
(12.) £13,250, to complete the sum for Glasgow University Buildings.
(13.) £6,500, to complete the sum for the Extension of Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
(14.) £36,000, to complete the sum for Burlington House.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Vote had been increased by £15,000 from last year, in consequence of further purchases. He wished to know whether any more purchases would be required?
MR. AYRTONsaid, the purchase in question had been made as the best mode of treating the difficulties which arose, claims having been made for obstructing lights, and so forth. That was the only purchase necessary, and it

919
was in the hands of the Crown, and would be turned to good account.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £101,648, to complete the sum for the Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.
(16.) £9,774, to complete the sum for the British Museum Buildings.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished to ask how far it was necessary, considering how valuable the space in such a quarter was, that the officers of the Museum should live within the area of the building? They might easily live on the opposite side of the street.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he would suggest that the stores contained in the Museum which had never yet, for want of accommodation, been exhibited to the public, might be advantageously lent to the different Universities of the three kingdoms, and to the large towns of the country.
MR. AYRTONsaid, these were questions relating to the administration of the British Museum, which could be better discussed on the British Museum Vote. He agreed that the less the number of residents on the site, the less risk there would be to the contents.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) £40,762, to complete the sum for County Courts, Buildings.
(18.) £80,100, to complete the sum for Survey of the United Kingdom.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to know when the survey would come to an end?
MR. STEVENSONsaid, he thought that greater facilities should be given to the public for the purchase of the Ordnance Survey maps.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, the surveys were made on an arbitrary principle, some districts being considerably favoured, while others were neglected, and he should like some information as to how they were managed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the surveys were not so well managed as they might have been under the Army; but they had now been transferred to the Office of Works, and it was hoped they would now be better managed.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the survey was unnecessary, as there was already a map of the whole of England showing every
920
field made for the tithe survey. The money the surveys cost was a very large amount, and a private map-maker would do the work for half the sum with quite as much accuracy, considering that the important part of the work was finished, and that all that remained to be done was the enlargement and reducing of maps.
MR. WREN-HOSKYNSsaid, he hoped the six-inch map would be completed, as it was of great service for agricultural and other purposes. While Ireland and Scotland had been mapped on the six-inch scale, the interior part of England had not been surveyed.
MR. MILLERsaid, the public found difficulty in purchasing the maps, and he thought that greater facilities should be given for their sale.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the survey had been very expensive, costing about £1,500,000 in 10 years; but the maps produced had been of very great value. The subject would be considered during the Recess, and he should be able to state next Session the exact mode of proceeding.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £7,600, Enlargement of Marlborough House.
(20.) £28,199, to complete the sum for Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
(21.) £2,380, to complete the sum for Portland Harbour.
(22.) £6,500, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
(23.) £23,913, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.
(24.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £99,542, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
MR. M'LARENsaid, he must take exception to the largeness of the sum.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the Vote had been framed as economically as possible.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £97,542, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

921
in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Irelrnd."—(Mr. Lusk.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed, to.
(25.) £3,500, to complete the sum for the Ulster Canal.
(26.) £10,010, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
(27.) £1,722, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses Abroad.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he must complain of the great expense of keeping up that at Paris, though he admitted that it was less than during the last two or three years.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the whole matter was examined by a Committee last year, and the expenditure was declared to be satisfactory.
Vote agreed to.
(28.) £41,610, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses, &c, Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that since 1840 the Embassy Houses at Pera had cost about £200,000 for building alone, independently of several thousands a year for repairs.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, there was no explanation as to the £48,000 asked for China and Japan.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that a statement upon the subject had been laid upon the Table.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he regretted that the house at Constantinople had not been entirely destroyed. He hoped that it would not be determined to rebuild it without consulting Parliament.
MR. R. N. FOWLERasked whether it was insured?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not. He might add that the site was one which had the advantage of very cool air. They had sent Major Crawson to Constantinople, and he reported that the walls of the building were almost entire. Of course, they would have come to the House if they determined to rebuild.
Vote agreed to.
(29.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,231, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to
922
defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562 for Queen's Plates.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £1,562 for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
MR. SHERLOCKsaid, he thought the Queen's Plates were an institution that should not now be interfered with.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that having done away with Queen's Plates in Scotland, he did not see how they could vote money for them in Ireland.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he considered that the time had arrived for abolishing mock royalty in Ireland.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he objected to public money being appropriated for such purposes as horse-racing. He did not believe in the argument that the system improved the breed of horses, for race-horses were only exaggerated greyhounds; while our hunting horses, cattle, and sheep were the finest in the world.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he consented on Friday to the omission of the Vote for Queen's Plates in Scotland, in deference to the opinion of the Members for Scotland; but as there had been no demonstration against this Vote on the part of the majority of the Irish Members, he could not consistently consent to reduce it.
MR. GREENEsaid, he would remind the House that many of our best horses came from Ireland.
VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCEsaid, as an Irish Member, he considered that Vote worthy of the support of the House. Nearly the whole of the cavalry was supplied with horses by Ireland.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would support the Vote, and must observe that the opposition would be regarded by many persons in Ireland as a fling at that country.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 61; Noes 81: Majority 20.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £17,746, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(31.) £250, to complete the sum for Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(32.) £43, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
(33.) £13,130, to complete the sum for the General Register Office, Ireland.
(34.) £65,522, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission, Ireland.
(35.) £2,992, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, Ireland, &c.
(36.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £17,730, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,530, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1871, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions [July 21, 22] reported.
On the Vote relating to Friendly Societies,
MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was expected that the Assistant Solicitor to the Treasury would be employed in discharging the duties of this office pro-
924
visionally for at least 12 months; he therefore proposed that they should reduce the Vote by £400 for his salary, one-half the Estimate made on the presumption that the office would be promptly refilled.
First Resolution read a second time, and amended, by leaving out "£1,794," and inserting "£1,394," instead thereof.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.

  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act (1858), ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 236.]

  CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill for taking the Census of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 237.]

  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. WILLIAM GREGORY, and Three Members to be appointed by the Committee of Selection:—Three to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sheriffs (Scotland) Act (1853) Amendment, &c.* (243).
Second Reading — (£1,300,000) Exchequer Bonds*; Elementary Education (235); Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment* (231).
Committee — Exchequer Bonds (£1,300,000)*, negatived.
Committee — Report — Sugar Duties (Isle of Man)* (209); Stamp Duty on Leases* (148); Paupers Conveyance (Expenses)* (208).
Report—Life Assurance Companies* (239).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (188); Gas and Water Facilities* (222); Judicial Committee* (224); Medical Officers Superannuation* (225), and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—ALLEGED DRAFT TREATY.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: Seeing my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I take the liberty of putting to him, though I have been unable to give Notice, a Question which seems to me all-important in the present state of affairs on the Continent. It was stated this morning in one of our most influential public journals that a Treaty has been proposed between the two belligerent Powers, of a nature which must be of the deepest possible interest to this country and to Europe at large. I therefore feel fully justified in the course I have taken, and I think it would be satisfactory to the country at large to know whether it is the fact or not?
EARL GRANVILLE: My noble Friend has only been able to give me Notice of his Question since he entered the House; but I am bound to say that even if he had given me a rather longer Notice my duty would have prevented me from giving at the present time more than a very short answer. I am not informed whence came the document which appeared in The Times this morning; but I am not surprised that my noble Friend (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) should regard it as a very important document. I can only state the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that, after the announcement of the alleged existence of such a draft of a Treaty proposed between France and Prussia, the Governments of both those countries will be induced immediately and spontaneously to explain to Europe all that concerns this matter.

IRISH LAND BILL.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Commons amendment to Lords amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to one of the amendments made by the Lords to the amendments
  820
  made by the Commons to the amendments made by the Lords considered (according to order).
  EARL GRANVILLEasked their Lordships to agree to the Amendments made by the Commons in the Amendments of the Lords. The Commons had agreed to the omission of the words empowering the Court to consider "special causes" why an ejectment for the non-payment of rent should be deemed a disturbance entitled to compensation, with this reservation, that the Court might, in the case of holdings valued under £15, inquire whether the rent had been exorbitant. This question had gone to and fro from one House to the other, and on a former occasion he made an offer which did not meet with a sufficiently encouraging reception to induce him to press it to a Division. He hoped, however, their Lordships would agree to the clause in its present form. He had also to ask them not to insist, in the clause requiring the Court to state the "particulars and character" of the tenant's loss, for which compensation was awarded, on the words "particulars and" which the Commons had struck out. He moved that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was prepared to assent to the Amendments made; but asked that the matter might be postponed for a short time, in order that it might be considered whether the exact words now before the House would meet the object in view, or whether a verbal Amendment might not be necessary.
  Question postponed.
  Afterwards—
  Debate resumed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should have preferred the word "value" as it stood in the Commons' Amendment; but, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) preferred the word "rent," he did not think that when a settlement had been so nearly arrived at it would be right to insist upon so small a point. He would, therefore, not oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, and the Commons' Amendment would, therefore, run as follows:—
  "Or if, in case of any such tenancy of a holding held at an annual rent not exceeding £15, the

  821
  Court shall certify that the non-payment of rent causing the eviction has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent."
  Other Amendments agreed to.
  Their Lordships' Amendment in Clause D to which the Commons disagree insisted on; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on the said Amendment.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
(NO. 235.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: My Lords, it is a satisfaction to me, and a circumstance which will very much shorten the observations it is my duty to make, that in moving the second reading of a Bill, the object of which is to establish a system of national education throughout England and Wales, I need not, in the present political and social position of the country, detain your Lordships by any arguments as to the importance of the spread of education, or as to the advantage to be derived not merely by those immediately affected, but by every class in the community from the establishment, as speedily as possible, of a system by which the means of elementary education may reach every home, and be brought within the reach of every child in the country. I pass at once, therefore, to the consideration of the present condition of elementary education; and, in order that I may properly place my statement before your Lordships, I must refer to the history of the question, so as to indicate what has been done within the last 30 years by the existing system. In 1834 a system of aid to education on a very small scale was instituted, and was placed under the management of the Treasury; but it was not till 1839 that the system now in operation can be said to have been began, for it was in that year that the charge of the question was transferred to the Committee of Privy Council. Addressing your Lordships last year on this subject, I felt it to be my duty, as well as my privilege, to acknowledge the great work which has been accomplished during the last 30 years by that system; and I will now, in a few words, confining myself, as this Bill is confined,
822
to England and Wales, recapitulate those results. Between 1839 and 1869 no less a sum than £24,082,274 has been expended in the promotion of elementary education from all sources. Of this amount, £15,119,361 has been raised by voluntary contributions, school-pence, and other private sources, independent of Government aid, while £8,962,913 has been contributed by the Government. These figures show a very important element in the present state of the question—namely, the very large amount of the aid contributed to public education, derived from sources altogether independent of the contributions of the State. In order to give a fair explanation of the present state of things, it is desirable that I should enter into some detail with regard to the expenditure of 1869. That expenditure has hitherto been divided into two classes—namely, the one for the erection of new schools, and the other for the maintenance of schools already existing. Now, in 1869, excluding training schools, the former head of expenditure amounted to £168,716, of which £32,152 was contributed by the State, while no less than £136,564 was raised by voluntary contributions. The new schools thus created during 1869 provided accommodation for 28,548 children. With respect to training schools, the largest share of the expenditure of which falls upon the State, the Parliamentary Grants amounted to £59,000, while the voluntary contributions were £27,749. The students resident in these schools numbered 2,097. With regard to the maintenance of existing schools, the Parliamentary Grants for 1869 were £542,899, and the contributions from other sources amounted to £924,730. Of the latter sum, £44,484 consisted of endowments, £397,035 of voluntary contributions, technically so called, £455,817 of school-pence, and £27,394 came from other sources. These other sources should be added to the voluntary contributions, which would raise the latter to a sum exceeding £400,000, for most of them are sums provided by the managers or landowner to make up deficiencies. From all sources, therefore, £1,723,094 was raised in 1869, of which the public purse contributed £634,051. The accommodation afforded by this expenditure provided for 1,765,944 children in inspected and assisted schools. Over and above

823
that, though not, except as far as it was due to previous grants, on account of this expenditure, there was accommodation for 58,362 children in schools simply inspected—that is to say, schools which are inspected from time to time, but which receive no grant, inasmuch as they do not comply with the conditions. Now, the average attendance of day scholars in assisted schools was 1,062,999, in night schools 64,210, and in simply inspected schools 16,681. With regard to the results of the examinations in these schools, it is as follows:—245,300 children under six years of age passed in the day schools solely on the ground of attendance—no other test being required of children of that age; 785,385 children over six years of age passed by ordinary attendance; and 57,757 by 100 or more attendances under the half-time Acts: the attendance at the evening schools was 78,189. The result is, that out of 696,440 who were examined, there passed in reading 89·97 per cent, in writing 88·24 per cent, and in arithmetic 77·24 per cent. In the night schools a greater proportion passed in reading and arithmetic, but a somewhat smaller one in writing. With respect to the teaching staff, there were 12,027 certificated teachers, 1,236 assistant teachers, and 12,842 pupil teachers. I avail myself of this opportunity of stating that the state of things with regard to the pupil teachers and the numbers in the training Colleges is now more satisfactory than was the case a few years ago. What I have at present stated relates only to the quantity of education; but, of course, we must also look to the quality; and of this, even as regards the schools under Government inspection, I regret that I cannot speak with equal satisfaction. Since the Revised Code has been in operation, and a test of the quality of education has thus been afforded, there has been a great temptation to throw children who ought to be examined in the higher standards into standards not proportioned to their age, and those who have passed the standards suitable to their age have not been what their ages required. During the past year 266,309 scholars above the age of 10 were examined, who ought to have passed in Standards 5 and 6; whereas only 80,411 so passed, the others passing in lower standards. I believe the main cause to which this unfortunate circum-
824
stance is to be attributed—to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) and myself have thought it our duty to call attention in the Report we have this year submitted to Her Majesty—is the very short time during which children remain at school, and the consequently very limited progress which it is possible for them to make. Now, it is necessary to compare this state of things with the requirements of the country, and to ascertain whether, after the great efforts that have been made for so many years past, we have made progress in education that can be considered satisfactory; and for that purpose we must inquire into the number of children of such an age that they ought to be at school, the school accommodation afforded them, and the quality of the education given. It has been the practice of late years to take the number of children between 3 and 12 years of age, and, acting on this principle, I find that the number of children of the working class in England and Wales—and this Bill deals with that class only—of that age is 3,936,513, and that the accommodation in inspected schools is for 1,824,306 children, showing a deficiency of 2,112,207. I have not, however, the least wish to overstate the case, which, I believe, is quite strong enough when stated in the most moderate manner. Now, the National Society claims to provide accommodation for 600,000 children in non-inspected schools. Of the value of the education given in such schools I shall have a word to say presently; but even assuming, which I do not admit, that the whole of them could be reckoned as satisfactory, there would still be a deficiency in the accommodation of 1,500,000. That is the most unfavourable mode of examining the matter; if, instead of it, we take the number of children of the working class between the age of 5 and 13 — the age with which this Bill deals—the number is 3,374,100. The accommodation in the inspected schools being 1,824,306, the deficiency would be 1,549,794; or again, allowing the 600,000 claimed by the National Society, the deficiency is 949,794. I have put the case as fairly as I could against my own view, for I know the disputes which have been raised as to figures. If we turn to the state of education in our large towns the results are still less satisfactory. Much controversy was raised a few years ago by a state-

825
ment made in "another place" on this subject by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary; but happily neither his calculation nor that of his opponents need now be appealed to, for on an Address by the House of Commons two very able men—Messrs. Fitch and Fearon—were appointed to inquire into the state of education at Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool, and on their Report, which lies on your Lordships' Table, I will base my argument. They tell us that in Birmingham there are 64,787 children between 5 and 13 years of age, and that the accommodation provided by schools of every description is only for 30,169. In Leeds there is accommodation for only 24,295 children out of 45,444; in Manchester for only 36,612 out of 66,591; and in Liverpool for 46,739 out of 91,375. I should almost be content to rest my case for this Bill on these figures alone; but quality as well as quantity has to be considered—for there is no good in bad education—and I do not think it is unfair to say that the uninspected schools are not equal, and are certainly not superior, to the simply inspected schools, which do not earn the Government Grant. Whoever has read the Reports of the Inspectors with reference to the uninspected schools cannot have failed to observe that they are uniformly represented in character distinctly and broadly as inferior to the inspected and assisted schools. I admit, indeed, that there are schools not under Government inspection which are as good as any that are inspected, but they are few in number, and the mass of uninspected schools cannot be fairly estimated as equal to simply inspected schools. The Reports of Messrs. Fitch and Fearon give indisputable evidence that they are distinctly inferior; that many of them are absolutely worthless; and that, in any national system, it is impossible to take account of them. In spite, then, of the noble voluntary efforts of the last 30 yoars—efforts which anyone who has held the office which I have the honour to fill must acknowledge with the greatest gratitude—there is a deficiency in the school accommodation, I believe, of 1,500,000, and certainly of 1,000,000, amounting in the large towns to this—that accommodation is only provided for 50 per cent of the children who require it. I need say no more in proof of the
826
necessity of bringing the means of elementary education within the reach of these 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 children who, to the great social and political danger of the country, are at present unprovided with them. I have had in some respects to bring an accusation against the existing system; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that, if I mistake not, it has far exceeded the expectations of those eminent men by whom it was founded, such as Lord Lansdowne, and my noble Friend (Earl Russell), whose names will always be held in grateful recollection as the founders of a system that has effected so much good. But its authors never imagined that it could be a substitute for a complete system of national education. It was founded on the principle of aiding those only who aided themselves. Where zealous, self-denying men, for the sake of their countrymen and of great public interests, would come forward with their money, there it aided; but poor districts, whether in town or country, which were unable to do anything, it left alone, and it is not wonderful, therefore, that a very large amount of ground is still uncovered. Our present duty, I think it will not be disputed, is to provide a system co-extensive with the nation, which shall penetrate the length and breadth of the land, and as quickly as possible bring within the reach of every child in England and Wales the means of learning reading, writing, and arithmetic—for that will for many years be the limit of the results of this measure. In accomplishing that object it would be the height of folly, as well as of injustice, to cast aside all that has been done during the last 30 years, and wantonly to reject the £15,000,000 which, including the pence of the children and other items, has been voluntarily raised during that period. It should be our object to maintain and foster the existing system, and to reject no agency which, at the present time, affords or may afford the means of a sound and efficient education—while taking measures to supplement it where it is defective and so extend elementary education throughout the whole country. It is upon this principle that the Bill is founded. We desire to maintain what exists; but we feel that the time has come when we cannot wait for the slow progress of that system which, by the admission of its most extreme advocates,

827
would not supply the whole country for generations of children to come. The first result of the Bill will be the instituting measures for an inquiry throughout the country as to the existing means of education. The country will be divided into districts, and in each district there will be power to inquire into existing agencies and to order local inquiries. In collecting these Returns and in making these inquiries, the Education Department will be bound to take into account schools of whatever description which are intended for children of the working class. We assume nothing as to the value of the uninspected schools, but simply seek power to examine their condition and have them fairly reported on—the object being to obtain a fair report of the education afforded throughout the country, and whether it meets the requirements of the country. The Bill proposes to maintain all existing schools at present in receipt of Government aid on their present footing. We desire that they should continue and extend, and needlessly to destroy one of them would be to inflict a great mischief. Your Lordships, however, must understand that we raise the condition and status of these schools, because for the future they will form part of a truly national system, and they must, therefore, fulfil the duties of national institutions. Almost without exception they have been established by religious denominations. Now, we do not ask them to give up their connection with those bodies, nor do we forbid them to teach, in the most unrestricted manner, the doctrines and faith of those denominations. All we desire is that, when they become national schools, we should take care, by the extension of the system of a Conscience Clause, that they are open to children of all denominations; so that where they stand alone, as in many cases they undoubtedly will, we shall guarantee admission to all children within the district. For that purpose we propose what is called a Time Table Conscience Clause. I reserve the details for Committee; but it is essential that schools admitted into a national system should be open, as regards secular education, under fair and reasonable guarantees for just liberty of teaching, to all the children of the locality. We require that those schools should admit our Inspectors, not upon terms to be determined by themselves,
828
but upon such terms as, in the public interest, we may consider fitting; and following the principle laid down by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Marlborough), we do not propose to inquire into more than the secular education given in those schools. Where the existing schools in any school district afford such an education as suffices for the requirements of the population—in the words of the Bill, where the education is "sufficient, efficient, and suitable"—we propose to take no further steps. Every school district so supplied will remain precisely as it now is, except that under certain circumstances the existing schools will receive a larger grant of public money. The Bill, too, will not shut out any further voluntary efforts, for it distinctly contemplates the establishment of new voluntary and State-aided schools. There may be occasions when the Committee of Council may consider it desirable to withhold their sanction from such schools when they would not afford accommodation to a sufficient number of children to justify the expenditure of public money in respect of them; but the Department will be bound to lay before Parliament a statement of their reasons for this refusal. In considering the educational wants of a school district, however, we distinctly contemplate the taking into account not merely of existing schools but of those which are about to be supplied bonâ fide for the benefit of the district. On this point your Lordships will read Clause 8 in connection with Clause 10, and you will see that the friends of voluntary education in each district will have an opportunity of supplying within a reasonable time, if they can, the deficient education. A period of six months is allowed with that view after notice given; but this limit of six months is not the only possible time during which the deficiency may be supplied, for I reckon that from the passing of the Bill to the period when the six months will ordinarily expire an average period of at least 18 months—and very likely two years—will elapse before the door will be closed against voluntary exertion. I think that is a fair and ample warning to the friends of voluntary education; and, considering the demands of the children for education, a fair and ample opportunity of supplying it is thus afforded.

829
I now pass to the part of the Bill dealing with the establishment of school Boards. There are two modes in which such Boards may be established—voluntarily, without the interference of the Committee of Council; and compulsorily, by the order of that Department. No such school Boards can be established where the education is sufficient, or where, within the period I have mentioned, it shall be rendered sufficient; and in estimating that sufficiency we are bound to consider all schools of every description which now exist. But where, at the expiration of this period, a sufficient education is not provided, the Education Department will be empowered to require the formation of a school Board, the district within which it is to act being, in a borough, the limits of a borough, and elsewhere the parish. There was a feeling in favour of the Poor Law Union; but, after consideration, we came to the conclusion that the most efficient and the fairest limit which could be taken would be that of the parish. The election of the school Board will be left to the ratepayers. Many persons have thought it would be desirable that the Government should not leave this appointment to the ratepayers, but should take power themselves to appoint certain members, in order the better to insure that the Board shall not be influenced by mere local pecuniary considerations, but shall look to the general interests of education in the locality. We think it better, however, to rely upon the test of inspection and the stringent powers this Bill gives for dealing with the school Boards. We feel that if the Government take any share in the appointment of members of these Boards we shall diminish our power of dealing with them in cases where they do not do their duty, and it is far better to rely upon the results of inspection than upon any control to be exercised by the nominees of a Government Department. As to the character of the schools to be established by these local Boards, your Lordships are doubtless aware that upon this point the Bill differs in an important respect from the state in which it was first framed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster), accepted by the Government, and introduced into the other House of Parliament. I allude to the portion of the Bill which deals with what, in the phraseology of
830
the day, is called "the religious question." It originally proposed to deal with the local Boards precisely as the Government dealt with any other body of men placed in the position of the managers of schools. To that proposal serious objections were urged. It was contended that the liberty which we proposed to give to those local Boards would have led to a degree of controversy in the several localities on the religious question which would have been productive of very great evil. The very fact that this objection was urged with great force and honesty by various religious bodies showed that there was real danger in that direction, and that if we persevered in our proposal it would be likely to give rise to needless, mischievous, and injurious disputes, and we therefore deemed it to be our duty to reconsider the matter, and certain modifications were introduced into the provisions of the Bill. The change made was, that whereas, under the Bill in its original shape, the managers of schools would be enabled to regulate the religious instruction which should be given in them, we have now provided that no religious catechism or distinctive formularies shall be taught in any rate-supported schools. There were two other propositions of a different character, which, in dealing with this point, were strongly urged on the attention of the Government. The one was, that we should not require anything in respect of religious matters to be taught which was either in favour of or opposed to the doctrines of any religious denomination. Now, I would speak with the utmost respect of a proposition which was supported by such respectable advocacy; but, for my part, I should not place the slightest faith in any religious system which consisted in eliminating all distinctive religious doctrine, and then supposing that something of the form and substance of religion would remain behind. The Government, therefore, laid that proposition aside. But they were met by another of a simpler and more logical character. It was proposed that they should do away with religious teaching altogether, and have nothing taught in those schools except that which now-a-days comes under the denomination of secular instruction. Well, the present Government, like that of which the noble Duke opposite was a member, were per-

831
fectly ready to make grants to secular schools on the same footing as other schools; but we would not consent that in all schools established under school Boards religious teaching should be distinctly and by Act of Parliament proscribed. In this I am confident that we acted in accordance with the general opinion of the country. We accepted, however, as a mode of avoiding the difficulty, the proposal that the catechism and distinctive formularies should be excluded from the instruction given. This rendered another alteration in the Bill necessary. In the Bill as it was originally framed there was a provision that the school Boards might grant aid to existing denominational schools in their respective districts, provided that if they granted aid to any it must be given fully and fairly to the schools of all denominations. There was, however, danger that in pursuing this course we should have promoted those controversies upon religious matters to which I have already referred, and we have, therefore, deprived the school Boards of the power of aiding denominational schools. But in doing that we felt that we should be depriving those schools of a great assistance to which they were entitled, and placing them at a great disadvantage as compared with the rate-supported schools. Consequently we proposed, in lieu of the provision which I have just mentioned, that an increase of the annual grant should be given to all schools alike, not exceeding 50 percent on the grants now made, which will not merely afford greater aid to the various schools, but will secure for the public increased efficiency in the education of the children. Such is the nature of the arrangement into which we have entered with respect to this part of the question; and although I frankly admit that I still retain a lingering fondness for the proposal in the Bill as it was first introduced, yet I heartily accept the compromise which has been made, and venture, with the utmost sincerity, to recommend it strongly to your Lordships' consideration.
I, in the next place, come to the provisions which the Bill contains for compelling the school Boards to perform their duty; and if we did not take some power to enforce that performance we should, I think, have advanced but a small distance towards establishing a complete system of national education.
832
The Bill proposes to confer on the Educational Department two very extensive powers. It, in the first place, gives the power of dissolving these school Boards if they neglect to do their duty, and requiring new Boards to be elected. If, moreover, any district should neglect to appoint a school Board, the Bill enables the Education Department to step in and remedy that neglect by appointing a school Board themselves which should have the same powers of levying rates. Without such provisions the Bill would be useless, and would not effect the object which we have in view, which is to establish throughout the length and breadth of the land full and complete provision for the education of children.
Then there are clauses in the Bill with respect to providing the necessary school accommodation; but there remains the question of filling the schools when provided—or, in other words, of compelling the attendance of children. This question is one of no small difficulty. In this Bill we propose to deal with that question in a manner which is undoubtedly tentative. I admit, with regard to children engaged in certain trades and employments, there are indirect methods of compulsion already in existence, and the principles of these Acts might be extended. No doubt any mode of indirect direct compulsion would give rise to a great deal of opposition, because your Lordships must remember it would deal only with children who are in employment; and any such proposition would have a distinct tendency to diminish the number of children employed by pushing them out of the employed into the unemployed class. This circumstance shows that we cannot attain completeness in our educational system by any scheme of indirect compulsion; consequently it is provided by the Bill that the school Boards shall have the power to make by-laws, directly compelling attendance of children at the schools. Unless you do that, the school Boards may say to the Education Department—"You insist on our providing accommodation for a large number of children who, after all, will not come to the schools." If, therefore, you refuse to allow them to take measures to secure the education of the children, it seems to me that they will have a right to say to the Department—"You are acting unjustly, inasmuch as you force us to incur a large expenditure

833
which you do not give us the means of making practically useful."
My Lords, I think I have now enumerated the principal provisions of the Bill; but if, in the course of the debate, your Lordships should desire to have a further explanation, I shall be most happy to give it. I do not for a moment profess that the Bill is based on a cut-and-dried logical theory for establishing a national system of education in this country. We should have been extremely foolish if, for the sake of a logical system, however perfect it might be, we had cast aside and rejected all that has been done during the last 30 years—the vast efforts which have been made, and the immense sums which have been raised in many districts throughout the country, and by means of which we already have, to some extent, an effective system in operation. We present the Bill to you in the earnest conviction that, if your Lordships pass it substantially as it stands, it will provide a truly national system of education. That system will be consistent with the history of education in this country, and with the past practice of England in respect to it. It will preserve what is good in the existing system, which will be supplemented by the new provisions of the Bill, so as to bring within the reach of every child the means of elementary education. The Bill has been framed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) and myself in accordance with the opinions entertained by Her Majesty's Government;—and as I have mentioned Mr. Forster's name, I trust your Lordships will permit me to say that those who have at heart the interests of education owe a large debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has in the framing of this measure, and in its conduct through the other House of Parliament, displayed an amount of zeal and ability, of tact and conciliation, which is rarely met with. I am happy also to believe that it will be his good fortune to connect, and worthily connect, his name with the greatest and most important measure of national education which has over been passed in this country, and which I feel assured will confer the blessings of education on every child in the kingdom.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not propose, in the few remarks which I shall have to address to your Lordships, to follow my noble Friend the Lord President through those long and elaborate statistics which he cited, in order to show the amount of educational destitution in this country. I think, indeed, it will be universally admitted that there is a vast amount of educational deficiency in this country, and that although vast efforts have been made, and continue to be made, by voluntary associations and religious bodies to meet educational deficiencies, yet those efforts failed to reach a large number of our youthful population, whose educational requirements must therefore be provided for by Parliamentary enactment. It is a subject of congratulation for your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government, in propounding this measure, have taken a course in very marked contrast to that adopted by them last year, under similar circumstances, in connection with education in Scotland. I think your Lordships have reason to congratulate yourselves on having taken the course you did in reference to that measure, and thus gave to the Government time for reflection, and that that measure, which was so contrary to all sound principle, was arrested before it became the law of the land; and that in the subsequent Recess Her Majesty's Government had an opportunity, of which I confess they availed themselves on the whole in a very satisfactory manner, of reconsidering this question, and of introducing a measure more in accordance with the principles of sound political economy. The great difference between the present measure and that introduced last year with regard to elementary education in Scotland appeared from my noble Friend's speech, when he said that it would not disregard the great voluntary efforts which have been made in this country for the spread of education. It is impossible to peruse the Reports which have been issued from the Educational Department and not be aware of the vast strides which have been made, and are still being made, by various denominations for the education of the children of this country. I, therefore, rejoice to find that this measure of Her Majesty's Government bears full testimony to this great fact, and that it is based upon the principle which only can be recognized as the safe

835
principle — namely, that of utilizing those schools, and I trust the Government also desire to encourage them in every possible way. The Bill may be divided into three essential points. The first of these is the maintenance of existing schools; the next, the establishment and universal application of a Conscience Clause; and the third, the establishment of rate-aided schools. With reference to these three points, I will address a few observations to your Lordships. The first point that strikes an observer is, what is the Government about to do to effect the provision of adequate schools; and I am very glad to hear from my noble Friend that he does not intend, in an unreasonable manner, to hurry on the process of providing these schools. The explanation given by my noble Friend will bear out the position that a sufficient time will be afforded for voluntary schools to place themselves under those conditions which are required by the Government before they are regarded as public elementary schools. The time originally proposed by the Bill was one year; that has since been limited to six months; and I trust the explanation of my noble Friend upon that point will prove satisfactory, for, as I understood him, he says it will practically be 18 months before a school would be declared to have forfeited its right to comply with the requirements of the Educational Department and come within the Government scheme; and my noble Friend tells us that ample provision is made in the Bill for accepting new schools. Perhaps I have not made myself sufficiently acquainted with the Bill, but I have certainly not found the provision to which he alludes. The statistics in the Government Reports relate only to schools aided by the Government; but your Lordships will remember that there are a very large number of schools not in receipt of Government Grants maintained by the National Society under the Church of England, the British and Foreign Schools Society, and the Dissenting Bodies. If sufficient facilities are given to these schools to become part and parcel of that national system which the Bill intends to produce, one great point in a national system would be attained—the voluntary system of the country will be still further utilized; and thus the necessity will be obviated of imposing
836
additional taxes on an already over-burdened community. As regards the Conscience Clause, the noble Earl did not afford us any explanation in the course of his eloquent and lucid speech as to why the Conscience Clause originally contained in the Bill had been departed from. My Lords, the religious difficulty has been enormously exaggerated. The religion of Christianity has been presented to us as a thing to be avoided—as if the subject of religion was of so fearful a character that it should be passed by by every means. We might apply to the divisions which have occurred upon this subject the lines of the poet—
"Fœnum habet in cornu, longè fuge."
I, for one, am far from desiring to violate the rights of conscience, and I believe that is the spirit which has uniformly animated the Educational Department. But while I admit the objections to the Conscience Clause have been greatly exaggerated, and that the Church would have done well had she recognized the necessity of a Conscience Clause long ago, I am compelled to say the Government, in its desire to meet some of the objections urged in "another place," have gone to the other extreme, and have really placed this question of religion in an almost invidious position. The Bill, as it was introduced, would have conciliated the most scrupulous conscience. It provided that if a parent objected in writing to his child attending any religious instruction, that child should be withdrawn from that particular lesson without sacrificing any of the privileges belonging to the school enjoyed by the other pupils. And what more was needed? But now we have a Time Table Conscience Clause regulating the times at which religious instruction shall or shall not be given, and in order to guard in the most scrupulous and exaggerated manner the rights of tender consciences, we are to have the religious teaching relegated to the beginning or to the end, or to both, of the hours of school teaching. This, I think, will be found to work in a most inconvenient manner, especially in the case of small village schools where the clergyman's time is limited. I allude to schools mainly supported by one or two influential persons in the parish, who would be ready to do all that the Educational Department required of them, to save the trouble of having a school Board. I do not object

837
to the establishment of a Time Table Conscience Clause, but I cannot approve the proposition that religious instruction should only be given either at the commencement or at the end of the school hours, because it would be absolutely impossible to collect all the children together at those periods. It must also be borne in mind that the religious education suitable for the elder children will not be fitted for the younger children. With reference to the transference of schools to school Boards, I admit that it may be necessary, under certain contingencies, that such a transfer should be made; but still this is a part of the measure which will have to be very carefully considered, as otherwise a great inducement will be held out to the managers of voluntary and denominational schools to hand over their schools to the school Boards. I do not think that the amount of aid which the Government is to afford to voluntary schools is very encouraging. It was stated by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in introducing the new form of the Bill, that while an equivalent saving would be obtained by a discontinuance of the building grant, an additional grant of 50 per cent upon the expenditure of the school would be given. But what do I find in the Bill? The Bill provides that the amount to be granted by Government shall not exceed the amount of subscriptions and school-pence — or, rather, the amount of income derived from all other sources. Now, what will be the effect of that? One objection to the existing system is, that it gives aid where aid is not required; and so by the present Bill, in the richer districts, where the subscriptions are large, the assistance will be great; whereas, in the poorer districts, where aid is absolutely essential, but little assistance will be given, and endowed schools will obtain a great advantage over those possessing no endowments. If this part of the Bill is allowed to stand as it is at present, schools in the poorer districts must ultimately abandon their voluntary and denominational character, and fall upon the rates. This is one point of the Bill relating to voluntary schools which I should like to have seen better provided for. I should be glad to see a more permanent and legislative character given to the Minutes of the Educational De-
838
partment of the Privy Council relating to voluntary schools than they at present possess. In the Bill which I had the honour of introducing two years ago, I endeavoured to secure that object by proposing that all such regulations should be approved by the Legislature, so that those who had to depend upon those regulations might know to what they had to look, and not be subject to the action or will of Parliament during any particular Session. Circumstances prevented that measure from becoming law, and I am not prepared to contend that such an amount of permanence is really required. I think, however, that more permanence is required for these regulations than they will possess under this Bill. It would, perhaps, be sufficient if these provisions were required to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses for a certain time before they came into operation. I must now trouble your Lordships with a few observations upon the clauses relating to the rate-supported schools. Under these clauses the managers are empowered to determine the character of the religious education to be given in them. With regard to this part of the question, Her Majesty's Government had a most difficult course to steer, and they have done their work conscientiously, consistently, and straightforwardly. The change effected in this part of the measure since its introduction has been, upon the whole, for the better. As the Bill originally stood, it would have been competent for the managers to determine that the religious instruction to be given in their schools should be of a denominational character. Much as I, in common with other members of the Church of England, should desire to see the children in these schools brought up in the doctrines of that Church, I cannot avoid seeing that the Bill, as originally framed, would have given rise to local jealousies and disturbances, and Dissenters would have been justified in complaining that they were taxed for the support of a religion to which they did not belong. I think, therefore, that the proposal contained in the Bill as it now stands was hardly avoidable, and that it is better that it should be accepted. I think, however, that there is a very great omission in this part of the Bill, inasmuch as it does not require any religious teaching whatever

839
to be given, and that under it it might be possible for a school Board to determine that they would have purely secular teaching, without any religious teaching whatever. This is a course that has never been taken in legislation hitherto. There is not a single instance in which provision is not made for religious teaching. In legislating for the Army, the Navy, for the workhouses, and for the gaols, care has always been taken to insure that religious instruction shall be given; and if my noble Friend had looked through the provious Bills of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, he would have found that though endeavour was made to deal in an unsectarian manner, yet a provision was always made that religious teaching should form a part of school instruction. I can only regret that the present Bill does not insure that religious teaching of some description shall be given. With regard to one point upon which the noble Earl laid considerable stress, I must take exception. I refer to the clause which relates to compulsory education. The noble Earl went at length into the reasons which induced him to think it necessary that education should be enforced by direct and not by indirect compulsion; but I must say that the noble Earl failed to convince me that that provision is at all desirable. In the first place, we have the testimony of America that direct compulsion does not altogether I answer. The Rev. B. G. Northrop, Agent of the Massachusetts Board of Education, reports—
"No fact connected with our schools has impressed me so sadly as the extent of truancy and non-attendance, and the strange apathy of the public as to this fruitful form of juvenile crime. The great evil calls loudly for a remedy. In a few townships the laws in reference to truants and absentees from school are faithfully executed with the happiest results, while in others the laws are overlooked or utterly disregarded."
As to the compulsory system, if it be good at all it is good for the whole country. Worked partially it may do the greatest injustice where it is imposed, and it may really be called for in places where it is not imposed. No power is taken by the Government as to inquiries why it is not imposed. In the Hours of Labour Act there is a provision for indirect compulsion; and, alluding to the working of that provision, Mr. Robert Baker, one of Her Majesty's principal Inspectors of Factories, says—
840
"The Hours of Labour Regulation Act, from which the greatest educational results might have been anticipated, in addition to the causes which have prevented the development of the Factory Act Extension Act, has been inoperative from many other inherent defects. The local authorities, who were invested with power to administer it, have, in most instances, declined or neglected that duty. Several of them have refused to entertain the consideration of it at all. And, truly, if a proof was wanted of the futility of trusting the education of the people to local authorities, either in erecting new schools, or in maintaining them afterwards, we have it in the inaction which they have so largely exhibited under this Act, notwithstanding every effort to induce them to activity."
In the Bill, power is taken for the Committee of Council to act vigorously in case the local authorities are in default with respect to the establishment of schools; but I think it is a serious defect that no power is taken for the Committee to oblige the local authorities to put the compulsory system in force where it may be required. Again, it appears to me there will be considerable difficulty in saying who are the children to whom the compulsory system ought to apply—because no distinction is drawn as to classes of children. The intention, I presume, is that it shall apply to the children of the labourers; but that is not stated in the Bill. If the school Board resolve that there is to be compulsory education in a neighbourhood, a Census is to be made by an officer acting under the Board. He may go from house to house, visiting the houses of the rich as well as those of the poor, and any child who, in the opinion of this officer, does not receive a sufficient education must be sent to school. I think that is a great defect in the Bill, because persons who voluntarily send their children to school will be made to appear to do so by compulsion, and that zeal on the part of the parents, which is so necessary under any system of national education, will be materially diminished. I am sorry that a Bill which has great inherent merits should be so defective in this and other particulars. Although the Education Department has taken pains to invest themselves with authority and control over the school Boards, I question whether sufficient power is taken in respect of the nature of the education given in schools, the mode in which it is imparted, and the acquirements of the teachers. I think the Government exercised a wise discretion in abandoning the arrangements they originally pro

841
posed with reference to the conditions on which grants should be given. It is right to treat the voluntary schools as schools to which grants should be made in aid of secular education; but in the case of rate-supported schools, regard should be had to the interests of the ratepayers. My Lords, I cannot sit down without thanking Her Majesty's Government for this Bill. I believe it has been brought in at a favourable conjuncture, and I quite concur in my noble Friend's eulogy of the Vice President of the Committee of Council. In my opinion the Bill is framed with much ability and a conscientious desire to secure the education of the children of this country. I therefore, my Lords, hope that after it has received some Amendments, it will become law, as a measure which will contribute materially to the prosperity and happiness of the kingdom.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he heartily joined in the testimony which had been borne in their Lordships' House to the distinguished statesman who had charge of this Bill in the other House of Parliament. Assuredly a measure like this was one that had required great consideration on the part of those who framed it, and he recognized the difficulties in the way of passing a satisfactory measure; and while acquiescing in this measure, he felt he was acquiescing in many things that were distasteful to the feelings of the friends of denominational education. The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) had spoken so fully on the 7th section—the one containing the Conscience Clause—that he need not dwell very much on that subject. He would, however, say that for many years there had been in this country a system of education in which a Conscience Clause was practically adopted. He was afraid there had been instances in which undue use had been made of the power possessed by individuals, but these were only very exceptional cases. Having had some acquaintance with a large number of schools and with the action of the clergy in a rather large diocese, he could conscientiously say he knew of no instance whatever in which he had not found the clergy acting as if the most binding Conscience Clause were in force. The Bill, however, contained not only a
842
Conscience Clause, but one enhanced and sharpened by a time-table — as though the clergy were in the habit of pressing upon children religious teaching to which the parents objected. Again, Her Majesty's Inspectors were not to examine into the religious education given in the schools. The Inspectors heretofore, by their judicious and intelligent examination of the children in religious subjects, had done much to further religious education in the schools; but this encouragement was now to be withheld, even if the Inspectors were requested to make such an examination. In another part of the Bill there were what appeared to him painful words—that in the rate-supported schools no catechism or formulary distinctive of any religious denomination was to be used; and if the terms and conditions thus laid down were contravened the judges were to be not persons who might be considered impartial, but the Educational Department, whose decision was to be final. Another point was that, while the school Boards might acquire a denominational school, no facilities were provided by which a denominational school might acquire a rate-supported school, and the friends of denominational education had serious cause to complain of such an omission. A feature in the Bill, to which he thought just exception might also be taken, had been well developed by the noble Duke—he referred to the limitation of the grant. This limitation pressed injuriously upon the poor schools, which would not only be in a position of comparative destitution, but would have—and this was the hardship—to compete with a system under which there would be a certain power of the purse. The Bill was not originally so framed, and the change was by no means satisfactory. As an humble friend of education, it was right he should speed with good wishes the measure now proposed. There were many provisions in the Bill which one might thankfully receive, while there were other provisions which he trusted would receive such Amendments as would enable him to look forward with confidence to the success of the measure. He had recently read that there were three things which Englishmen disliked. The first was rates, the second compulsion in any form, the third that education should be dissociated from religion. Each one of these prin-

843
ciples was, to some extent, recognized in the Bill; and he thanked the Government from his heart especially for having recognized the last principle in the teeth of many difficulties.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, having been for 25 years concerned in the education of the poorest class of children in the metropolis, I should be unwilling to let this subject pass without alluding to the great efforts and munificent voluntary contributions of those who have carried on that work, and who might, if no reference were now made to them, think they were slighted. The delay in bringing this Bill before your Lordships is not the fault of the Government, who did all in their power to bring it up to this House in proper time, but is to be attributed to the tedious and unnecessary debates in the House of Commons. I suppose no Bill of such importance ever came before the Legislature with so small a Preamble, for in this case it does not state any principle which is to govern the enactments. However, notwithstanding all its imperfections, I think this is the best Bill which the Government, considering the circumstances of the case, could have propounded and carried. After all the opposition which the measure has encountered in the House of Commons from a strong combination of secularists and political Dissenters, I am astonished at what the Government have effected, and I should like to join in the tribute of admiration that has been showered upon Mr. Forster — admiration both of his talents and of his courage, and of the way in which he has, amid the greatest difficulties, stood upon his own firm, sound principles, and, rescuing us from a prohibition of religious teaching, has carried them to a successful issue. This Bill has a due regard to what has been done by the members of the Church of England and the various denominations, and does not run revolutionary riot among existing institutions; and while it has abstained from endeavouring to found a uniform system of national education, yet if it should hereafter be thought desirable to establish one, the country will have gained some experience as to how far such a thing is possible or desirable. I think it would have been well if the other House of Parliament had maturely considered for what class they were about
844
to legislate, and the age and condition of that class—it would have spared a world of discussion, because, in considering "the religious difficulty," the whole argument turns upon the supposition that the education is meant for persons of mature age, people with a sort of insatiable appetite for dogma of every description, and who are assumed to be somewhat settled in their mental and physical habits; whereas, in fact, the great bulk of the children whom we seek to educate are of tender years and those of wandering parents, who never continue in one dwelling for more than three or four months. I do not believe that the religious difficulty has ever had any existence whatever except as a euphonious term for the assault and defence, oftentimes not wisely conducted on the part of the defenders, and certainly not justly on the part of the assailants of the Established Church. The catechism has been taken as a stalking-horse, and while, on the one hand, some people have chosen to assume that if you taught the catechism you necessarily made a man a thorough believer and a good citizen; on the other hand, people have assumed that people who were taught it were driven into Conservatism, and probably into Romanism. I do not believe that the religious difficulty ever has had, or ever will have, any existence among those who are banded together for the purpose of teaching the great and saving truths of the Gospel, and who do not devote their time to the education of children for the purpose of advancing their own denomination or maintaining their own Church. I think all the facts we have will bear out that statement, and I should like to quote to your Lordships four instances in which religion is taught without obstruction or misgiving. Your Lordships may remember the testimony given by Dr. Mortimer, the Head Master of the City of London School, in which a sound religious education is given; the Head Master is almost invariably a member of the Church of England, although the Governing Body consists of persons of all denominations, including Jews. Then there is the Borough Road School, which gives a most efficient religious education; that school is supported by both Nonconformists and members of the Church of England, and yet over a great many years there has been no difficulty or

845
collision whatever in religious teaching, Your Lordships may recollect that a large body of teachers who came from all parts of the country assembled at the Westminster Palace Hotel and went as a deputation to Mr. Gladstone; they stated that in their experience, during a number of years and in a great variety of schools, although they had to deal with every class and denomination, the religious difficulty had never arisen. Let me also draw your Lordships' attention to the work of the Ragged School Union in London, and this is the more important because that Union educates that class of children to provide for whom this Bill is intended. We have upon our books 45,551 children of the most ragged and destitute class; our average attendance is 32,231 in about 300 schools; our voluntary teachers of every denomination number 3,600; yet never once in the whole course of 25 years has there been the slightest difficulty or collision, or the least variance among the teachers.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: Is there any Time Table Conscience Clause in any of them?
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: No; none of any sort or kind. The children are of no denomination; the parents may be, but they are mostly indifferent, and they only seek to have their children educated. In one school, for instance, the teachers are 38 in number, and what are the proportions? Belonging to the Church of England there are 8; to the Wesleyans, 8; to the Baptists, 12; to the Independents, 8; and to the Plymouth Brethren, 2; and although the Baptists and the Plymouth Brethren have peculiar and distinctive notions, there has never been any collision. One superintendent writes to me—
"I sometimes have as many as 53 teachers of various denominations, and never in the course of 18 years did I ever hear of any approach to difficulty."
In another school the number of teachers is 40; they consist of Wesleyans, Baptists, Independents, and members of the Church of England in equal numbers, yet the superintendent reports to me that there has never been in the course of many years a single religious difficulty. Having been conversant with these schools for more than 30 years, having gone over the greater number of them, and having had reports from
846
all of them at various times, I can only say that I never heard of the occurrence of any religious difficulty. But your Lordships may ask—"What is taught in these schools?" They certainly do keep clear of any denominational distinctions; the clergy and the lay members of the Church of England do not bring forward anything relating to episcopal government; the Baptists do not bring in their peculiar notions, nor do the Wesleyans, but they all teach the great saving doctrines of Christianity. And if your Lordships' ask—"What has been the effect produced?" I refer you to our Colonies, to the numbers of those who have been sent out, and to those who are in the service of farmers and tradespeople, all of whom have been taken from ragged schools and drawn from the very depths of society, and of whom I can say that a large proportion keep up the character they acquired at school, and have never fallen into evil courses or disgraced the education they received at the hands of their excellent teachers. And it should be remembered that the plan of these ragged schools is to catch a child as he flies rapidly by—as his parents come and go, and the teachers rejoice to have the opportunity, during the short time, a few weeks, perhaps, the children are with them, of imparting to them some of the saving truths of the Gospel. As to the question of compulsion, I think I may safely say that with compulsion you will do next to nothing, and without it you will do nothing at all. It is the most difficult and complicated question you can well consider—and why? If you had to deal with large masses of children who were in permanent dwellings, who had fixed habits, who were under the charge of parents or guardians, or who resided constantly or for any length of time in the same domicile, they might be brought under a system of compulsion if you thought it just. But look at the character of the population with which you have to deal. It is estimated that school accommodation will be required for about 400,000 children. I think that estimate is too high, but whether the number is larger or smaller fully two-thirds will be the children of a roving population. I went through one district in the Northern part of London, and the clergyman informed me that the whole of the population in his parish had been completely

847
changed in the course of 12 months. I examined one large ragged school, where there were 700 or 800 children, yet not one of them had been there six months. But of the whole 45,000 of those children who are on our books in the ragged schools there are not 2 per cent who attend for a whole year. A very large proportion attend for six months, a large proportion for three months, and very many for a less time. You have 40,000 or 50,000, sometimes 60,000 persons moving like Scythians round London in search of employment, and who never remain more than three or four months in any one place. But, in addition to other causes which induce their children to lead a rambling life, they, about this period of the year, leave London by tens of thousands for the purpose of engaging themselves in hop and pea picking and other rural and profitable employments. Now, how, I would ask, is it possible that in dealing with children of this class you can have a system of compulsion, and drive them all daily to school? If you were to mount 100 Inspectors on bicycles, and were to get them to ride about the country until they ran the risk of being brought before the police for furious driving, it would be out of your power to reduce those children to a state of such order and discipline. They would get out of your sight, and you could not say where they were from time to time. It is perfectly true that Mr. Fearon, in his excellent Report with respect to Leeds and Liverpool, proposed a system of compulsion which he thinks would meet the difficulty of the case. He says—"Take those children and feed and clothe them;" and if you adopted such a system as that with those 300,000 or 400,000 children, they would, no doubt, come immediately within your reach; but, then, is it not very questionable whether that would be an advisable course to adopt? Would you not, by such means, introduce pauperism on principle? But let me suppose that it is mechanically possible to force some of those children to attend school regularly — and in some parts of the rural districts, as well as of London, where employment is somewhat fixed, it might be possible to do so—the question arises how far it would be just for the State to compel such attendance. I do not deny that the State has the power—and power is often held to con-
848
stitute right—to compel the attendance of children at school; but how far would it be just in the exercise of that authority to deprive parents of the earnings of their children, on which they, in so many instances, so largely depend for support? In the case of families with children of 10, 11, and 12 years of ago—I am sorry the age has been altered from 6 and 13 to 5 and 12 in the Bill—it would be a very serious infliction to deprive them of the earnings of their children while they would be under the necessity of clothing and feeding them during the time they were being educated. I do not believe it would be possible to bring a system of compulsion into general operation under such circumstances. At Bethnal Green an endeavour was made some short time ago to bring the Workshops Act into operation, but the local authority refused to do so, on the ground that it would be inflicting a great hardship on many families. If we could introduce the factory system, that combination of labour and education, we should, I think, be conferring a very great boon; and it may, by degrees, be possible to introduce it, although not on precisely the same footing, because in the case of factories regulated, as they are, by steam-power, it is very easy to adopt the halftime system. There is a way, however, in which, in my opinion, we can advantageously combine labour and education among the agricultural classes, and that is by a large institution of evening schools, with peripatetic schoolmasters; but of the 45,000 children of whom I have just been speaking, 9,000 attend evening classes up to the ages of 12, 13, and 14. The difficulty might, to a great extent, be solved by the adoption of such a system, and I do not regret that the Bill is so drawn as to leave it optional with the school Boards to compel the attendance of children at school. In some localities it can be done, but in a great many it will require much care and consideration and a great change in the conditions of society before this provision can be made to work effectively. With respect to the question of religious teaching also I sympathize deeply with my noble Friend the noble Duke who spoke this evening, as well as with Sir John Pakington, in their desire to render it compulsory that the Bible should be read every day in the schools. I am

849
convinced, however, that it would be altogether impossible to carry out such a proposal, and the only safe way is, in my opinion, to leave the matter to the discretion of the Governing Bodies. The proposal is one which I am sure could not be enforced. There is, no doubt, considerable feeling in this country on the subject of religious education, but that feeling arises from many and mixed motives. There is a very strong opinion in many quarters that the Bible should not be excluded from our schools. It is contended that to do so would be a breach of religious liberty; but I am satisfied, from the inquiries I have made, that a proposition to introduce the reading of the Bible forcibly would be rebelled against by those who are opposed to its exclusion on the same ground — that it would be a breach of religious liberty. I think, therefore, we shall exercise a sound discretion in leaving this important matter to the judgment of the local Boards. The Bill, I may add, although it does not contain any great principles, contains provisions which are calculated to bring about a very great change in the whole system of education in this country. I am afraid the affirmation of the principle that the State, as a parent, has a right and that it is its duty to see that a child is educated, and that proper provision is made for that education will, if gradually, still completely, destroy our whole voluntary system. I believe, indeed, it will absorb not only schools of this description, but those of a very much higher class. Many persons of property now contribute their money towards the promotion of education because they think the obligation lies upon them, and that if they did not discharge the duty it would not be performed at all. But when the duty becomes recognized as devolving on the State they will be apt to regard themselves as freed from the obligation. I am astonished, therefore, to hear of the fears which have been expressed by Secularists and Dissenters in the House of Commons, for it appears evident that the tendency of things in this country is to the establishment of rate-provided schools and the institution of secular education. The common school system of America is very similar to that which we are now about to establish, and there they are gradually eliminating the Bible from their schools. From the last paper which I received from Cin-
850
cinnati I find that the decision has been arrived at that the Bible should be struck out of the great school there. Such is the tendency of the present day, and they are, in my opinion, in error who suppose they can redress the balance by means of Sunday schools. In America the Sunday schools are not attended by 40 per cent of those who go to the day schools; and when you send children to school for six days in the week it will be accomplishing something superhuman if you can secure their voluntary attendance on Sundays for the purpose of learning the truths of Christianity. As to the Bill, I must say I do not expect very much from it. Neither in Prussia, nor in America, has a similar system produced a moral, though it may have stimulated an intellectual, life. I can have no confidence in any system of education which is not based on the great doctrines of religion, and which does not impart to the mind of a child a deep sense that it is an immortal and responsible being, that an invisible Eye sees into its inmost heart, and that there will come a day when it must render an account not only of its actions, but also of its thoughts. Idleness is, I believe, ten times more dangerous than ignorance. The temptations which beset all of those whom we are going to educate multiply from day to day. I have the testimony of the Ordinary of Newgate to the effect that the promotion of education has stimulated, to a great extent, the reading of impure literature, and has given an amount of intellectual quickness which enables persons, who formerly could not do so, to pander to the taste for such literature by writing articles for publication. I do not make these remarks by any means with the view of stopping the progress of the Bill. The Bill, such as it is, will, I hope, produce some good. I trust your Lordships will accept it, for it is, at any rate, a step in the right direction. I hope the blessing of God may rest upon it, and if it turn only a few hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, it will be a measure worthy of Parliament and not unworthy of the prayers of a Christian nation.
LORD HOWARD OF GLOSSOPsaid, he must ask the indulgence of their Lordships, as one of a very small number of Members of their Lordships' House who might be said to represent in it a very large body of poor persons

851
in this country who stood most in want of education, and who, by reason of their poverty, had comparatively little to spare with which to obtain it. It had been stated by a very high authority in "another place" that the educational destitution of that body was so great that it might constitute one-sixth of the whole educational destitution of the country. They lived in days when great events occurred unexpectedly and suddenly produced results; but the measure before the House was so great that it was difficult indeed to realize what its results would be. It was, in fact, a measure that required much skill and boldness to bring forward at a time when the Birmingham League put forward views anything but favourable to the voluntary system. They held that, although the voluntary system of education had done some good, it ought, nevertheless, to die, and all the favour they could grant it would be to let it die in a quiet and tranquil manner. But, surely, the voluntary system had done a great deal of good in its time, and might have done a great deal more had it not been starved. Prussia was pointed to as the model on which we ought to form our educational system; but Prussia educated only one person in every 6½ of the population, while in this country one person in every 7½ of the population was educated by voluntary efforts. It was quite true, however, that the quality of the education might not be so good as in Prussia. In 1854 there were in this country 410,000 children under Government inspection; while in 1868 the number had risen to 1,330,000. Besides this, the amount raised from private sources for promoting education was double what came from the national Exchequer. As we were about to change the existing system of denominational education, it would be well to consider what had been the experience of other countries. The Reports of the Government Commissioners showed that in Prussia the State-supported schools, which at first were more or less religious, but not denominational, had proved failures, and that when new schools were established they were on the "confessional," or denominational, model. In fact, it was stated in these Reports that in 1822 the Prussian Government acknowledged its system of education to be a failure. Again, the American common
852
school system had not been so successful as was generally supposed, because many of the people preferred to send their children to schools of a more decidedly religious character. Against the case of Cincinnati, mentioned by the noble Earl who last spoke (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he might cite that of New York, where the education was strictly denominational, and where money had been directly voted to the Catholic schools for two years past. In Holland the schools were becoming more and more religious; and he had heard that in France one might judge of the characters of heads of families by their anxiety to place their children in schools religiously conducted. The feeling of this country, he maintained, was in favour of religious or denominational schools. Eighty-five per cent of the population had been educated in such schools. Consequently, if a general system of rate-supported secular schools were established, a great hardship would be inflicted on those persons who desired to educate their children religiously. He by no means blamed the Government for what they had done; but, on the contrary, thought they had met a great difficulty with boldness and success. He could not entirely sympathize with the measure; but hoped it would pass into law, although even now he should like to see some emendations introduced into it. Was this a time, he asked, to discountenance religion? No—it should be encouraged in every way. He was afraid that if religious teaching in schools was to be treated in the way proposed in this Bill, it would be considered a kind of myth—the children would either think religion of no consequence at all, or else come to the conclusion that every man might make a religion for himself. For his, own part, he was in favour of denominational teaching, both doctrinal and specific. The Bill would be a retrograde movement, to a certain extent, so far as the Catholics were concerned. Many years ago they came to a specific understanding with the Government on the subject of education, and received various privileges, such as that of having school Inspectors of their own religion. These privileges they were now asked to give up—and he might remark that they relinquished them with a good grace in order to show their desire to promote the education of the country at large.

853
From the late Report of the Government Commissioners, it appeared that the fees in Catholic schools were lower and the voluntary subscriptions higher than was the case with regard to the schools of any other religious body. The Catholic schools also had more week and day scholars than the schools of any other denomination except the Church of England and the British and Foreign schools. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) thought the question of religion presented no very great difficulty, but the Roman Catholics entertained a very different opinion. It was quite contrary to their principle of education, which conveyed doctrinal religious teaching from the earliest years; and it would be a great hardship on them to have to send their children to rate-aided schools, where they would not find a master or mistress or manager of their own religion. With inspect to the arrangements in the Bill for children withdrawing, the parents could not take advantage of the Conscience Clause; because, if they did so, their children would have no religious instruction given them, and if they did not withdraw they would be instructed in a way repugnant to the feelings of their parents. That was a hard case. The Government Inspectors said it was not so much the teaching by book, but the silent influences at work in the school—its moral atmosphere—which conveyed religious impressions to the young; and against this the Conscience Clause afforded no protection to Catholics. In Prussia denominations were assisted by the State to build schools. Similar provisions were made in Canada. He regretted it was found impossible to do the same in this country. Contrasting the denominational with the rate-supported schools, he desired to point out the superior advantages which the latter would possess. The managers could insist upon sites, but some denominations had the greatest difficulty in obtaining sites. The power to remit school fees given by the Bill to school managers would be sure to attract the poor, and he feared that in this way Roman Catholic children would be drawn into the mixed schools; and thus the result of this legislation—though unintentional, would be to bring back upon the Catholics those disabilities from which after a long struggle, they had
854
recently been relieved in respect of prisons and workhouses. His apology for trespassing so long upon their Lordships' time was the knowledge that it would be some satisfaction to those whom he represented to know that an appeal had been made in their behalf to the Legislature. Their hopes outside the Legislature were few. The local authorities in important centres, such as Liverpool, had made grants for Roman Catholic industrial schools, but they could not be depended on in the case of elementary schools; though some might come forward, especially if they were asked only to supplement a good subscription list, because that would tend to lighten the general charge upon them for schools. A revision of the Revised Code in their favour would also assist them. But, whatever the fate of the Bill, he trusted the children of the country would be educated in a way which would not do violence to religious principles, without acknowledging which no country could be, and certainly no country deserved to be, prosperous.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships by any very lengthy comments upon the Bill before you; but its importance is so great that I am unwilling to let the debate close without a few words. I am gratified to find that at last I can agree with my noble Friend (the Lord President) on the principle of a measure which he has introduced, and that I can give my cordial assent to most of the details. The principles of the Bill, as laid down by my noble Friend, are briefly these — That elementary education shall be within the reach of every child in the country; that religious instruction shall be recognized in such education; and that no child shall be compelled, contrary to the conscientious wish of his parents, to attend the religious instruction to be given in the schools under this Bill. In the words of the Prime Minister, we are to have entire liberty of teaching combined with entire liberty of withdrawal. I regret, however, that this has not been carried out as fully as it might have been in those parts of the Bill which deal with the Conscience Clause. I do not think my noble Friend, in moving the second reading, at all exaggerated the insufficiency of means of education throughout the country; but I believe the dearth

855
of which he complained exists mainly in the thickly populated districts, where the demand has outgrown the supply, and not in the agricultural districts, where ignorance arises rather from the unwillingness of parents to send their children to school. The difficulty in the latter case is not so much to supply a deficiency of schools and instruction as to induce the parents to give their children time for instruction. That there is much to be done in the way of providing elementary education is, I believe, admitted by all, and I think the course adopted by the Opposition in the House of Commons must have shown that we are convinced of the necessity for some such measure as that introduced by Her Majesty's Government. We have, in supporting this measure—I speak for myself and the party with which I have the honour to act—given up many points which we have for many years considered most important with regard to the religious instruction of the people. I am quite aware that this is not the time to insist too much on these views, and that on questions in which the interests of the people are so manifestly wrapped up, as in the question of education, it would be unwise to carry opposition and conscientious conviction too far, and so by an excess of conscientiousness prevent the opportunity that now presents itself of improving the education of the country. If time had permitted, and your Lordships had not been occupied so long in discussing the subject, I should have liked to have pointed out what great educational benefits have accrued to the country from the exertions of the Established Church. In the very valuable Reports of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Fearon—particularly when speaking of such large towns as Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester—there are many passages which show that the Established Church has been fully alive to the wants of the people, and that, so far as it has laid in her power, she has carried the blessings of education to all within her influence. It is satisfactory to find by reference to these Reports that, although there has been a very considerable agitation going on against the existing system of education, a vast number of our fellow-countrymen have been occupied in the less exciting, but more important, duty of carrying on the work of education in all its forms throughout the
856
country. I am glad to see by the measure they have introduced, that Her Majesty's Government have not ignored those exertions, and that they propose to recognize the existing state of things as regards the education of the people, that they merely supplement that system, and that in no case where there has been a sufficient amount of school accommodation and instruction do they interfere or introduce a system of rates and school Boards. There are, however, many portions of the measure now under consideration which are not exactly in accordance with the views I entertain; and, without at this time going into details, which will have to be discussed at a future period, I will briefly allude to some of the more salient points of the Bill, with the view of drawing the attention of my noble Friend to them, so that he may have an opportunity of considering and amending them in Committee. But, before doing so, I also must add my tribute of admiration to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council, with whom I have not the honour of being personally acquainted, has carried the Bill through the other House of Parliament. He deserves the greatest possible praise from all those who are interested in the well-being of the people, and who wish for their instruction. In dealing with the Bill itself, I must, in the first place, draw attention to the terms of Clause 16. That clause says—
"If the school Board do, or permit any act in contravention of, or fail to comply with the regulations according to which a school provided by them is required by this Act to be conducted, the Education Department may declare the school Board to be, and such Board shall accordingly be, deemed to be a Board in default, and the Education Department may proceed accordingly, and every act or omission of any member of the school Board, or manager appointed by them, or any person under the control of the Board, shall be deemed to be permitted by the Board, unless the contrary be proved. If any dispute arises as to whether the school Board have done or permitted any act in contravention of, or have failed to comply with, the said regulations, the matter shall be referred to the Education Department, whose decision thereon shall be final."
The point in that clause to which I object is this—the Educational Department is to declare that the school Board is in default if they have in any way failed to comply with the regulations under which a school is required to be conducted, and,

857
having considered and decided the matter, they themselves, in the event of any difference of opinion on the subject, are to decide whether that judgment is correct. The Educational Department is thus placed in the anomalous position of being first complainant, then judge, then jury, and eventually a Court of Appeal from itself; it is to possess, in fact, despotic power over the school Boards. The 22nd clause, again, gives a very serious power to school managers of transferring their school to the school Board. If this power is to be given at all, it should not be conveyed in such general terms. I think it would be far preferable if such a transfer were to be by lease and not absolutely. The 23rd clause states—
"The school Board may, if they think fit, pay the whole or any part of the school fees payable at any public elementary school by any child resident in their district whose parent is, in their opinion, unable from poverty to pay the same; but no such payment shall be made or refused on condition of the child attending any public elementary school other than such as may be selected by the parent; and such payment shall not be deemed to be parochial relief given to such parent."
That is a wrong principle, and I doubt whether it will confer any benefit upon those supposed to derive an advantage under it, because I have always found that the poor do not sufficiently appreciate anything for which they pay nothing. Again, the 39th clause states—
"Where the Education Department are of opinion that it would be expedient to form a school district larger than a borough, or a parish, or any school district formed under this Act, they may, except in the metropolis, by order made after such inquiry and notice as hereinafter mentioned, form a united school district by uniting any two or more adjoining school districts, and upon such union cause a school Board to be formed for such united school district. A united school district shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a school district, and shall throughout this Act be deemed to be substituted for the school districts out of which it is constituted, and the school Board of the united school district shall be the school Board appointed under this Act, and the local rate and rating authority for the united district shall be in each of the constituent district thereof the same as if such constituent district did not form part of the united school district."
I must confess that it seems to me that considerable injustice might result from a parish the education and school accommodation in which was perfect being compelled, as part of a united school district, to pay school rates. I now come
858
to another point that was dwelt upon at great length by the noble Earl—namely, that which relates to the system of compulsion. And I really hope that after what has fallen from the noble Earl upon this subject, and more especially after his statement that a Bill dealing with the whole question of compulsion will be introduced into Parliament next year by Her Majesty's Government, he will see the advisability of withdrawing this part of the Bill. I should much prefer to see this principle in the form of indirect compulsion than in that of absolute compulsion, which, as the clause is framed, may inflict much hardship and injustice on individuals. I am convinced that it will be impossible to carry out a system of enforced compulsion in the agricultural districts which shall be just to all parties concerned. The noble Earl has said that the system of indirect compulsion only touched those children who were at work. But what would be the effect of direct compulsion? Take the case of a man earning very low wages who did not send his children to school. On being fined by the magistrate he would be able to make out so good a case that the fine would have to be remitted; while, on the other hand, the fine would be enforced against the man who earned good wages. Compulsion would thus operate unequally, and would give rise to jealousies and heartburnings. I think also that the noble Earl will, upon consideration, be of opinion that the 96th clause is one which ought not to remain in the Bill. That clause states—
"The managers of every elementary school shall have power to fulfil the conditions required in pursuance of this Act to be fulfilled in order to obtain a Parliamentary Grant, notwithstanding any provision contained in any instrument regulating the trusts or management of their school, and to apply such grant accordingly."
Thus the managers of the schools may, if they please, sot at naught the trust deed under which the school was founded. A more dangerous principle than this I cannot conceive. My Lords, I am anxious not to transgress too long on your attention in the present state of the House and at this hour in the evening; and, therefore, I have stated only generally the views I entertain on the educational part of the Bill. I now come to a part which, I think, cannot be considered educational. Indeed, I do not imagine that my noble Friend (Earl de

859
Grey and Ripon) regards it as educational, because if he did, he would have felt it his duty, as President of the Council, to give us some information about it; but he has not done so. I allude to that which I think I may describe as the political part of the Bill—that which prescribes that the election of school Boards shall be taken by way of Ballot. I thought that my noble Friend, with his eloquence, ingenuity, and talent, would have brought forward some argument to show why election by Ballot should be introduced at all; but, having attentively listened to his speech, as did all your Lordships, I heard nothing, from the beginning to the end of it, which would have led me to suppose that he was going to deal with the Ballot in this Bill. I think that by introducing the question of the Ballot into this Bill, Her Majesty's Government are going far to prejudice the much larger question of education. I am sure it is not because my noble Friend and his Colleagues feel that the question of the Ballot is not likely to progress this Session—I am sure it is not on that account that Her Majesty's Government seek to strengthen their opinions on the matter by introducing it thus incidentally into this Bill. As, then, I do not think it is introduced to air the opinion of the Government on the question, I am quite at a loss to know why it has been put into the Education Bill. My Lords, what is there analogous between education and the Ballot? The former has nothing to do with the latter. I cannot conceive what you want with it, unless you introduced it for the mere purpose of provocation. It seems very like the operation of holding a red flag in the face of a bull. My noble Friend, having learnt by the experience of this Session, and particularly by that which he must have acquired during the debates on the Irish Land Bill, that we are not so violent in our opposition as to be useful, or exciting, or amusing to him, may have introduced the Ballot in this Bill, in order to make us so. Believing that no necessity exists for the Ballot in this Bill—believing that this Bill can be made to work perfectly well without the Ballot, and believing in the necessity — the urgent necessity — of passing some measure that will extend the benefits of elementary education, I hope that in Committee I shall be able
860
to induce your Lordships to strike out that part of the Bill which provides for election by Ballot. Thus much, my Lords, for the main features of the Bill. I confess it contains numerous provisions with which I am not altogether satisfied, and that it does not contain others which it would be well to introduce; but, in assenting to the second reading and going into Committee, we shall show our determination to deal with this important question, even at the risk of sacrificing some long-cherished opinions, and I believe we may pass a measure which will promote the happiness and prosperity of future generations by laying the foundation of a system of education suitable to the requirements of a Christian people.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he desired to say a few words expressive of his opinions upon this subject. It was impossible to have watched the passage of this Bill through the other House of Parliament and the difficulties that the Government had there to encounter, without acknowledging that they had good reason for feelings of exultation at the success which had enabled them to bring up the measure to their Lordships in its present shape. But when he came to consider the Bill he must say that it seemed as though, while they had escaped great dangers, they had not gained many great advantages. Although the Bill extended education, he thought that if, instead of adopting the Revised Code, they had gone on with the old system of giving every encouragement to voluntary efforts, they would have done much better. What was there in this Bill that would improve the quality at the same time that it increased the number of the schools? Would the ratepayers be more assiduous in improving the quality of the schools than the voluntary subscribers were? Would it be improved in the rate-supplied school? The ratepayers would probably elect a similar class upon the school Boards as now managed the workhouse schools—and those were certainly not model schools—and there was no reason why they should have better masters or mistresses than before in the schools in the country. There was an array of kindly feeling around the voluntary schools which were now the great link between different classes of society, and which united in some degree the squire, the clergy, and the poor. The

861
upper classes furnished the children in the schools with recreation; they tried to promote their welfare in their future life; and indeed they looked upon them in the light of clients. How would the rate-supported schools promote the formation of any link like that which now existed? Looking at the difficulties which the Government had had to overcome, and for having overcome which they were entitled to the greatest praise, he accepted the Bill as a political necessity; but looking at it in the interest of the children who required education, he could not regard it as a satisfactory measure. How were the small schools, inferior in number and in wealth, to receive assistance? Looking at the matter purely in the interests of the children, he could not but think that to whatever extent they obstructed the progress of the voluntary system or withheld, assistance from it, they did a positive evil. How were they to make arrangements for ragged schools and for night schools? how would their cast-iron system meet all those requirements? Would they compel the children of the honest hardworking artizan who was rising above his fellows to associate with others from whom contamination might be feared? Again, the Bill did not give facilities to the voluntary schools for borrowing money upon mortgage that were given to the ratepaying schools; and people were to be compelled to send their children to schools that they might disapprove of. Looking at the whole matter, it seemed to him that the interest of the children was the last thing thought of.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that although for many years this question of education had occupied his attention, he did not now propose to detain their Lordships by going into the general question. He believed that for a long time a great mistake had been made in undivided attention having been given to providing for the education of the wage-earning class, the education of the middle classes having been left out of consideration until the last year or two. The thanks of the country were now due to the Government in general, but more especially to the right hon. Gentleman who had had charge of the Bill in the other House, for the manner in which they had dealt with this important and difficult question. He thought the measure, on the whole, decidedly a good
862
one—indeed, a better than at one time seemed likely to pass; yet he could not but regret that there were some omissions, the prominent one being the absence of any provision for creating a responsible Minister of Education—an omission which he the more regretted because there was in the Cabinet one Minister of the Crown who had shown himself admirably qualified to discharge the important duties that would attach to such a post. There were tax-supported schools connected with the Army which were under the control of the Secretary for War; and there were others belonging to the Navy which were under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty; and there were in all parts of the country schools that were partly supported by a Parliamentary Grant, and he could not but think it most desirable that a Minister of Education should have charge of them. As to the alleged deficiencies in the provision made for the education of children, his own experience was that there were large tracts of country that were represented as entirely void of education because they did not contain inspected schools; yet those districts were by no means badly off, and he knew some parishes in which for years every boy and girl of 14 years of age could read well and write and cipher tolerably. Many parishes which had been held up to obloquy as being utterly destitute of education showed by the test of signatures to the register of marriages a very much higher state of education than many town and manufacturing districts which had been in receipt of large sums from the Treasury, and in which expensive schools had been erected with the public money. He, however, agreed that there were great deficiencies in the means of education, which were much to be deplored, and the Government deserved much credit for their boldness in bringing forward this measure, and for their perseverance and tact in carrying it through the other House. He regretted that the school Boards established by the Bill were to be wholly elected, for his experience as a Poor Law Guardian led him to the belief that there were in most districts gentlemen who were most suitable to be on school Boards, yet who could not command a large number of votes at a popular election; and he suggested that of the mem

863
bers of each school Board a proportion not exceeding one-third might be appointed by the Education Department, through their Inspector. It was, he thought, inexpedient to authorize a Board to remit the whole of the school fees in any instance, for he believed that the payments made by the wage-earning class for the education of their children were unnecessarily and unreasonably low; besides which, if gratuitous education were given to children in any rate-supported schools the voluntary ones would be placed at a disadvantage. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) had spoken against the introduction of the Ballot into an Educational Bill. He (Earl Fortescue) had always felt that the Ballot was an insignificant question, and when he had represented large constituencies he had sometimes offended them by declaring that it would do a little harm and no good. His opinion was now somewhat modified, and he thought the Ballot would do a little good and no harm. The system of election, however, under the Local Management Act of 1855 was most undesirable. By it the many were brought to the few, instead of the few to the many. The same secresy could be secured by a house-to-house collection as by asking electors to go to the poll clerk; and voting for vestrymen in the metropolis was practically found to be a prohibitory duty, on account of the trouble and waste of time it involved.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: The right hon. Gentleman who has received, and most worthily, the commendation of the House for the Bill he introduced and the manner in which he has carried it through the other House of Parliament, said, in his speech on the third reading, that he hoped the Bill would receive here the same careful attention it had received in the House of Commons. When I read that I almost thought the hope had been expressed ironically, for if we were to enter on the consideration of the Bill with the same care as it had received "elsewhere" I want to know when the Parliament would be adjourned? I believe this Bill was introduced into the other House at the beginning of March, and it did not pass till towards the end of July. I hope we shall finish the consideration of it before the end of September—and I only
864
regret that a measure of such vast importance should have been sent up at so late a period of the Session, when we cannot give it adequate consideration. I agree entirely with what has been said by my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) as to the absence of the mention of religion from the Bill except in a restrictive sense; and as to the compulsory attendance of children, I believe it to be against the spirit, the wishes, and the feelings of the people of this country. There is an old proverb that one man may lead a horse to the water, but that many cannot make him drink; and I am convinced that it is quite ineffectual to try to force education on the people. My first objection is, that you should not force a Dissenter to send his child to a school where the teaching may be contrary to his conscientious objections; my second, and certainly not less strong objection is that a Churchman should not be forced to send his child to a school where a religion may be taught of which he disapproves, still more to a purely secular school, where no religion is taught at all.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in reply, said, he should abstain from following in detail objections which he should endeavour to answer in Committee. He had to thank their Lordships on both sides of the House for the very fair manner in which the Bill had been received and for the large and general amount of support given to it. From its reception this evening he trusted he might augur that the Bill would be discussed — not, he hoped, at the same length as in the other House—but in the same fair spirit, the same absence of party considerations, and the same desire to make the measure effectual for the end in view. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), alluding to the declaration of the Premier that the right principle to adopt was the freedom of teaching and the freedom of withdrawal, said he regretted that this principle was not carried out in the Conscience Clause as it now stood. At the proper time, however, he should be able to show that the present clause gave more complete freedom of teaching than as the clause originally stood; for now a child could only be withdrawn from the teaching of religious subjects, instead of from any portion of teaching

865
whatever. His noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond) was of opinion that the Bill conferred too large a power on the Education Department. While he admitted that the power which it gave was large, he did not think it was more so than was absolutely necessary to effect the object which they all had in view. As to the Ballot, he could only say that he believed it furnished the most advantageous mode of taking votes for a variety of purposes. The last thing, at all events, which he, as a member of the Education Department, would do would be to seek to make an experimentum in corpore vili, by applying it to education, did he not suppose it would be found to work satisfactorily. He had simply to say, in conclusion, that he proposed to fix the Committee for Friday next.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 224.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL—(No. 224.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  LORD ROMILLYdesired to take this occasion to insist on the necessity of appointing the best Judges whose services could be secured. There were three modes, he said, of obtaining Judges. The person of the greatest experience and eminence in his profession might be selected, and in that case he must be paid the price necessary for what he regarded as his adequate remuneration, and to induce him to relinquish his profession. Another mode was to get the cheapest man; and a man of that kind might be got at a very low rate: but if such a man were selected he ought to undergo what was imposed on persons appointed for the first time to offices in the Civil Service—that was, he ought to be subjected to a severe examination to show that he was at all fit for the discharge of his duties. Again, as a third mode, a person might be selected to fill the office of Judge who was of long standing, and was believed by his friends to be a man of learning and capacity, but a person who had failed in his profession. Now the very worst Judges would be those who were selected from
  866
  that class, for they were persons generally who did not possess the tact required for the application of their knowledge, a quality indispensable for the constitution of a good Judge. The question was one of paramount importance, for if, for any reason, Judges were appointed who were incapable of properly discharging their duties, great injustice would be done to the suitors, and great scandal cast on the administration of justice. He observed that a proposal had been brought under the notice of the other House for increasing the pay of Her Majesty's Ministers, and he, for one, did not think any of them overpaid; but there was no doubt that, if their places were put up to auction, persons would be found to undertake their duties for much smaller salaries. Then, however, would arise the ulterior question whether persons so elected would be fit to discharge those duties. The moment an attempt was made to get a superior class of men at a cheaper rate than they were worth, most certainly only an inferior article would be obtained, and the result would be in every way injurious to the country. He, for one, was opposed to anything like parsimony and niggardliness under such circumstances. And so with regard to the Judges—a specious parsimony would inflict a serious blow on the administration of justice. It was of the greatest importance not only that we should get the best Judges, but also that the public should believe that we had got the best Judges we could, and this could only be accomplished by selecting men who had previously gained the confidence of the public by showing that they had previously gained the confidence of their clients, and had occupied a considerable position in the legal profession. A standing of so many years merely would not be a proper qualification. Indeed, it would be better to insist upon a money qualification, and say that no man should be appointed a Judge who had not made £3,000 or £4,000 a year by his profession. In conclusion, he appealed to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to make this Bill an experimental one, and confine its operation to two or three years, at the expiration of which period we should see what results it had brought about.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrepelled the accusation that he was endeavouring

  867
  to get money out of the appointment of Judges. He proceeded to point out that there were often circumstances connected with an Office which rendered it a desirable one apart from the mere question of salary. It had been an almost invariable custom that a Judge, after 15 years' service, should become an ex officio Member of the Judicial Committee, and the object of the Bill was to give to such Judges £500 a year in addition to their present salary. The general objections raised by the noble and learned Lord he would, not enter into, because they were not applicable to the Bill; for the very class to which the selection was restricted was a sufficient guarantee that none but the most competent Judges would be appointed.
  Bill read 3a.
  LORD CAIRNSmoved to insert the following clause at the end of the Bill:—
  "This Act shall continue in force until the first day in January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and shall then cease and determine, subject and without prejudice to any appointment made or salary granted thereunder previous to that date."
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 16; Not-Contents 27: Majority 11.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Three o'clock.