Sitting of 29 July 1870

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report — Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 395]; Abyssinian Expedition [No. 401].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 28] reported—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Truck Acts* [252]; Expiring Laws* [253]; Sanitary Act (Dublin) Amendment* [254].
Second Reading—Canada (Guarantee of Loan) [225].
Committee—Census (Scotland) [234]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [200]; Petty Sessions Clerk (Ireland) Act (1858) Amendment* [236]; Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland)* [223]; Real Actions Abolition (Ireland)* [242]; Pensions Commutation Amendment* [244]; Norfolk Boundary* [217]; Census (Scotland)* [234].
Considered as amended — Third Reading — Brokers (City of London)* [71], and passed.
Third Reading—Census [211], and passed.
Withdrawn—Burials (re-comm.)* [123].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—SMALL ARMS.—QUESTION.
MR. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to make a change in the principles on which the locks of our military arms have hitherto been constructed, by adopting a spiral main spring in lieu of a main spring of the usual construction; and, if so, whether that change has been recommended by the Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory, or other competent mechanical opinion, or whether it has been recommended by a Military Committee alone?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Henry-Martini lock acts with a spiral spring. The Henry-Martini rifle has been provisionally, but not finally, adopted. The Committee took the opinion of the Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory and other competent mechanical opinions before recommending the arm, and I have determined to add to the Committee, before it makes its final Report, a civil engineer eminent for his mechanical knowledge.

MEDWAY UNION.—QUESTION.
MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTINsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the money usually paid

1195
in the month of May by the Government towards the rates of the Medway Union has not been paid; and, whether he can state when such money will be paid?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, in reply, that the time when the money would be paid depended on the period when the accounts of the Union were audited.

PRIZES OF WAR.—QUESTION.
ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Decree, a Copy of which appears in "The Times" of the 28th July, and in which Prussia renounces her rights as a belligerent to capture or seize as prizes of war French merchant vessels, except under circumstances which would render neutral vessels liable to capture, is authentic; and, if the French Government have sent to Her Majesty's Government the Instructions to their Consuls regarding French and Prussian merchant vessels, as promised to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs previous to the 21st instant?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he had not a copy of The Times by him at the moment; but he saw in The Times, either yesterday or the day before, an authentic copy of the Prussian Instructions, and he presumed it was to that publication that the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. With respect to the second part of the Question, the Foreign Office had no specific communication of the Instructions sent to French Consuls by the French Government, and had already published everything received from the French Government relating to the subject. He found in page 72 of the Papers laid before Parliament a translation from the Journal Official, and it contained a statement of the intentions of the French Government on this subject. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the following sentence:—
"As concerns merchant-vessels belonging to the enemy which may be actually in the Ports of the Empire, or which may enter these Ports in ignorance of the state of war, His Majesty has been pleased to order that they shall have a delay of 30 days for leaving these Ports. Safe-conducts shall be delivered to them to enable them to return freely to their Ports of despatch or to the Port of their destination."
In page 73 there was another communication from the French Ambassador in London to Lord Granville, which contained
1196
a repetition of the declaration of the Congress of Paris in April, 1856.

TURKEY—BRITISH EMBASSY AT PERA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Report has been received at the Foreign Office from Major Grossman as to the probable cost of rebuilding and refitting the British Embassy at Pera; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of that Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. STANSFELDreplied that three letters had been received from Major Crossman announcing that he had arrived at Constantinople and given his attention to the state of the building at Pera, and he furnished a rough estimate of the cost of rebuilding, which was put at £50,000; but he did not think it would be fair to Major Crossman to lay that rough estimate on the Table.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wanted to know whether the Government will give an assurance that they will not enter into a contract for rebuilding the Embassy at so large an expense without first laying an estimate before the House?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, his impression was that the Government ought to have the sanction of Parliament. The difficulty was in its being a long time before they could obtain it. Perhaps his hon. Friend would repeat his Question to-morrow.

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

COAL FOR THE NAVY.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. FOTHERGILLsaid, he rose to call attention to the quality of steam coal in use by Her Majesty's Steam Fleet. Experiments had been going on for some time with a view to effect economy or improvement by the mixture of north country smoky coal with the smokeless coal of South Wales, and at this period of the Session he would not have interfered, satisfied as he was that these experiments would end in failure, if the events of the last few days had not given a new aspect to the question. The present was not a time for hazardous experiments

1197
with respect to the motive power of the steam vessels of the Navy. They had got the finest steam coal in the world: let them make use of it, and keep their experiments for another time. Let them remember what Admiral Napier wrote home from the Baltic—"Send me out Welsh coal, or I cannot be responsible for the safety of the fleet." It might be thought that he was representing Merthyr Tydvil and Aberdare, the seat of this coal, and he might be thought an interested party. But the truth was that the contract with the Navy was not so important as it was supposed to be. Out of the 3,000,000 tons of coal annually raised in the district the Navy only took about 200,000. His own collieries would supply four times the amount of coal consumed by the Admiralty. He hoped, therefore, he might be acquitted of any selfish feeling in having brought forward this subject. He raised it altogether as a national question. It was a fascinating idea that great economy might be effected by the mixture of the two coals. He understood that a series of experiments with mixed coal had been carried on on board Her Majesty's ships Urgent and Lucifer, and that the conclusion drawn from these experiments was a recommendation in favour of the mixed coal, on the ground of economy. Now he had for the last 17 years devoted his attention to mixing coal, not exactly with the same object as the Admiralty, but for coking purposes. He wished to utilize the screenings of the coal, which up to that time only encumbered the banks, and he found that commercially the mixture was a great success; but with the best mechanical arrangements it was scarcely possible on a large scale to mix different kinds of coal successfully, so far as the Admiralty was concerned. If the mixture were left to stokers or engineers it could not be effectual. The result would be that a column of smoke would pour out of the funnel of a steamer and remain visible in the atmosphere for hours, acting as an unerring guide to an enemy. The Welsh coal was a steam coal mixed by nature and of a perfect character—the very best to be found in the world. The geological formation of the Welsh coal basin was a peculiar one. At the western extremity it consisted of anthracite or stone coal, a mineral very difficult to burn, and to the cast of a highly bituminous coal. It was in the intermediate district—the Merthyr
1198
and Aberdare fields—that coal best suited for steam purposes was to be found. Each lump, when in a state of combustion, opened like a cauliflower—and indeed, in the French market, it was termed the cauliflower coal—and it burned with a most remarkable fierceness and duration, owing to its being almost pure carbon. When it was remembered that we had this coal of surpassing quality, and in unlimited quantity, he ventured to think the Admiralty should be content to use it and postpone their experiments. He highly appreciated the efforts of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) to promote economy; but being convinced that the mixing of coal would be practically disadvantageous, he had thought it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, being connected with the north country coal districts, he must protest against Parliament expressing any opinion that Welsh coal was superior to north country coal. There was no evidence to show that the Welsh coal was superior to the mixed coal. The north country and Welsh coal mixed might be burnt with less smoke than the ordinary Welsh coal. The mixture of the two kept steam very well; but the north country coal kept steam perfectly. If there was any failure of steam the service of the country could not be carried on efficiently. One great advantage of the north country coal was that it would keep much better than the Welsh coal, which soon became deteriorated and unfit for the service. A large percentage of the Welsh coal, when exposed to a hot sun, turned into dust, which was perfectly useless. That was a great disadvantage to vessels going on foreign stations; but that dust, mixed with north country coal, made a most excellent fuel. Captain Rice's Report of the trials on board the Lucifer showed that the two coals mixed in equal quantities were as good as the best Welsh coal. There was no insuperable difficulty in the mixing. It might be carried on with ordinary care, and would produce a saving of 15 per cent in the cost, and give an increased power by 7 per cent. One undisputed quality of the north country coal was that it could get up steam more quickly than the Welsh coal, and nothing was of more consequence than this to a vessel desirous of pursuing or avoiding an enemy.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. T. E. Smith) had read the results of the experiments, but not the governing clause. The savings which he attributed to the mixture of coal were due simply to the use of a particular kind of furnace. There was a positive saving of from 12 to 14 per cent upon Welsh over north country coal. The hon. Member had said that the Welsh coal disintegrated and became useless. Now, a Return which was obtained upon his (Mr. Hussey Vivian's) Motion last year of the coals burnt in Her Majesty's Navy during the six months ending June, 1869, showed that out of 700 Reports received from ships in all parts of the world, there was but one Report in which complaint was made of the Welsh coal.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that his remark was not that Welsh coal became unfit for use, but that a large portion of it turned to dust.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that it was somewhat curious that in the Returns no mention was made of that specific fact. The hon. Member appeared to think that mixing coal out of different bunks was a very easy matter. The stokers, however, were the very lowest class of persons employed on board a ship of war, and could not be expected to exercise any very nice discrimination as to the quantities in which coal ought to be mixed. Moreover, in hot climates, the mere manual labour would give them quite enough to do without thinking of mixing the coals at all. He himself had considerable experience in this matter, and attempts to mix coal had given rise to some of the greatest difficulties which he ever had to contend with. Experiments had been made at different times from 1848 to 1868 as to the relative values of Welsh and north country coal. Those made between 1848 and 1852 showed the great advantages of the Welsh coal; those made in the years 1862 and 1867 showed the superiority of the Welsh coal over the mixed coal; and, up to the time at which the present Board of Admiralty came into Office, the results of these experiments had led to the use almost exclusively of the Welsh coal. He wished to know on what the present Board of Admiralty based the change which marked its advent to power; because, unless the Board had in its possession some evidence with which he was unacquainted,
1200
he thought it conclusively proved that no such change was called for. The experiments made on board the ships Urgent and Lucifer—which, by the way, were experiments not so much upon coal as upon furnaces—clearly showed that the result of using Welsh coal alone was a freedom from smoke during three-fourths of the time over which the experiments extended, while the mixed fuel produced during two-thirds of the time a smoke so dense as to prevent the signals being seen. When first lighted it gave off for several minutes a dense black smoke, which changed afterwards to a brown smoke. It had not been shown, he would remark further, that the use of north country coal decreased the consumption; but, on the other hand, the Report stated that the amount of north country coal burnt per hour was one-eighth in excess of the consumption of Welsh coal. The saving in the use of Welsh coal over mixed coal was 17·5 per cent, and the gain in revolution was 6 per cent; so that, in effect, the loss occasioned by the use of mixed coal amounted to 17½ per cent. Then, again, Admiral Cooper Key said the annual expenditure would be increased by the use of north country coal in large proportions, while it occupied about 4 or 5 per cent more space than that taken up by Welsh coal. "I think, however," said the Admiral, "that the proportions now adopted in the service will be found very suitable." [Mr. T. E. SMITH: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member might say "Hear, hear;" but how could he show the last statement of Admiral Key to be consistent with his former ones? Certainly, the amount of smoke produced by the mixed coal had been diminished by the use of intricate and finely contrived devices applied to the furnaces; but these, he thought, would not stand, the wear, tear, and hurry of actual service. After all, he would ask, why they should struggle against nature? Nature had provided the country with the very best fuel in the world; and the Government was seeking, for some occult reason which passed his understanding, to violate the laws of Nature, and to use a fuel which was, without doubt, of a most inferior character. He had got a Return of some 700 trials, and the commanders of Her Majesty's ships invariably reported in favour of Welsh coal. It was not the consumption by the Admiralty that their

1201
constituents regarded; but it was the stamp put upon the coal which Her Majesty's Navy used. If there was a trial at all let it be a practical one. Let two ships be supplied—tho one with Welsh and the other with mixed coal or north country coal—and sent across the Atlantic, and then it would be seen which was the better; but a trial of five or six hours was not sufficient. The experience of the world showed the superiority of the Welsh coal. The great steam companies, whose vessels carried passengers and mails, never dreamt of using these mixtures; they got the best coal, and that was the Welsh. What happened at the measured mile? Had his hon. Friend over heard of a vessel taken to the measured mile to be tried and any other coal used but Welsh coal? But this was what was done—They tried a vessel at the measured mile; she made her 14 or 15 knots an hour, and then they put this inferior coal on board and immediately brought down her speed. All things being equal, and there being a saving of 12 or 15 per cent by the use of Welsh coal, there must be some very strong reasons indeed to justify the use of any other. This was a time when it was important that the ships of Her Majesty's Navy should be placed in the very best position. When this kind of unnatural alliance was forced upon them they must protest against it, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) would grant a divorce from an alliance which they detested and abhorred.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had asked—"Why struggle against nature? What has induced you to take one kind of coal when you can get another?" The answer was very simple. The particular district which his hon. Friend represented produced only about 1–50th of our coal, and the policy he advocated would exclude the rest of the country, which produced 49–50ths. Unless, therefore, it was shown to be absolutely necessary to go to this small district exclusively, he was not prepared to establish such a monopoly. The debate, however, was premature. Certain experiments had been made, and immediately on their completion he laid upon the Table an abstract of the Reports, with a note stating that they had been presented without tables or sketches, as these would take some time to print; but in the course of a few
1202
days the tables and sketches would also be produced. Subsequently his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) gave notice that he would move for Returns for the last six months showing the opinion of officers on the two classes of coal. Returns would be made up to the end of June; and his right hon. Friend saw it was impossible to bring on the subject this year, so he postponed doing so until next Session. But now the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill) challenged the Admiralty to prove their case upon Returns which were not before the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr and his hon. Friend who had last spoken had been good enough to say that in the orders the Admiralty had given about the coal they had endeavoured to carry out those pledges of economy which Her Majesty's Government had given on coming into Office, but they had not done so in a wise manner. It was satisfactory, at any rate, to know that the Admiralty were trying to do the best for the public; but he hoped to show, when the subject could be fully discussed, that they had succeeded. But at present he hardly knew what to answer. The class of naval stokers had been spoken of somewhat disparagingly; but his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken as to their position in the service. The chief stokers were well-educated and intelligent men, and the ordinary stokers were by no means of the class described by him. Again as to the experiments to which the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had alluded, these were only two single experiments conducted by Captain Rice in May 1869, when the changes in the furnaces had not been made; whereas if he would refer to the subsequent Papers he would see that the experiments carried on under Mr. Murdock, the Chief Inspector of Machinery Afloat, were 114 in number, and extended over 14 months, from May, 1869, to July last. As far as their experience up to the present time went, the Reports were conclusively in favour of the course which had been provisionally taken of using one-third of north country coal and two-thirds of Welsh coal. He might say generally, according to the accounts they were receiving from foreign stations, Welsh coal deteriorated more rapidly than north country or mixed coal, and with Welsh coal unmixed it was often more difficult

1203
to get up and keep up steam than with the mixture in those proportions. The Government had not the smallest objection to lay on the Table all those most valuable half-yearly Returns, and would be perfectly prepared next year, when the House would have more information in its possession, to discuss that question fully. The hon. Member for Merthyr had observed that at the present time—for reasons which he hinted at rather than named—it was particularly important that they should have the best coal they could get, and which produced the smallest amount of smoke. All he could say on the part of the Government was that they were quite alive to that consideration, and would be very cautious not to be led astray by temporary experiments in a matter of that kind into doing anything which would be prejudicial to the Navy. Of course, he did not intend by that that the policy recently adopted on this subject would be lightly reversed. He merely meant that the Admiralty had no object in view but the public interest and the efficiency of the Navy.

NAVY—THE "CAPTAIN" AND THE "MONARCH."—QUESTION.
MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to continue the experiments between the Captain and the Monarch? He believed that the Captain had been sent out alone.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Monarch and the Captain went out together for trials with the Channel Fleet, which was under the command of Sir Thomas Symonds, and some of these trials were made in June last. As an exception to the rule which was deemed very valuable, but for reasons which he need not then discuss, the Admiralty did not object to lay on the Table Sir Thomas Symonds's Report of those preliminary trials. The Captain since then had been to sea by herself, and therefore had not been under the eye of any superior officer. It was always customary for ships of that class to go on a few weeks' cruise by themselves; but it would be unnecessary to lay any Report of this cruise on the Table. The Captain and the Monarch would both shortly go to sea again under Sir Hastings Yelverton to join Sir Alexander Milne, who would carry further these trials; and, on their return, they
1204
would probably be again sent to sea together before their trials could be deemed completed. When the Admiralty had received the final and complete Reports on their comparative merits and performances, they would consider them very carefully. After arriving at their conclusions the Admiralty would communicate them to Parliament, with such information and extracts from the Reports as might be necessary to elucidate their views. At the present moment he could not lay on the Table any special Report.
Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered, in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £73,150, Medicines and Medical Stores, Naval Service.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), he rose to propose the Motion of which the hon. Member had given Notice, which was to reduce the Vote by £3,700, in respect of the expense of carrying out the Contagious Diseases Act. He took no objection to the Vote generally, and he agreed that, whatever opinion there might be about these Acts, as long as they were in force it was necessary that money should be voted for carrying them out. But it had been arranged this Session that there should be an inquiry into the effects of these Acts, and he thought the Government ought to have held their hands, and not to have extended the operation of the Acts until the result of the inquiry was known. This had not been the policy pursued, for with respect to Southampton he was able to say that while up to the time that the arrangement named was come to no single step had been taken to carry out the Acts, since the arrangement was come to, they had been put into operation, notices had been issued, and ground had been purchased for the building of a hospital. He, therefore, moved the reduction of the Vote.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Act of 1869 imposed upon the Government the obligation of extending the Acts to Southampton, and all the arrangements for so extending them were made before the arrangement for an inquiry was come to. Of course, with an inquiry pending it would be unreasonable to proceed with the erection of a permanent hospital. The

1205
purchase of the land had been virtually settled previously to the recent debate, but no further steps had been taken, and arrangements had been made for sending away any who required hospital treatment to Portsmouth.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood that no steps would be taken to extend the operation of these Acts to places where they were not now in force. With or without the wish of the Government all discussion upon the subject had been stifled in that House. A Commission of Inquiry had been promised. It was of the greatest importance that the public should believe in the honesty of the inquiry, and that the Government should not do anything which would indicate a foregone conclusion, as it would do if they extended the operation of the Acts to now places. He, therefore, hoped the Government would give an assurance that the operation of the Acts would not be extended until the Report was made.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government had steered clear equally of the two foregone conclusions that were possible; they had done no more than they had made arrangements to do, under the Act of 1869, before the conclusion arrived at as to a Commission; and at some inconvenience they had made arrangements to suspend for the present the building of a hospital for Southampton.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, that, of course, he was satisfied with the assurance of his right hon. Friend that the hospital would not be built; but that he still thought that as notices had been issued in Southampton when the inquiry was conceded, the Act should not have been put in force until the result of that inquiry was known. No notices had been sent out in Southampton before the inquiry was conceded.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, they were on the point of being issued, and it would have indicated a foregone conclusion to have withdrawn them, all other steps having been completed.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to know when the Returns of the expenditure incurred under the Act, which he had moved for a few months ago, would be laid on the Table?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Returns were extraordinarily minute; but they would be laid on the Table as soon as possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £237,340, Army Department (Conveyance of Troops).
MR. NORWOODsaid, he wished to call attention to the change made in the mode of engaging transports. During the last few months the old system of putting up the transport of stores to tender had been abandoned, and the engagement placed in the hands of agents in the City. He held that the transport service of the country was too important to be placed entirely in the hands of any single firm, however eminent or respectable they might be. Such a procedure did great injustice to shipowners, who were thus unable to compete for the discharge of the duty, and who not unnaturally complained of their exclusion. An influential memorial had been presented to the Admiralty on the subject, signed by nearly 100 firms of the highest importance in the City of London, which stated that the old system of engaging transport was essentially the best, and prayed the Admiralty to revert to it as soon as possible. The only answer given to that requisition was that their Lordships did not see any reason for departing from the new system which they had established. He cast no imputation either on the firm selected or on the Board of Admiralty; but the question was a very grave one, for the system was operating prejudicially to the public service. It undoubtedly did away with some of the abuses of the old system, but it substituted others in its stead, and could not fail in the end of being productive of much mischief. One bad result which it had was the creation of a number of intermediate brokers, who preyed upon the shipowners, and screwed large percentages out of them. Shipowners in towns like Hull naturally complained very loudly, because they were precluded from embarking in a trade which they held ought to be open to public competition. There ought to be no secret about the freight required by the Government, and notice should be given that the Government would receive tenders from all shipowners willing to take the stores which the Government desired to ship. Besides the objections he had urged, there was a grave constitutional question involved in the proceeding, and that was, whether it was right that the Admiralty or any Government Department

1207
should have the power of creating new offices which were not included in the Estimates. Three gentlemen had already been appointed to new berths under the Admiralty—namely, for engagement of transport, the purchase of coals, and the purchase and sale of timber—and were receiving large commissions for duties which were not specified in the Estimates. That was a system which was very much to be deprecated. Should the system prevail of the contracts being given to a single firm according to favour, there would be nothing to prevent a Conservative Secretary, when he came into Office, taking the contract from a Whig firm and giving it to a Tory one. The present Admiralty policy of private purchases was, in his opinion, entirety wrong. Doubtless it might work well under careful supervision; but they might not always have sharp, business men at the Admiralty, and then jobbery and corruption would inevitably creep in. Such a system altogether depended upon the aptitude of the officials who had to administer it, and it could only be successful where they were zealous and able. His belief was, that ultimately the now system would prove much more injurious to the public interests than the old system, objectionable as that old system had been in many respects. With regard to the outfit of ships, freight, and all such matters, there should, be an Executive officer to ascertain what was necessary for the Government, and then the supply should be thrown open to public tender. He maintained that an open system of tender was the best for all parties, and that there ought to be nothing to conceal in a transaction between the Government and the merchants it employed. He hoped the Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Baxter) would meet the question in a straightforward way, and would not evade the issue by raising the cry of want of confidence. At all events, he felt bound to record his opinion that the system of private purchase was a bad one, and that although it might effect a temporary saving, it would in the long run be productive of a system of jobbery more pernicious than anything that had yet existed.
MR. GRAVESsaid, the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Norwood) was one of great importance. He thought the open system of tender, which placed
1208
everybody upon a fair and equitable footing, was the best for all concerned. He did not regard the question so much from a shipping as from a public point of view. The great objection in his mind to the present system was the favouritism which might spring out of it, and though possibly some small saving might occasionally be secured, yet, upon the whole, it was more satisfactory that things should be done openly. In that light he must condemn the system of private purchase. What he wished, however, particularly to impress on the Committee was that what should be aimed at should be, whilst exercising economy, to preserve the Public Departments in such a state of normal efficiency during peace as would allow of their ready extension and expansion whenever necessity should arise. Such, however, would by no means be the result of the policy now being pursued at the Admiralty. They were throwing overboard the entire Transport Department, which had proved so serviceable to the State, and were employing instead outside firms, who had no connection with that Department at all. Emergencies might suddenly arise when it would be impossible for any one private firm to undertake the duties that might be demanded of them, and he therefore thought it was unwise, for the sake of a mere temporary saving, to throw out of gear what used to be considered a most valuable and efficient State Department. He thought the sooner the old system of transport was reverted to the better. With respect to the private purchase system, it was very unsatisfactory, and could not, in his opinion, go on long. Though it was not now a source of jobbing, it was liable to be so. His belief was that the best course to take would be for the Admiralty to adopt a kind of medium system, which would get rid of the defects of the old and embody any advantages of the new. That could be achieved by a limited system of tender—allowing free tenders and appointing a Committee to examine them, and report which ought to be accepted. The question of steam machinery had been referred to; and with respect to that, he regretted that the lowest tenders were not always accepted, even although the firms who offered lowest were quite as capable of executing the orders as those who received perhaps £10,000 more. He

1209
would strongly urge upon the Government the necessity of reviewing at once their position in this matter, for he thought that the sooner they adopted a limited system of tender, confined to respectable parties, the better.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he agreed with much that had been said by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Graves); but he hoped that much misapprehension would be avoided if he informed the Committee what were the arrangements made by the Admiralty, why they had been made, and on what footing they stood. He would say at once that the Admiralty would be prepared, if these arrangements should be found not to work satisfactorily, to make such improvements in them as experience might suggest. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the Admiralty had adopted the new system merely because they thought it would be beneficial to the public service. On coming into Office at the end of 1868, it was his anxious desire, as he had served on the Committee relating to Admiralty Contracts and Purchases, to examine those questions thoroughly, to ascertain in what respects they might get rid of anomalous, inconvenient, and unbusiness-like arrangements, and how far they could follow out the principle advocated by Mr. Cobden, that the Government should carry on their business upon the same footing as merchants and other business men. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) advised them not to part altogether with the tender system, but to introduce a system of limited tender, and to be very chary of direct purchase. Now, what were the facts? He held in his hand the official figures. Two-thirds of all purchases were made by open tender, one-sixth was made by limited tender, and the remaining one-sixth represented the whole amount that was purchased directly, whether through the intervention of brokers, or in any other manner. If anybody would say that that indicated a mode of proceeding different from what would be experienced by men of business, he should be very much surprised.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask whether coals were included in the proportions just given by the right hon. Gentleman?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that coals were also purchased very largely by tender. They set the system of purchase, in fact,
1210
against the system of tender, and they found this to answer very well. The very fact of its being known that the Admiralty acted upon such a principle had a satisfactory influence for the public service. The hon. Member for Liverpool had alluded to the purchase of engines in a particular case, where the lowest tender had not been adopted. As a general principle he (Mr. Childers) maintained that the lowest tender ought to be accepted; but it was impossible to apply that principle without any limit. There were certain classes of engines, made usually by two or three firms, in which, if application were made only to them and the lowest tenders were invariably adopted, those firms would have an absolute monopoly. The proper course, therefore, was to apply to these firms, but at the same time to include others in the list, and not to bind themselves under all circumstances to take the lowest tender. That was what every man of business would do, and it was the course the Government had adopted; though he fully admitted the propriety of the general principle. The question of transport had been the subject of some remark, and when the present Admiralty came into Office they naturally looked into the whole matter, though it was not one of the largest questions they had to deal with, and they had leisurely introduced what he believed to be very great improvements. At the same time there was not the smallest intention of abolishing the Transport Department; their operations had merely been shortened and rendered more businesslike than they were before. The Department formerly had no business advice whatever in the arrangements which they were called upon to make. They had simply to rely upon the knowledge of the very gallant Admiral at the head of the Department and the staff of Civil Service clerks appointed to carry out his orders. The question now in debate was one with regard to the shipment of small quantities of stores, amounting in value to about £40,000 a year. With regard to that matter there had been in existence a set of regulations, perfectly honest and straightforward no doubt, but not the sort of regulations that men of business would have adopted in transactions of the kind. These regulations, for instance, required that in all shipments, down to those of very

1211
small parcels, there should be public advertisements, tenders, and surveys of the ships in which the stores were to be conveyed; and the form of tender included conditions which were very inconvenient and onerous, and such as merchants and men of business had never heard of. He would give an instance of the working of this system, mentioning the facts, but not the names of the parties concerned. It became necessary, rather hurriedly, to take up a ship to convey a regiment to Malta, and to proceed thence to North America. It was an urgent matter, near the end of the season, and admitting of no delay. The Transport Department were suddenly called on to find a ship and to make the best arrangement they could. Had a similar crisis occurred in a merchant's office he would have taken advice in the City—he would have known where to look for ships. The matter would have been transacted promptly, and in a day or a second day the whole thing would have been over. But the Directors of the Transport Service had no persons with whom they could consult, and the gentleman upon whom the responsibility of acting devolved was obliged to make the best arrangement in his power. He had heard some time before of a person whom he believed to be a competent adviser, and to him he went, told his story, and said—"The whole thing has been thrown upon me; make the best arrangement you can." The result was that the Government had to pay for the performance of this special service £26,000 in all, which was quite £12,000 over the amount that it ought to have cost. As another illustration of the working of the system, he might mention a case in which a small quantity of naval stores, about 50 tons, was reported not to have arrived at the place where it was expected for three months after it was due. Eventually the stores were sent out, and he had carefully investigated the whole transaction so as to get to the bottom of it. He found that, owing to the routine arrangements of the Department, an advertisement for tenders was inserted for the first time on the 8th of March, again on the 15th, and again on the 22nd. On the 25th the cheapest tender was accepted; but the ship was not ready to be surveyed until the 14th of April, on the 15th of April she was surveyed, and
1212
on the 23rd she began to load, but did not sail until the 25th of May. So that, in connection with one shipment of 50 tons, more than two months elapsed from the time when orders were given for forwarding the stores. He need not name the station to which the stores were sent; but vessels were constantly going there, and, in a private firm, and under ordinary circumstances, such a delay, he believed, would be altogether impossible. He had been charged with being precipitate in making alterations; but, in this matter, he had taken more than a year to arrange the proceedings which were ultimately adopted. In the first place, a Committee was appointed to go into the details connected with the Transport Department, and that Committee made its Report last autumn; since which time the various departments of the service had been consulted with regard to the arrangement that was contemplated. The arrangement was that the Government should have at its disposal the advice of a very competent firm in the City, who were not themselves interested in shipping, but who did a good deal of business in connection with shipments, and were able to give very sound advice. They came once a week or oftener to the office of the Director of Transports, and went carefully through all the small shipments, taking instructions as to the times at which these should be forwarded, and, if necessary, as to the insertion of advertisements. Therefore, these gentlemen advised the Admiralty with regard to their shipping business generally, and arranged on their account such small business as might require attention. He appealed with confidence to the House whether this was not a business-like arrangement. Before adopting the plan objected to he consulted with persons of great eminence in the City, and in particular with one gentleman, an eminent authority and Member of that House, but sitting on the opposite side, all of whom agreed as to the advantages possessed by the scheme. He thought the plan was one which any ordinary man of business, with a large number of small parcels to despatch, would adopt in preference to the tedious process of advertisements, tenders, and consequent delay. His hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) said this Amendment was not satisfactory—that several

1213
firms in the City had presented a memorial to the Board of Admiralty against it. This was the fact, and he could not deny that the memorial was signed by many persons eminent in the City; but he was bound to say that of the whole number only 27 ever had transactions with the Government, and two had themselves urged upon the Government the adoption of improved arrangements similar to those adopted. One of the number had actually offered some time ago to give assistance in carrying out the new system. That firm had not got the appointment, however; and possibly he ought not to have been surprised that they had taken an active part in getting up the protest. But, however eminent the memorialists might be, it was not clear that their interests and the public's were identical. The proof of the pudding being in the eating, he might inform the Committee how the plan had worked up to the present time, merely remarking that he did not give the results as final. During the first quarter of a year in which the plan was in operation the sum paid had reached £4,960 against £6,380, which would have had to be paid under the old system. Therefore, he thought the tendency of what had been done was satisfactory. The hon. Member for Hull on a former occasion had given several instances in support of his case, one of which was somewhat unfortunate. The hon. Member said that in one case the Government paid 26 s. freight to Bermuda, while the public rate of freight was 17 s.; but the fact was, that the current public rates for the class of goods forming the greater part of the shipment at the time in question were 21 s. and 22 s., and the Government only paid 19 s. [Mr. NORWOOD: Was that the case of the Elizabeth?] It was. In conclusion, he would say again that the Government had no preference for one system over another. The present system, with all its improvements, required more trouble and responsibility than the former one of lowest tender; and if the Government considered their own comfort they would revert to it; but they wished to adopt the scheme which would prove best for the economical conduct of the public service. He hoped that confidence would be reposed in the Government until time had been given fairly to test the working of what he had distinctly
1214
stated was an experiment for a year only, and he would promise the House that whichever system proved the best after trial should be adopted.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he need not enter upon a discussion of the abstract merits of the two systems after the satisfactory statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the present proceeding was only an experiment, to be abandoned if it did not work advantageously. It might be conceded that the present system was more economical than the former one; but a mere saving of money was not a sufficient advantage to cover the suspicion that might arise in the public mind in reference to a system of private arrangement as compared with the more open one of advertisement and tender. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his supposition that those who had the management of the transport service in former times did not seek advice outside the Office, for when he was at the Admiralty he sought and obtained valuable advice outside. From certain circumstances and figures mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, he thought himself right in supposing that of the two cases referred to one was a case which occurred when he (Sir John Hay) was at the Admiralty, and far from admitting that the case showed loss to the public or want of information and business-like arrangement, on that occasion, as he should show, the public obtained good service at a cheap rate. On the 21st of September, 1866, news reached this country of the Fenian raid on Canada, and he (Sir John Hay) was requested by his Colleagues to see Lord Carnarvon, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, who informed him that it was necessary to send troops there at once—first, because of the urgency of the case; and, second, because the time was close at hand when the St. Lawrence River would be closed by the ice. There was at that time a very gallant regiment stationed at Belfast, whose turn it was to proceed on this service; but His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, with that humanity which distinguishes him, did not think it advisable to send it to repel Irish Fenians, as it had in its ranks many Irishmen, and, however loyal and honourable they might be, and no one doubted it, yet it was not wise to send them fresh from Ireland to come possibly into collision with Irishmen, more especially

1215
as another arrangement could at once be made. There was a regiment in Malta—the 100th—which had been raised in Canada, and formed the most desirable force for the purpose. This being so, and the time being short, he had either to engage two sets of transports, one to convey the regiment from Belfast to Malta, and another to convey the 100th from Malta to Quebec without waiting for its relief, an expensive and unsatisfactory process; or to undertake to carry out the two services in one transport and before the ice closed the navigation of the St. Lawrence. To fit a transport for the service would have taken too long a time; but having good information—which he must say Admiral Mends and the Transport Office in his time were always able to afford him—he secured a ship, called the Pennsylvania, ready fitted, which took the Belfast regiment to Malta and conveyed the 100th Regiment to Canada, performing the whole service in time to reach her destination before the closing of the river. This was done at a cost for transport of £2 17 s. 1d. per mile, while sums of £6 18 s. 2d. and £5 16 s. 4d. per mile were paid for transport at the time of what was called "the Trent affair." The advice under which he acted on this occasion was obtained outside the Office, but was good, as it obtained for the country efficient and, at the same time, cheap service. With regard to tenders for engines, the system pursued at the Admiralty when he was in Office was to ascertain what firms had the machinery, plant, and capital requisite for turning out first-class engines, second-class engines, and third-class engines, and to these different groups of engine-makers tenders were sent. There were occasions when the builder or designer of a ship of a special class was allowed to apply to a particular firm which he thought would be able to carry out his views; but the general rule was to send out tenders to those different groups of firms and to accept the lowest offer. That was a safe plan, and he did not think there was any necessity for changing it. It would be quite wrong to allow persons who had not the necessary plant to compete with those who had.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the Committee would be of opinion that, as a rule, the correct and business-like way of purchasing was by competition; but
1216
there were many cases in which an exceptional process might advantageously be adopted. Where the number of those who could enter into the competition was few, better arrangements might be made by private negotiation than by public competition, and there was nothing in which private negotiation could be more fitly introduced than in the conveyance of small parcels of goods to particular ports, advertising, as a rule, leading to exorbitant demands, far above the market price of freights. By the plan at present in use the Admiralty might always rely on normal charges for all the freight they required. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be guided by experience—would not permit himself to be driven from his course by external pressure, but would work the two systems in competition with one another.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he must complain of the tendency of the present Administration to create offices which were not provided for in the Estimates. The system of paying percentages to persons for buying commodities was entirely unconstitutional, and no Administration should be allowed to put it in practice. The percentage on the purchase of coal this year must have been considerably above £2,000, and in case of war it would be a fortune to the gentleman who received it. With regard to the sale of stores by the Admiralty there had been very great abuse. The stores had been thrown away, and our dockyards had been left in such a state of destitution that if war broke out we could hardly fit out five ships of the line. The cloud of which he had spoken early in the year was in the East, and we must be prepared upon our Eastern and our Southern coasts. He looked upon the opening of the Suez Canal as one of the most important events that had occurred in the history of the world; it entirely altered our relations with our Eastern Dominions, and it was through that route we ought to convey our troops to India and bring them back again. The country was greatly indebted to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) for having sent out very early two most able officers to report upon that great work. Their Report was in the hands of Members, and it was not only most useful to the public, but most creditable to the officers who

1217
had drawn it up. It was important to consider what effect the opening of the Suez Canal would have on our East Indian trade, and what measures it was necessary to take under the circumstances. The distance from England to Bombay by that route was about 7,000 miles, and to Calcutta about 8,500; whereas the distance round by the Cape to Bombay was about 14,000 miles, and to Calcutta about 16,000, and there were many ships which, if their logs were examined, would be found to have run from 17,000 to 18,000 miles in going from this country to Calcutta. By means of the Suez Canal ships would be enabled to make three trips from England to India in the course of the year; whereas few ships going round by the Cape could perform more than one voyage and a half at the very outside in a year. The effect of the Suez Canal would be to throw the whole, or by far the greater part, of our Indian trade into that channel of communication, and also to make it entirely a steam trade, because sailing vessels could not make the passage up and down the Red Sea with any degree of economy, and, in fact, it would be almost impracticable for them. Moreover, the trade by that canal would doubtless be carried on by a class of ships specially adapted for it, and owners were already in every direction laying down a class of commodious and roomy ships constructed for that purpose, which would be navigated by officers who would soon acquire sufficient knowledge of the canal to be able to take their vessels through it without the aid of a pilot. It was a serious and mournful thing to think that the magnificent and beautiful ships which he had seen in the harbours of India would thus, as it were, have the bread taken out of their mouths. But that canal was situate at the extreme end of a sea which at any moment might become a foreign lake, and he was therefore anxious through the Committee to direct public attention to the grave political considerations involved in that matter. Supposing a war to occur when our present ships had been broken up or had been diverted to some other trade, what would happen if by any means we were cut off from communications with our Indian possessions by the Suez route? In that case a convulsion would be created in this country hardly inferior to
1218
that which would be produced by a civil war. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) must be in a condition to vindicate the neutrality of that strait. He wished, therefore, to impress on the House and the Government the expediency of addressing Her Majesty, praying Her to take steps for setting on foot negotiations with a view to bring about such European arrangements for maintaining the neutrality of the Suez Canal as would prevent our ever being deprived of an advantage which had been gained for commerce and civilization by the genius and indomitable perseverance of one of the greatest of living engineers.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he dissented from the opinion stated by the hon. Member who had last spoken as to the practice of employing agents and paying them a per centage for the purchase of stores. He hoped that the new system in that respect would receive a fair trial. But he must warn the Admiralty against seeking to drive contractors too hard by what was called "decimating" their contracts—a process which would ruin the best contractors in England.
MR. ARTHUR GUESTsaid, he rose to call attention to the circumstances connected with the return of the 23rd Regiment from India in Her Majesty's ship "Crocodile" in November 1869. They embarked at Alexandria, and their destination being Devonport they applied by telegram to the Government on arrival at Malta for permission to be landed at Plymouth as the Crocodile was before her time, but they were sent on to Portsmouth. Disembarking on the 16th, the regiment was detained at Portsmouth fully seven days, at great inconvenience and expense to officers and to married men, who had with them their wives and children, and who were unable to get at their baggage, which was stored in a shed. The Crocodile, meanwhile, lying idle in Portsmouth Harbour—why was not the regiment permitted to be landed at Plymouth? Why was not this regiment sent on at once by sea to Devonport; and if that were impracticable, why was it not sent on by train? it was calculated to bring discredit upon our system of moving troops, that a regiment should be left at one place for seven or eight days in a disorganized state and without any means of keeping the regiment together. If it were deemed impossible

1219
to forward troops at once to their destination, would it not be well to have barracks reserved at Portsmouth, Winchester, or Aldershot, for their reception? He wished further to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what use he intended to make of the Suez Canal, which, he understood, would shortly have a uniform depth throughout of from 25 to 26 feet? It was of great importance that our troopships should be sent through it.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, Government need have no fear of injuring contractors. They were a class who were generally capable of taking care of themselves. He hoped the Government would not discontinue the system of public tenders where anything in large quantities was wanted. As to freights, there were plenty of vessels to be had either to Bombay, Calcutta or China, and shipowners were ready to take cheap freights from the Government for the credit of carrying for the Government.
MR. NORWOODsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty appeared to speak slightingly of the memorial signed by a vast majority of shipowners and brokers, and containing, perhaps, every name of importance. He should feel it his duty to move for copies of all memorials on the subject, in order that hon. Members might form their own impressions of the importance of the document.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been misunderstood, for he spoke of the memorial as being most respectably signed, although he added that the interests of the memorialists and of the public were not always to be reconciled. If after this it was thought worth while to move for the document he would produce it. He entirely concurred with the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) with reference to the Suez Canal; and what he had said would be well pondered. The Government were fully alive to all questions connected with the canal, and had been since it was apparent that it would be a success; they had made most particular inquiries as to the extent to which it was likely to be used by Government and by merchant shipping, and the House might trust to the Government dealing with the subject in the way that the interests of the Empire required. With respect to the case of the Crocodile the facts were that the Admiralty undertook to take out and bring home to and from India troops,
1220
at the expense and under the arrangements of the Indian Government, according to a programme settled at the beginning of the season, and which left the smallest possible margin for the repairs of the vessels at either end of the season; or for their coaling or casual requirements during the season. To deviate from that programme would disorganize the service, which was based upon precise calculations as to the time occupied by each voyage; and the late Admiralty, after careful inquiry, had settled the point that the programme could not be departed from. In this case the Crocodile, happening to make a very good passage, arrived two days before her time, and the Orontes, which was ordered to take the regiment from Portsmouth to Plymouth, having experienced bad weather in the North Sea, was two days too late, and the unfortunate result was the detention of the regiment; but it was no fault of the Admiralty, and it was one of those occurrences for which no one could be held entirely responsible. If the regiment had been sent on to Devonport by rail, it would have cost £500; whereas sending them by sea cost nothing, as the Orontes had to go to Plymouth.
MR. ARTHUR GUESTsaid, he was bound to say that the explanation was satisfactory, and that he anticipated some such answer. But he would again urge that the Secretary of State for War ought to make arrangements to prevent the detention of a regiment under such circumstances.
SIR JOHN HAY: Sir, I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. A. Guest) on the interesting discussion he has raised. I wish, however, to corroborate what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, which is accurate except in so far as his statement that the expenses of the five Indian transports are borne entirely by India. [Mr. CHILDERS: Yes, for Indian service.] I think he will find in the Estimate he is now proposing that two-fifths of the expenditure on the transports on this side of the Isthmus of Suez are borne by Imperial funds. The arrangements for the Indian transport were, as he states, completed when I was in Office. His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief was very anxious to arrange that regiments arriving from India should be landed at the port nearest to their destination, and the Admiralty were anxious

1221
to carry this arrangement out if it had been found practicable, having regard to other considerations. But with five transports, only and no Suez Canal, this was quite impossible, as the Committee will see. For sanitary reasons, all the medical authorities concur in deciding that the Indian reliefs shall be completed in the five winter months. 18,000 men have to be moved. Three transports conduct this service on the Indian side and two on the Mediterranean side of the Isthmus of Suez. The steamers must perform their work with the regularity of clock-work, or troops might be detained in Egypt or on board ship at great expense, besides totally disarranging the whole system of reliefs. It has been found best, as only one English port can be used, to make all arrangements for the speedy landing of the troops and for refitting and replenishing the transports at Portsmouth. A day lost in going to Plymouth or Cork would throw everything out both in India and in Egypt, unless, indeed, duplicate arrangements for refitting the transports were kept at Plymouth. But such duplication would entail a greater expense than the occasional conveyance of troops by rail. Under these circumstances, until the Suez Canal is so open as to enable us to make the whole transit in one ship, and so save the time of transfer in Egypt, I think the Committee will see that it is better to adhere to present arrangements. I quite concur in believing that very shortly the Suez Canal will considerably increase our facilities and relieve our troops from the inconvenience of which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has not without reason complained.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £120,000, Half and Retired Pay, Officers of Navy and Royal Marines. Monthly instead of Quarterly Payments.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must ask why the necessity for this Supplemental Vote had not been foreseen when the Estimates were prepared?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the course of the Government in this matter had been tentative, and the change as to half-pay had not been determined upon when the Estimates were prepared. The alterations could not be made without bringing 14 months' pay into the first 12 months, and the new system would be very advantageous to half-pay officers.

SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(4.) £153,919, to complete the sum for Embassies and Missions Abroad.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that last year, it would be in the recollection of the Committee, he proposed to reduce the Vote for Diplomatic Services by £10,000, and his Motion was only defeated by the casting vote of the Chairman. On that occasion his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Otway) strongly urged that a reduction to that extent would be detrimental to the public service; but, notwithstanding that opinion, the Foreign Office had managed to reduce the Estimates this year by £12,448, which was, no doubt, to their credit. At the same time, he was compelled to observe that the reduction had not been made in the permanent charges. It was true that the item of salaries of Ambassadors, &c., had been diminished to the extent of £1,410; but, on the other hand, the salaries of second and third Secretaries, &c., had been increased £1,436, so that he had a right to complain that there was no actual decrease in the personal staff under the Foreign Office. The saving had been effected by squeezing down some incidental items, chiefly on account of journeys on the public service, special missions, and outfits, all of which might probably be advanced to their former amount in another year. As the Committee on the Diplomatic Service, upon which he had had the honour of serving, had not yet reported, he felt precluded from proposing any reduction of this Vote; but he did not feel precluded from urging on the Government the expediency of not filling up any vacancy that might occur in the smaller missions, and that no addition should be made in the number of Secretaries and Under Secretaries of Legation; but that, if possible, they should be diminished. His hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) was as well acquainted as he was with the evidence which had been given before the Diplomatic Committee, and must be perfectly aware that the number of the junior members of our Legation was unnecessarily large. As regarded the smaller missions, he (Mr. Rylands) was of opinion that most of those scattered over Europe might be dispensed with. They had been represented as the eyes and ears of the Foreign Office, and that they

1223
were the watch-dogs of the Continent. If so, the eyes were blind, the ears were stopped, and the watch-dogs were dumb dogs that could not bark. These missions were regarded as political barometers—we had planted them throughout Europe in order to give us early intimation of a coming storm; but for several years these political barometers had stood at "Set Fair," and remained so to the very moment when the storm suddenly burst over us. They gave not the slightest warning to the Foreign Office of the great event that had recently startled Europe. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had admitted that two hours before the alarming telegram from France was received, he had been told by the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office that there was a perfect lull in Continental politics. Nothing could have shown in a more striking manner the uselessness of these means of obtaining early information from abroad, and which were maintained at so great an expense. He did not wish, however, to imply that if the Foreign Office had obtained earlier information they would have been able to avert the war between France and Prussia. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was under the pleasing delusion that the Foreign Office had for the last four years kept the peace of Europe. His hon. Friend had told him on more than one occasion, in a solemn, important manner, that by the tact, the conciliatory influence, and the exceeding wisdom of the Foreign Office, wars had been prevented that might have jeopardized the highest interest of this country. A year or two ago, there was the question of the refusal of Belgium to sell the Luxembourg Railway to France, which threatened a serious complication that might have led, in the opinion of his hon. Friend, to war, unless the influence of the Foreign Office had prevailed over the Emperor of the French in favour of peace. And no doubt if war had not now been declared, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would have met any Motion for the reduction of diplomatic expenditure, by claiming credit for the continued preservation of peace. But only the other day M. Rouher let the world into the secret of the Emperor's policy. He said, in addressing the Emperor—"Your Majesty was able to wait, but has occupied
1224
the last four years in perfecting the armament and the organization of the country." So long as the Emperor was not ready to go to war, no doubt the Foreign Office might flatter themselves that they had preserved peace; but it was now seen how utterly futile were their endeavours when events were ripe for the impending struggle. And in the midst of the evils and losses of this war, which might possibly be one of the most disastrous on record, it was to be hoped that it might startle the Foreign Office out of their self-complacency, and might teach them how utterly unable they were to act the part of a second Providence in controlling and guiding the destinies of Europe. They were deficient in the first attribute of a Providence—for they could not tell what would happen to-morrow; no, nor what would occur within two hours. In fact, the Foreign Office was frequently the last to obtain intelligence, and during the past few days most important pieces of information had been first received through other channels, and it was fortunate that whilst the Foreign Office had been slumbering there were other and better sources of intelligence. He did not contend that we should have no representatives abroad; but what he said was, that the events now in progress showed that the small German missions were not of any importance, and he hoped that the Government would take into their serious consideration the necessity of reducing these small missions at the earliest possible date.
MR. HOLMSsaid, he wished to know whether there was any probability of the five large Commissions abroad coming soon to an end?
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was willing to give the Government credit for the fulfilment of its promise in the way of reductions, although that reduction was not very large. He must, however, call attention to the large sum charged for couriers, and he should be glad to know how many couriers had been reduced. He observed a satisfactory reduction in the item of special missions abroad to the amount of £5,000. In China very distressing events had occurred, of which intelligence had been received not from our Minister at Pekin, but through private channels and viâ St. Petersburg—an occurrence not creditable to our Minister at Pekin or consular

1225
agents. It was said, however, that our Minister had now sent a tardy telegram on the subject, and he hoped it would be produced.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished for information in respect to the charge in the Vote for the Registrar?
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he trusted the Government would not adopt the views of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands). If the reductions he urged were made it would be difficult to get men of education and position to enter into the Diplomatic Service.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think the country desired that gentlemen in the Diplomatic Service should be underpaid. He should be much surprised if the Committee on the Diplomatic Service recommended any decrease in their salaries. There was a reduction of no less than £72,000 in Class V of those Estimates. He, however, never expected a material reduction in the Diplomatic Service.
MR. R. SHAWsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington had not recommended reductions in the salaries of the Diplomatic Service, but in the number of small missions abroad.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he gave his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs credit, and he thought the House should do so also, for having so far fulfilled his promise of last year by effecting a reduction of £12,000 in this Vote, and he hoped he would persevere in the same direction.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he believed there was no desire to reduce the payment of really effective missions; but he thought such missions as those to Darmstadt, Coburg, and Stuttgart might be dispensed with.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he must point out that the expenses of living abroad had increased to such an extent of late years that no one would be wise in entering the Diplomatic Service unless he had a fortune, for it was impossible to live upon the salary that was granted by Parliament. As compared with the other Ambassadors of great Powers, ours were very poorly paid. While the French Ambassador at Turkey received £12,000 a year, the English Ambassador there received only £8,000. It was impossible to reduce the staff at most of the missions, and he
1226
must complain of the inadequate number of our attachés in some places. For example, during the recent lamentable events in Greece, Mr. Erskine at Athens was unable to procure from Constantinople a single person to assist him in the discharge of the very difficult and onerous duties which had suddenly devolved upon him.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he could not join the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) in anticipating the discussion which he understood was to be held next Monday about those important events which were now occurring in Europe. But he thought the hon. Gentleman was singularly unhappy in his illustration, for if ever there was a time when diplomacy had evinced its usefulness it was during that period which preceded the untoward incident that led to the outbreak of war. But for that untoward incident peace would have been secured; and diplomacy had actually succeeded in averting from Europe for several days the horrors of war. As to the smaller missions of Europe, they had nothing to do with the matter, which was restricted to France and Prussia, in both of which countries there were Ambassadors of the first rank. The small missions to German Courts had, however, been gradually reduced. With respect to the diplomatic profession, the hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity, as a Member of a Select Committee, of testing the opinions of those who were examined, and when the Committee reported, and the evidence was circulated, hon. Members would have an opportunity of judging whether the service deserved the remarks that had been made about it. With respect to the Commissions which had been issued on various matters, such as the settlement of the Turco-Persian frontier, Hudson's Bay Commission, United States Commission, and others, for which charges had been made in the Estimates, he was happy to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), that most of their duties had terminated by the settlement of the questions at issue. The expenses of the Commissions were decreasing, and would soon vanish. The couriers had been reduced by two. There had also been a reduction on the expenses of the journeys for the public service of £900. It was expected that the messengers would die out; but, looking at the present

1227
state of Europe, he could not say that there would be any reduction in the present number. It was only just to the late Lord Clarendon, to whom the country owed so much, and whose decease was so sincerely deplored, to say that while he wished the service to be maintained with thorough efficiency, he was always ready to avail himself of any opportunity to economize, and the result of his policy was a considerable decrease of diplomatic expenses this year.
MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, that the Reports as to the condition of foreign countries which had recently been sent home were creditable to both the industry and the ability of the diplomatic agents who prepared them.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had no desire or intention to cast any reflection on the members of the Diplomatic Service, nor did he suggest any reduction in their salaries. What he advocated was a reduction of those officials who were maintained at small Courts, like those of Wurtemburg and Dresden, where there was little or nothing for them to do. He looked upon the statement that our Ministers at small Courts obtained intelligence which could not be obtained at larger ones as an entire fallacy, and he begged to give Notice of his intention next Session, after the evidence taken before the Diplomatic Service Committee had been published, to call the attention of the House to the whole subject.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask whether Mr. Wade received the full salary of £6,000 a year, as Ambassador, at Pekin; and whether he had been regularly appointed to that office?
MR. OTWAY: NO.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not think full justice had been done to the exertions of the second Secretary of Legation at Berlin, who in six weeks' uninterrupted work had prepared the information with regard to the tenure of land in Prussia which had been found so valuable in the course of the debates on the Irish Land Bill.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again this day.

CENSUS BILL— [BILL 211.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
CENSUS BILL— [BILL 211.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he would move the re-committal of the Bill, in order to insert a new clause (Statistics of occupation and organization of labour). Had there been a full debate upon the measure, he felt sure the House would never have given its sanction to a Bill involving an expenditure of £180,000 for results of the most incomplete and unsatisfactory character. Gentlemen of the highest authority had informed him that there was scarcely a detail of the information obtained under the last Bill to be absolutely relied upon, and this was a measure almost identical in character. All the most intelligent officers connected with the Registrar General's Department were in favour of a much more extended scheme of inquiry, and if £180,000 were to be spent for Returns which few people cared for, why not spend a few thousands extra and obtain something really valuable, for the Home Secretary's only objection was on the score of expense? He wished the right hon. Gentleman would authorize him to contract with the Statistical Society for the obtaining of the information which was desired as to the position of the various classes of the people, their employment, the wages which they received, and other matters throwing light upon the moral and physical condition of the country; and he would undertake to say that they would do it for one-tenth of what it would cost the Home Secretary. In the Census Bill of 1851 some words were introduced of this nature—
  "And shall also take account of all such other particulars as by the terms of the instructions which may be issued under this Act they shall be directed to inquire into."
  If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to introduce some words of this kind they might be found very useful next year, when the time actually came, if there were a demand for more extensive information. He moved that the Bill be re-committed, in order to insert a new clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed, in order to insert a new Clause,"—(Mr. Bass,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the inquiries which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. T. Bass) was anxious to institute were of a kind totally different from those usually made under the Census. The practice had always been for the 30,000 enumerators to distribute Census papers on a particular Saturday and to call for them again on the Monday following. The papers contained very clear instructions, and it was only in the case of persons who could not read that it was necessary for the enumerators themselves to spend any time in filling up the Returns. But what his hon. Friend required would necessitate the employment of a totally different class of officers; it could not be effected in one day; and the inquiries themselves might be conducted just as naturally in the year 1872 or 1873 as at any other time. Then, again, his hon. Friend wished to have a Return of the rate of wages paid to the persons enumerated in the Census; he proposed to obtain—
  "An account of the establishments, factories' works, shops, or other properties or promises occupied for, and in connection with, each branch of industry, commerce, or manufacture, and of every farm or holding in occupation for agricultural purposes, the number of persons employed in them, whether resident or non-resident therein, with their sex and ages, distinguishing the employers from the employed, the rates of wages paid in the week preceding such enumeration to every class of labourers or artizans so employed, the agents used in the several processes of production by animals, tools, machines, or vessels, and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, may exhibit the occupation of the people, and the organization of labour in England."
  He (Mr. Bruce) believed it would be quite impossible to procure such information from the employers of labour, and especially to obtain accurate Returns of the wages paid. His hon. Friend, who was brewer, cooper, Member of Parliament, landed proprietor, and Heaven knew what beside, complained that the last Census was inaccurate because he was only described as a brewer; but this was scarcely fair criticism. So far from admitting that the last Census was an useless one, he contended—and
  1230
  he had the highest authority in support of his contention—that, though in some respects it might have been better, it was, on the whole, productive of much good.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

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

  INVENTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he rose to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on the subject of legislation in regard to Inventions. Inquiries had been conducted by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1851, and a Royal Commission in 1863. The results were very instructive and suggestive; but the investigation had not been so thorough as many persons expected. Obstacles had stood in the way of legislating for the reward of inventors up to the present time. At the beginning of last Session he had the honour of bringing the subject before the House, and the Attorney General then said that an investigation by a Committee would be expedient. A difficulty afterwards arose about getting a Committee, and about this time 12 months he asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose absence from the House was universally regretted, whether the Government had any intention of proposing a Committee this Session. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was this—
  "If my hon. Friend were to propose a Committee in this House, it would be a very reasonable proposition, to which the Members of the Government and this House would probably agree."
  At the beginning of the present Session he renewed his application to the Board of Trade, but the absence of his right hon. Friend and the pressure of work in the public offices and the House had been such that his hopes and those of the public had been sorely disappointed. A Paper was ordered to be printed at the close of last Session in which hon. Members would find testimonies to the

  1231
  progress of public opinion on this question on the Continent of Europe. It would be seen that since they had discussed the question last year Holland had abolished patents altogether, and Count Bismarck, as Chancellor of the North German Confederation, had presented a State Paper in which he urged their abolition. He (Mr. Macfie) occupied a medium place between the two parties—the one contending that rewards for inventions should be continued in the shape of monopolies, and the other that patents should be abolished altogether and free trade introduced. He believed it was possible to take a middle course, beneficial to the nation and to inventors, by establishing a system of rewards, but in such a way that there should be no exclusive privilege. He wished to ask, Whether the Government were prepared next Session to propose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Law of Patents for inventions, or, if not disposed themselves to do so, whether they would assist any private Member who wished to move for such a Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government did not find themselves prepared to shift materially the ground they took last Session. They admitted at once the difficulties and disadvantages connected with the present state of the law in regard to patents, but they had not been able, as a body, to arrive — nor did he think the public had arrived — at any such clear conviction as to the mode of dealing with that law as would justify them in introducing a measure for remedying its defects or substituting for it a better system. Though his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfie) entertained a decided opinion as to the practicability of substituting State reward for the present system of public reward, yet he (Mr. Gladstone) doubted whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to see his way to the working of such a system, which must involve a heavy demand upon the public purse. The experience of Government Departments was that there was the extremest difficulty in dealing with inventions or with claims to them; and if once inventions came to be made the subject of premiums to be drawn out of the public purse, he was afraid that universal confusion would result. The Government were under an obligation, as a general rule, not to move for a Committee on a particular branch of the law,
  1232
  unless they were prepared to take the lead in directing its investigations, and make proposals which, in the main and in principle, they thought adequate to the solution of the question. The Government did not feel themselves to be in a position to do that; but if his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfie), or any other hon. Gentleman, was desirous of conducting such an inquiry, they certainly would not throw any obstacle in his way, but would heartily wish him well in his endeavour.

GREECE — MURDER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY BRIGANDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY LYTTON BULWER, who had given Notice to call the attention of the House to the case of the Englishmen who were barbarously massacred in Greece on the 21st of April last; and to inquire from Her Majesty's Government what satisfaction it has obtained, or means to obtain, from the Greek Government, in consequence of its conduct on that occasion, said, he did not think it would be well for the House to separate for the Recess without some further notice being taken of the melancholy occurrence in Greece which had come under its consideration at an earlier period of the Session; but having reason to believe that, by deferring that question for a few days, the Government would be more able to give those explanations which it was desirable they should give as fully as they could before the Prorogation, than if he were to bring it forward that evening, he therefore intended to postpone his Motion until another day, of which he would give Notice. He only hoped that his example would be followed by other hon. Gentlemen who felt the same concern as himself in that matter; but, of course, if they chose to bring it forward, he should hold himself at liberty to make some observations upon it.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had not very distinctly caught the reasons which induced his right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Bulwer) to postpone that question; but must say, with all deference to him, that he thought his right hon. Friend was rather trifling with a very important matter. For a month his right hon. Friend had had his Notice on the Paper, and after Questions had been put to him on two occasions, he

  1233
  had a few days ago placed on the Table the distinct terms of his Motion, and fixed that day for its discussion. It was a very proper subject for discussion; it had never yet been fairly discussed, and they were now near the close of the Session. A few day ago he had told his right hon. Friend that if he withdrew his Motion he would himself bring the matter on that evening; but his right hon. Friend assured him he meant then to proceed with it. He had the Papers with him, and had come down to the House prepared to discuss the question. His right hon. Friend was in his place, and he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) received a note saying that his right hon. Friend, for various reasons, would not bring his Motion forward. Holding somewhat different views on that subject from those of his right hon. Friend, and having some facts to adduce in relation to it on behalf of an honourable and gallant man who had had injustice done him in the matter, he must say he thought it improper that this Motion should be treated in that manner. He could hardly hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he gathered that the question was to be deferred indefinitely. Would his right hon. Friend say distinctly whether he would bring it forward this Session or give it up altogether?—for if his right hon. Friend gave it up, he would himself call attention to the question on going into Supply.
  SIR HENRY LYTTON BULWERsaid, his hon. Friend, if he had not distinctly heard his reasons for postponing his Motion, might have waited until he had heard them before he impugned them, and accused him of trifling with the question. He had reason to think the Government would be in a better position to give the explanations which they might be expected to give before the close of the Session at a future day than they were at present; and therefore it was because he wished when the question came on that it should be dealt with in a serious and satisfactory manner, and because he did not wish to trifle with the time of the House, that he desired to postpone his Motion till Friday next. However, he had no wish to make a personal affair of it, and if his hon. Friend thought the question would be safer in his hands, and less likely to be trifled with, he certainly had no objection to his hon. Friend taking it up.
  MR. MONKsaid, he thought the hon.
  1234
  Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had reason to complain of the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer), who placed the Notice of his Motion on the Paper a month ago, and thereby prevented the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight or any other Member giving Notice of a Motion on the subject; and not only that, but within the last two or three days the terms of the Motion had been accurately defined by the right hon. Baronet; and on these grounds it would have been only courteous to the House that the right hon. Baronet should have given earlier intimation of his intention to postpone the Motion, so as to have prevented hon. Members coming up from the country in order to discuss the question, which was one the country wished to be discussed in order to strengthen the hands of the Government.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he thought that the course proposed to be pursued was that which was dictated by common sense, and as to hon. Gentlemen coming up from the country for this discussion, this House, and not the country, was the place for them at present.

ARMY—MILITIA (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  COLONEL FRENCH: I rise, Sir, to move for Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Secretary of State for War, relating to calling out for training the Irish Militia Regiments in 1870, the re-enrolment of their men, or the reduction of their Staff. Under ordinary circumstances, any person conversant with the usages of the House would take it for granted that such correspondence as I have asked for would be laid before Parliament in accordance with the terms of my Motion. However, I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department that it is his intention to refuse the Papers. It certainly appears strange to me that a Minister of such a specially cautious temperament as my right hon. Friend should commit himself in writing to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or to any other person, by a statement which he is either afraid or ashamed to submit to the House of Commons and the inspection of independent Members. Ireland is supposed to be governed by a Lord Lieutenant responsible to his Sovereign

  1235
  for the tranquillity of that country, and there exists no reason why he should be either crippled or fettered by political expediency or red-tape interference. It was the custom—as the Secretary for War very well knows, having himself served as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland—that, before any steps were taken from the War Office to interfere with either the Militia or other military arrangements, a communication to that effect should be made to the Lord Lieutenant. It also was the custom, until the precedent afforded by the present Secretary of State for War, to attend to the objections and to follow the advice of the Queen's representative in Ireland. I feel perfectly persuaded that, from the knowledge possessed by Earl Spencer as to the necessity for continued training and an efficient service, he would be about the last man to sanction either the non-calling out of the Irish Militia, or the steps taken by the Secretary for War to render their Staff ineffective. For what could be more absurd than, as the War Office proposes, to take men out of the Line, who are incapable of teaching the troops their duty, and to set them at the head of drilling operations. Those, of course, who are competent will be kept by the commanding officers of the regiments to which they are attached. Now, all these matters are within the knowledge of Earl Spencer, a man of considerable experience in military administration, possessed of no ordinary amount of sound common sense, remarkable for his administrative ability, and distinguished for that boundless hospitality and manly character so well calculated to conciliate the people of Ireland. Still, the Irish Militia Regiments have not been called out for the last five years—a bad return, let me say, for their conduct when England stood sadly in need of their services. You hesitated to call out the Irish Militia. Why? Was it this? You doubted the loyalty and the fidelity of the nation, and yet you lacked the manliness to say so. The conduct of the Administration almost tempts one, in the words of the poet, to exclaim—
  "Those tyrants teasing, tempting to rebel,
  But well deserve the fate their fretting lips foretell."
  You have cast an imputation of distrust upon a body of men who furnished some of your best soldiers for the Crimean War and the suppression of the Indian
  1236
  Mutiny. No less than 13 Regiments of Militia volunteered for the Crimea—Antrim, Armagh, North and South Cork, Down, Dublin City, Fermanagh, Limerick City, Longford, South Mayo, Roscommon, South Tipperary, and Westmeath. For service in India—Antrim, North Cork, Donegal, Donegal Artillery, Armagh, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary Artillery, and Londonderry, every man of whom, from the colonel to the humblest private, declared his willingness to embark for the seat of war. Under your cheese-paring system of economy you have allowed the Irish Militia force, which supplied the casualties of the Line during the Crimean War, to dwindle down from an efficient strength of 30,000 men to 14,000 men on paper. Ireland has a right to be treated, at least, as well in all respects as England and Scotland. On that equality we are resolutely determined to insist to the utmost. I am not without hope that those hon. Gentlemen who plume themselves on their economic principles, and who profess to mean well towards the sister country, will do all they honestly can to support the claims of Ireland to be treated as a portion of the United Empire. But to the Administration, and I speak in the presence of the Premier, and several other Advisers of the Crown, I offer this advice—be warned in time. The Militia in Ireland, in common with the mass of the people, distrust you. The first step towards dislike has been taken, and the next move is not far distant. You could have an attached and contented people; but bungling and gross mismanagement has, unfortunately, made it far otherwise.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Secretary of State for War, relating to calling out for training the Irish Militia Regiments in 1870, the re-enrolment of their men, or the reduction of their staff,"—(Colonel French,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would venture to say that his right hon. Friend (Colonel French) in the course of his experience, which was very great—he believed

  1237
  greater than his own — never know departmental correspondence of this kind, between the Secretary of State for War and the Lord Lieutenant as to the policy of calling out the Irish Militia, to be laid on the Table of the House; and he (Mr. Cardwell) must, on the present occasion, ask to be excused from producing it. Neither should he feel it his duty to state what share of the correspondence was his own; but he agreed with his right hon. Friend that the responsibility for the calling out the Irish Militia constitutionally devolved upon the Irish Government and the Lord Lieutenant. It was not from any want of confidence in the loyalty of the Irish people generally, and certainly not from the smallest distrust of the gallantry of those enrolled in the Irish Militia, that it had not been called out. It was not thought necessary by the Irish Government, even in the early part of the year, to call out the Irish Militia. Then the question was, whether it was right to go to any expense in the matter of enrolment; and with respect to the new enrolment the right hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Cardwell) had introduced a new regulation, though in the next sentence he said that the regulation had been in existence for the last five years. Therefore, the responsibility for the regulation must belong, not only to himself, but to many of his predecessors in Office. The enrolments were continued till the present year; but they involved an absolute waste of money, because there had been no training since 1865, and it was not intended that there should be any training in the present year. With regard to new recruits the Government were perfectly confident that the gallantry and loyalty of the Irish people would furnish abundance of them whenever it should be thought proper to call out the Irish Militia. As for the permanent Staff, they were very useful for certain purposes when the Militia were not called out; but there was no necessity for the number to be so great, and, with the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Government had determined not to reduce the permanent Staff; but when a certain number of vacancies occurred those vacancies would not be filled up. That this process had not been carried to a very great extent would be admitted, when he stated the number had been 1,208 and it was now
  1238
  1,177. With respect to the quartermasters, his right hon. Friend said that Ireland should be treated with the same equality as England and Scotland. Well, they had been treated in exactly the same manner. The quartermasters were not satisfied with their position, and wished for a retiring allowance. In consequence, the circumstances of their position were reviewed, and the Government and the House agreed that they should have a retiring allowance, and that in future the office of quartermaster should cease. He believed he must now have have satisfied his right hon. Friend that he had acted constitutionally by acting in concurrence with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that he had treated Ireland in a perfectly equal way with England and Scotland; and his right hon. Friend, if he acted in conformity with his experience in that House, would not insist on the production of departmental correspondence.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—THE FLYING SQUADRON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had intended to call attention to the great loss of men which had resulted from the employment of the Flying Squadron, but he would now condense his observations into the form of a Question. Last year he took the opportunity of objecting to the employment of six ships and 2,800 men of the Navy in a way he thought not advantageous to the public service. He admitted that the assembling of the squadron and the practice of the men in evolutions were likely to be advantageous, and it was not to the assembling of the squadron that he in common with the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) objected; but they thought it wrong that the ships and men, the former being extremely scarce, should be sent to a distant part of the world, as should circumstances arise in Europe requiring their aid, the Government would not have the power to employ them. Such squadrons of evolution or exercise should be employed in the Mediterranean or Atlantic, where their services would be available at short notice. Moreover, the part of the world to which they were sent was likely to be injurious to the health of the crews, and the temptations

  1239
  there to desert were considerable. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated the other night that 58 men had deserted during the short time the squadron was at the Colonies. It had been stated that the squadron had been telegraphed to return, but the only mode of telegraphing to Valparaiso, the next port of call, was by telegraphing through North America to Cuba and thence viâ ship to Panama and Chili, or by packet to Rio do Janeiro and thence by wire to Valparaiso. Telegraphing, therefore, was no use, and he could not see how the squadron, though telegraphed to return immediately, could reach this country before November, and though men were scarce, yet, if the statement in the newspapers were true, the right hon. Gentleman was about to send out another Flying Squadron. He thought such a proceeding would have the effect of weakening the national force near home in a way disadvantageous to the country, and he, therefore, wished to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman purposed to commission another squadron for particular service, for that was the technical expression, and to keep it in distant seas, so that the Government would be deprived of the opportunity of availing themselves of its services if they should be required?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that last year the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) objected to the squadron being sent to New Zealand, which he said was in a disturbed state. [Sir JOHN HAY: And it was not sent in consequence.] Yes it was sent there, and to three ports instead of two, and the Government had received despatches from that Colony stating that its visit had conferred great benefit there, and expressing a hope that the Government would send another squadron to New Zealand. The Flying Squadron had visited Japan; but there had not been the smallest objection made to its presence there, as the hon. and gallant Baronet had prophesied. On the contrary, Admiral Hornby had been requested by Her Majesty's Minister there, at the desire of the Japanese Government, to receive a certain number of Japanese students on board, and the result of the visit had been in every way satisfactory. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had now raised a fresh set of objections to the Flying Squadron. One was that the parts of the world to which
  1240
  it had been sent were not favourable to health or discipline; but there was not the smallest foundation for that prophecy after the events. The health of the squadron, instead of being so much injured by its movements, had been improved. A report had appeared in the newspapers that the squadron was in an unsatisfactory state owing to the short supply of water; but, on inquiry, it was found that a mistake had been committed by the newspaper's correspondent, the supply per man being stated at a quart and a-half per diem, whereas it ought to have been a gallon and a-half. Then as to the alleged number of deserters, the fact was that in one of our Colonies the men had been granted free tickets over all the railways, and in consequence some were "stragglers" when the Fleet went to sea, and among them 80 or 90 blue-jackets. Some of these had since been recovered, but the desertion had been greatly exaggerated. It was said he had telegraphed to Valparaiso to order the squadron to return; but the fact was there was no telegraph to Valparaiso, and the squadron was not ordered to alter any of its movements, but only to use a little more coal. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether it was intended that there should be a second Flying Squadron. He had stated, earlier in the Session, that a squadron of seven frigates and corvettes would be ready to sail in October or November next. Of course it would be impossible for him in the month of July to say—and the House would appreciate the reasons why he should not say—where that squadron would be sent. All he could say was that there was abundance of men and stores for the purpose, and when the time came the Government would take care that it was properly equipped and sent to the proper place.
  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.)
(5.) £208,520, to complete the sum for Consular Services.
MR. HOLMSsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move a reduction

1241
in the Vote of £7,850. As the Committee on the Diplomatic and Consular Service would not report before the end of next Session, and as it was quite clear that before the Estimates of 1872–3 their recommendations could not fully come into effect, he deemed it his duty to place that Motion on the Paper; but though he had studied the subject most carefully he found that he could not do justice to it without occupying too much time at that late period of the Session. He hoped that next year a desire would be shown to make a reduction in this extravagant expenditure; he believed that there was no Department of the State which more required the vigilant scrutiny of the House of Commons than the Consular Department. Unless the Estimates of next year showed a very marked decrease it would be his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject, with the view of its requesting the Government to reconsider the Vote. It was also his intention to have illustrated the manner in which the public money was thus wasted by referring to such Consulates as Venice, Corunna, Seville, Leipsic, Warsaw, and Janina, which were either of minor importance or altogether useless; but he trusted that there would be a large reduction on this Vote by another year. He wished the Consuls to be well paid; but there were dozens of Consuls more than were required.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Holms) that some of the Consuls might be reduced, and a practical proof of the soundness of that opinion lay in the fact that some of them had been already reduced, and that one or two others would not again appear in the Estimates. Although he could not accept the statement that Venice was no longer an important port—for Gentlemen who were keen reformers sometimes allowed themselves to be led into exaggerations on these matters—it certainly was not as important as before the Italian War. And, accordingly, the present Consul General Perry, one of the best of our civil servants, had been informed that he would be relieved next year, and in future our consular representative there would be an official with a comparatively small salary. Corunna was a station of considerable importance, owing to the trade of the district with Great Britain, and the pay, £650, was not large, remembering
1242
that it included the allowance for office, &c. Seville was one of the stations which would require consideration; but with regard to the determination of this or other questions, it must be remembered that just at present the time of our own Foreign Minister was occupied by pressing questions of much greater magnitude. The Consulship at Leipsic was established at the time when the Zollverein acquired importance, and it was still a valuable centre of information; at least, if it were terminated some other Consulship would have to be established. Some posts might be considered semi-political. For instance, from the nature of things, the Consul at Warsaw discharged functions quite as much of a diplomatic as of a consular character. That post was not one which would be maintained for purposes of commerce, but we were obliged to have a representative there, who could only be of consular rank, owing to the relations of the place to the Russian Government. He had now touched on most of the points to which his attention had been called. But he might add that a Commission was going to Constantinople next year, which would take the opportunity of inquiring as to some of the consular stations in the East. He might also point out that upon the China Consular Estimates this year there was a saving of £9,903 as compared with last year, which had been effected mainly through the zeal and knowledge of one gentleman, Lord Tenterden, who was a clerk in the Foreign Office.
MR. MONKsaid, he hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would seriously consider the very great and, in his (Mr. Monk's) opinion, unnecessary cost attaching to the Consulships in the Ionian Islands.
MR. CHADWICKsaid, while believing that there were Consulships which should be dispensed with, and some where the salaries should be reduced, he was of opinion that there were others in which the remuneration was inadequate. The British Consul in New York occupied a position which was hardly second to any Minister in any country. Yet his salary was a very moderate one, and he was not dignified with the rank of Consul General. He returned fees to the amount of £3,000 a year. Why should he be placed in a second position, and why should not his services be more

1243
appreciated? While reducing where services were not required, he hoped they would not act in a manner which would lead to the inference that they were not prepared to reward liberally good service when rendered.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, having been recently in New York he thought it right to add his testimony in support of what had been advanced by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had been in communication with our Consul in New York, and he knew how valuable were the services he rendered to this country.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he did not think that a general and indiscriminate onslaught should be made on the Consuls, who had often much to endure in the discharge of their duties. Some distinction should be made, and a Consulate like that of New York, which promoted commerce was one which was worthy of the consideration suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Chadwick).
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the action of the Committee which had been appointed should not relieve the Government from the responsibility which properly pressed on them to see whether a considerable reduction could not be made in this Department. He was afraid that there was a disposition on the part of the Government when a Committee was appointed to throw off the responsibility which was proper to them, and not to take any steps in the direction of economy. He believed reductions might be made in various parts of the globe, and he should be glad if the Foreign Office would assist the Diplomatic Salaries Committee which would sit next year by making independent inquiries with a view to the same result for which that Committee was appointed.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he entirely concurred in what had been said in regard to the Consul at New York. The expense of living in New York was enormous, and, although the salary of the Consul was high, he was bound to say they had most satisfactory evidence for concluding that it was hardly possible for a gentleman to live on the salary assigned to him. There was also a consular officer at Monte Video, to whom an allowance was assigned of £150 per year for a clerk, which he was obliged to keep, though it was clearly established that no suitable clerk could be engaged
1244
there for a less sum than £200 per annum. He did not believe that it was the desire of this country that those who served it should be put to expenses out of their privy purse, and that they should not be able to discharge their duties unless they had private means. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) complained of the expensiveness of the Consulates in the Ionian Islands. But in these consular establishments there had been a reduction from £3,475 to £2,010, and further reductions were in progress. In time most of these Consulates would be done away with. He was not aware that there was any officer extravagantly paid, although he was not prepared to say that every consular office which now existed was necessary.
Mr. CHADWICKIn answer to Mr. CHADWICK,
MR. OTWAYsaid, he had no authority to promise that the Consul at New York should be made Consul General. That question rested with the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (Mr. Otway) knew of no reason why the Consul should not be advanced in rank.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £38,116, to complete the sum for Colonies, Grants in Aid.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to call attention to the painful position of Colonial Governors while waiting for a new appointment. During intervals of that kind no provision was made for them, and he wished to suggest that they should either have larger salaries which would enable them to save competences, or, in lieu of that, should be entitled, after serving, say, six or seven years, to a certain amount of pension, which would place them in positions similar to those of half-pay officers. If the Colonial Office did not agree to the proposition, he should bring in a Bill to carry out some arrangement of the kind.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the salaries of Colonial Governors were quite large enough, especially when compared with the payment received by the President of the United States.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he feared that he could not hold out any hope to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) that the Government could comply with his request. He believed there was no difficulty in

1245
getting men of high rank and standing to accept the office of Colonial Governor; and he had heard no complaints on the subject to which the hon. Member had referred.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the Vote this year was less by £16,000 than that of last year; but this reduction was merely in respect of an accidental circumstance. The fact that many of the Colonies now paid their Governors was a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane). He wished to have an explanation of the item of £1,000 for the Gambia, and to point out that from two other items it appeared that our West Coast of Africa possessions, which were of little use to us now that the slave trade had ceased, cost us £14,000 a year. He desired to know also whether a fort on a small island in the Gambia had been abandoned, in accordance with a recommendation made some years ago in anticipating tribal disturbances? He would ask further, how far the principle of consolidation of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Bodies in the West India Islands had been carried out? These islands would, he believed, be better governed if there were fewer Governors. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) would also give some explanation of the items relating to Heligoland and the Falkland Islands.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to know if £1,800 had been granted for a new house to the Governor of Heligoland?
MR. MONSELLsaid, that there was no medium between giving up Heligoland altogether and maintaining the present establishment. The Government having, after consultation with the Admiralty, determined to retain it, the expenditure set down in the Estimates was absolutely necessary. With reference to the Governor's house at Heligoland, it was necessary for the Governor to have some place to live in. As to the Falkland Islands, the expenditure had been much reduced, the Estimate now being only £3,400, and these islands afforded a secure station to which vessels passing round Cape Horn might resort in their course through those stormy seas. With respect to the West Coast of Africa, the expenditure was greater than his right hon. Friend (Sir
1246
Charles Adderley) had stated. There was a very strong feeling in regard to abandoning any possession there; but, if it were considered politic to maintain those possessions, the cost of them must be maintained. He hoped part of the cost of Gambia would in future be borne by the colonists. The M'Carthy Island had the military withdrawn already, and he hoped it might be possible to do away with the establishment there altogether. In consequence of recent political occurrences, the negotiations for handing the Gambia over to France had been suspended. Looking to the prosperous state of the finances on the Gold Coast and at Sierra Leone, he hoped that in future years they would be able to greatly reduce the Estimate. As regarded the West Indies, the consolidation of the Government and judicial staff of the Leeward Islands was proceeding very rapidly, and that policy would be pursued to a greater extent as opportunity offered. When the different local Governments had agreed to a Resolution on the subject, it was proposed that one single Governor only should be appointed for these islands.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought that in the present juncture of affairs it was necessary to consider what protection should be afforded to our more distant Colonies. He must insist on the duty of this country to protect the Colonies, and on the propriety of a confederation embracing them and the mother country.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £2,869, to complete the sum for Orange River Territory and St. Helena.
(8.) £2,930, to complete the sum for Slave Trade, Commissioners for Suppression of.
(9.) £19,785, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c.
(10.) £8,545, to complete the sum for Emigration.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he thought that two Commissioners for migration were not required, and he hoped that it might be arranged that there should be only one in future. He also hoped that room would be found for the Emigration Office in the new Colonial Office.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the Emigration Office would be placed with the

1247
new Colonial Office. They were absorbing the clerks of the Emigration Office into the Colonial Office as rapidly as possible; but he did not think it was advisable to do away with one of the two Commissioners. That would be hardly any saving to the country, as théir superannuation would nearly equal their salary.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) £600, to complete the sum for Coolie Emigration.
(12.) £12,759, to complete the sum for Treasury Chest.
(13.) £264,783, to complete the sum for Superannuation and Retired Allowances.
MR. RYLANDScomplained that there had been an enormous increase in this Vote, and that the whole sum the country now paid for superannuation was more than £1,000,000. If the Government proceeded on the principle that all officers should retire compulsorily at a certain age they might get rid of this charge, though perhaps at an increased salary. There was no reason why the various public servants should not, by means of assurance societies, or by devoting a portion of their pay to the formation of a superannuation fund, provide for their old age, without putting the country to such a heavy expense.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the increase on this particular vote was this year £59,000, which was more than accounted for by the Bankruptcy and Chancery compensations, given in consequence of recent legislation. He admitted that the charge for superannuation was heavy, but he did not think that the suggestion of a compulsory retirement at a certain age would meet the evil; and he would remind the House that the system of superannuation by deduction from the salaries had been already tried and failed. There were some elements of hope. Many of the superannuations were the result of recent arrangements in the direction of economy, and there would be a gradual diminution of the total amount. The Civil Service was now on a better footing, and he hoped that in the course of the next year or two a scheme would be developed which would still further promote economy and efficiency by diminishing the number of established clerks, and introducing
1248
clerks on the ordinary footing of commercial clerks.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £31,550, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
(15.) £24,000, to complete the sum for Relief of Distressed British Seamen.
(16.) £13,545, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
(17.) £4,714, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable Allowances, &c. Great Britain.
(18.) £4,324, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable Allowances, &c. Ireland.
(19.) £23,090, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
(20.) £31,147, to complete the sum for Local Dues on Shipping.
(21.) £480, to complete the sum for Malta and Alexandria Telegraph, &c.
(22.) £1,300, to complete the sum for Flax Cultivation, Ireland.
MR. MONKsaid, he would beg to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to continue that Vote?
MR. STANSFELDreplied that the Vote was last year £3,000. This year it was only £2,000. The Government had determined on reducing it £1,000 a year until it ceased altogether.
Vote agreed to.
(23.) £3,465, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.
(24.) £989,837, for Customs Department.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would remind the Committee that both the late and the present Government had made certain promises leading the officers of the Customs Department to anticipate an increase to their wretched salaries. Now, the Government ought to keep good faith with the small people as well as the great. The time had long gone by since those pledges were given, and he could not understand why the officers should be kept so long in this painful suspense. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and the officers of Customs he believed were now realizing that saying.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not sorry that the hon. Alderman had called attention to this subject, because it was quite true that the clerks in the

1249
Customs were led to expect more than two years ago an increase of salary, and especially that the disproportion between their salaries and those of the officers of the Inland Revenue would be taken into consideration. It was very well known that the right hon. Gentleman had been asked on several occasions why the Minute of the late Board of Treasury had not been acted upon. The reply given by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that the decision of the late Government had not been rescinded by the present Board. It was only suspended. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." When the present Government had suspended the recommendation of the late one upon this subject for more than one and a-half years, it appeared to him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that their conduct amounted to something like a rescinding of it altogether. He thought that the time had arrived when it behoved the Government to state really what their views were on the matter. He had no wish to say anything to encourage complaints on the part of the Civil Service; but it was most unreasonable to expect that those officers would remain contented under the extraordinary treatment they had received.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he wished to know whether any progress had been made, or was likely to be made, in regard to the consolidation or amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue?
MR. GRAVESsaid, he would beg to ask when the inquiry which had been going on in relation to the grievances in the Customs in London would be extended to the principal outports?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that when the present Government came into Office they took into their consideration the Treasury Minute of the late Government, but thought they would not be justified in acting upon it without further investigation. With reference to the question of increased pay, they came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in making any such proposal, unless they could succeed in devising some scheme which would enable them to do so without making a materially increased charge on the Revenue. The inquiry, which extended to every branch of the Customs in London, had lasted longer than had been expected. The
1250
Reports on each branch, after being submitted to the Board of Customs, had to be considered and decided upon by the Treasury. The last of the Reports—that on the Statistical Department—had not yet been received, but he would give the Committee some earnest of his desire to come to as rapid a conclusion as possible when he stated that to-day he had written a letter to Sir Thomas Fremantle, the Chairman of the Board of Customs, expressing regret that the final Report had not yet been submitted, and informing him and his Colleagues that he should be prepared to remain in town after the close of the Session in order to consider the Report of the Board, and would not leave the subject till he had arrived at a conclusion in regard to it. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) he might state that they had not as yet entered on the question of the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think the revision of salaries ought to be delayed on account of the want of the Report referred to. It ought to be in no way dependent on the condition of the Statistical Department.
MR. GRAVESsaid, that for the last two or three months he had had a Notice on the Paper with reference to the Statistical Returns of the Board of Trade, and had put down his Motion for Friday next. He hoped that some final Report from the Customs would then be forthcoming, so that the Secretary to the Board of Trade might be enabled to state the plans which the Government had in contemplation for the improvement of the Office.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he hoped, after the promises which had been held out for the improvement of the position of the Customs' officers, faith would be kept with them. He also hoped that a public saving might be effected by abolishing some of the minor bonding estabments.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not entertain the slightest hope that the House and the commercial community would tolerate the abolition of the bonding system. If the suggestion that whenever Customs ports did not pay their expenses they should be abandoned were acted on, an enormous stimulus would be given to smuggling. They were endeavouring

1251
to reduce the establishments in small ports.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) £1,592,751, for Inland Revenue Department.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask whether there was any hope that next year the Government would allow the superannuations and pensions granted to officers in this Department to be commuted, as in the case of pensions granted to officers in the Army and Navy?
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the system had been introduced experimentally in the case of officers in the Army and Navy, and the Government did not think that a sufficient time had elapsed to enable a judgment to be formed conclusively as to the propriety of extending the principle.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped that in future the sub-heads under this Vote would be made more intelligible, as at present they were perfectly useless.
Vote agreed to.
(26.) £2,376,979, for Post Office.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, a Notice upon this subject had been standing in his name upon the Paper for months; but he would now compress what he had to say into the form of a Question. In every civilized country except our own great facilities were afforded for the posting of letters at railway stations and in railway letter-vans. In July last his noble Friend the Postmaster General gave an undertaking that an efficient service of this kind should be established; but four months later he had personal experience of the fact that this order, if given, had not been carried out. Perhaps his noble Friend would be able to say whether any and what orders had been given to all officers in railway vans to accept letters on the conditions stated last year. It would be more convenient if boxes were placed in the vans for the reception of letters. There were also very few railway stations where boxes for posting letters were to be found; and he could state that four or five months ago there was on the Great Western Railway only one post office at a station between London and Exeter. A few months ago he was honoured with an interview by the Postmaster General in France, who kindly prepared and gave him a report of the
1252
system which was adopted in that country. As time did not allow him to make the quotations from that report which he had intended, he would hand it over to his noble Friend for his information. He might state, however, that each of the communes into which France was divided might obtain permission to place a letter-box at their own railway station, on condition that they established this box at their own cost, which was very trifling. He knew the Post Office officials feared that difficulties would arise in sorting the letters; but if these had been got over in France, why not in this country?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the public had already the privilege of posting letters in the travelling mail vans; but they had not made use of it to any great extent. In June last directions were given that letters should be received in all travelling post-offices, on condition that they were delivered by hand to a sorter, and that an extra fee of 2d. was paid. The first condition was considered necessary on account of the difficulty that was apprehended of making the public aware of what letters could advantageously be posted in this manner. He believed that in some instances the directions had been misunderstood by the Post Office authorities; but he would take care that their memories were refreshed on the subject, and that it was made generally known to the public that there did exist this facility for posting letters in travelling post-offices under the conditions he had named. If there was any desire on the part of the House that these facilities should be more widely extended, he would take care that the necessary directions were given. There were already a considerable number of letter-boxes in railway stations, and the number was being continually increased. He could only say generally that his Department was anxious to give all facilities which might be considered beneficial to the public.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he would suggest that Bills should be placarded at the district post-offices and railway stations throughout the country, so that the public might be made aware of the existence of the postal facilities which the noble Marquess had described.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought means should be taken to enable persons to

1253
post letters from London to the country up to 9 or 10 o'clock at night.
Vote agreed to.
(27.) £807,153, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he rose to ask a Question of which he had given Notice. He believed a provision had been inserted in the contracts, providing, in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee, for the conveyance of mails by way of Brindisi. He wished to know whether the Peninsular and Oriental Company had been notified that the time was at hand when they would be called upon to make arrangements for the conveyance of the Indian mails from Brindisi to Alexandria? The works were rapidly progressing at the Mont Cenis tunnel, and the headings were expected to be carried through early next year; and it was important for the interests of commerce that advantage should be taken of that route as soon as possible. He wished also to call attention to the high rate of postage charged between India and England. Letters from India were charged 1s. 3d., whilst those from Australia paid only 8d. He hoped that means would be taken to reduce the present rate of postage to India.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished to ask if the accounts of the Peninsular and Oriental Company had been so kept as to enable the Postal Department to make satisfactory arrangements with them for each year's working of the contract?
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he must complain that much of the advantage accruing from the Fell Railway was neutralized by the delay of the trains at Susa.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the trains were also delayed on the French side owing to the jealousy on the part of the French authorities.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought it could hardly be assumed that the service through the Mont Cenis tunnel could be as regular as by way of Marseilles. He wished to know whether the Vote now under consideration would meet all the requirements for the year's service?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, notice had been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company that they would in a given time be required to establish a service by Brindisi. No Vote was necessary at present for the route by Brindisi instead of by Marseilles.
1254
Information had been received by the Post Office that the tunnel under Mont Cenis would be completed in the autumn of the next year, and when it was he did not know why that route should be subject to greater uncertainty than any other. The examination of the accounts of the Peninsular and Oriental had led to a considerable difference of opinion between the Post Office and the company as to the mode in which those accounts ought to be kept. The question was still under consideration, and, as it was possible the accounts might be referred to arbitration, it would not be right that he should say more on the subject at present. It would be impossible for him to give any assurance to the Committee that the Vote which they were now asked to pass would be a complete Vote for the purpose for which it was intended. He must remind the Committee that the contract was not entered into by the present Government, but by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was a Member, and which allowed the payment to the Peninsular and Oriental to vary from £500,000 to £400,000. It would not be wise to take a Vote for the larger sum. It was not yet settled what they should have to pay the company for the last year; much less was it possible to say what they should have to pay for this year. It was true that the postage to India was very high; but even with the present high rate the service was not a profitable one, nor could he hold out any hope at present that the rates could be reduced.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought it was time to report Progress. The Prime Minister himself had stated that measures which had not been discussed would not be taken after half-past 12.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they were now on the last Vote but one of the regular list, and he hoped the Committee would be allowed to go on. He admitted that he had said what the hon. Member had stated, but that applied to the business several weeks ago, and when they were come to within 10 days or a fortnight of the end of the Session, such a rule could not be adhered to.
MR. BENTINCKhoped that an endeavour would be made to expedite the mails to Italy, so that a morning mail might be sent by the French Government.
Vote agreed to.
(28.) £270,000, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraph Service.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he wished to inquire whether, in the re-arrangement of the Post Office Telegraph Department, it was intended to re-absorb those who had been thrown out of employment in consequence of the transfer of the telegraphs from the companies to the Government?
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he desired to to know whether anything had been done to facilitate communication with Ireland by laying down new cables? A most important Question had been lately asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and answered by the First Minister of the Crown at six in the evening, and every newspaper in Dublin came out next morning without having a single portion of that answer given. It had been stated on a former occasion by the noble Marquess that the number of messages was now so great between England and Ireland that there was not adequate provision for sending them. But that was not a sufficient answer, because it was foreseen that the decrease in the cost of transmission would lead to a very large increase in the number of messages. Another complaint was that the city of Cork was cut off after seven o'clock in the evening from telegraphic communication with Dublin.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he wanted to know whether in the event of loss occurring from the miscarriage, faulty delivery, or blundering transmission of messages, there were no means by which the persons sustaining that loss could be reimbursed?
MR. GOURLEYsaid, the telegraphic system was now worse than it used to be when performed by the private companies, and he wished to know whether the Vote now asked for it was less than the expenditure formerly incurred by those companies? If the Vote was not less, they ought to have the service conducted at least as efficiently as the companies had done it. He understood that the employés were now paid so much per message instead of per day.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), with respect to retiring allowances, he had to state that that matter, which was rather complicated, was still under consideration. None of the pensions
1256
which had to be given under the Telegraphs Act had yet been awarded. The principle on which the Government proceeded was to employ, as far as was possible, every person who had been in the service of the companies. As far as he could form an opinion at present, the revenue from the telegraphs would be fully equal to that which was anticipated. In answer to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), he could not state that any new cable had actually been laid down, but tenders had been advertised for and received, and he expected that in a very few days the contract would be entered into for laying down that cable. The increased business arising from the diminished charge came upon them before they had the opportunity of making the necessary arrangements to meet it; and it was impossible for them to make the requisite preparations for extensions until the lines came into their possession. The complaint with regard to the city of Cork should be carefully inquired into. The Post Office held (subject to legal correction) that it was not liable for loss caused by delay in the delivery or the miscarriage of messages. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) asked whether their expenditure exceeded or was less than that of the late companies. His own impression was that, taking into account the total expenditure of all the companies, the Post Office had, by concentration of the offices, succeeded in considerably diminishing the expenses. The hon. Member had complained that they paid their servants so much per message instead of per day, but exactly the opposite complaint was made when that subject was last under discussion. They had adopted the principle of paying partly according to the number of messages, and he did not think it was a bad arrangement for securing the proper delivery of messages.
Vote agreed to.
(29.) £1,300,000, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bonds.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

CANADA (GUARANTEE OF LOAN) BILL.
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stansfeld.)
CANADA (GUARANTEE OF LOAN) BILL.

  [BILL 225.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he denied the expediency of guaranteeing such loans, except under circumstances which did not exist in the case of Canada, which surely "came of age" long ago. Travellers who passed from the States into Canada were struck by the signs of its retrogression. We were helping it to build legislative halls in the backwoods, to construct railroads which were not likely to pay their working expenses, and to construct fortifications which would be a futile menace, for the people of the United States expected some day to add Canada to their number, and to do it peaceably, and would pay any reasonable sum for its acquisition, and they had no idea of invading it by force, although they knew that the Canadians, with or without fortifications, were practically defenceless. Our own experience of fortifications elsewhere was not encouraging. It might be said we enabled the Canadians to borrow money at 4 per cent instead of 6 per cent, but in proportion as we raised their credit we depressed our own. Believing that the general system of colonial guarantees was pernicious and dangerous, if not futile, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir David Wedderburn.)
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the best answer he could give to his hon. Friend was to state that the Bill was introduced in fulfilment of an agreement binding on the honour of this country. In 1865 four Canadian Ministers visited this country, and the two principal subjects discussed by them and the authorities in this country were the Confederation of the North American Provinces and the defences of Canada. The understanding come to was that if the Provinces
  1258
  undertook the work of defence Her Majesty's Government would apply to Parliament for the amount of the present loan. In 1868 the Legislature of Canada passed an Act authorizing the raising of a loan of £1,100,000 under Imperial guarantee for the erection of fortifications in Canada, and had, therefore, fulfilled her part of the agreement.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsaid, as that agreement had not received the sanction of Parliament he contended it was not binding on that House. He found on the back of the Bill the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in 1867, objected to a measure identical with the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "I do not see why, because we are assenting to the Colonies adopting any form of government they may choose, we are to take upon ourselves to find the money for them to undertake this scheme. I think that by bribing them to enter into this Confederation by guaranteeing this sum, we are taking upon ourselves a responsibility which we shall one day deeply rue.…. This plan of inducing the Colonies by persuasion and by the influence of a loan of public money, to enter into a particular form of government is fraught with this evil, that we represent ourselves to them and to the world as taking a peculiar interest in the manner in which they choose to regulate their internal affairs and their relations with the United States. Now that we have given them self-government, let them manage their affairs their own way, and do not let us make ourselves responsible for the manner in which they regulate their internal or foreign relations. The management of our own affairs is quite sufficient for us without our mixing ourselves up in matters with which we have no concern, and over which we do not for a moment profess to exercise the slightest control."—[3 Hansard, clxxxvi. 760–1.]
  He should be glad to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say with regard to the Bill now before the House.
  MR. GLADSTONErose. [Cries of "The Chancellor of the Exchequer."] He said that it was contrary to the rules of the House that a Member should speak twice on the same Motion, and, in consequence of the lengthy extract just read by the hon. Member, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be taken to have already spoken once. He thought that the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in respect to the particular point in dispute when his speech was delivered a very sound doctrine, and with regard to the present Bill he admitted that the House was

  1259
  free to consider the agreement come to with Canada as one merely of the Executive Government, and not of itself binding on the House. He maintained, however, that the House had, to a considerable extent, bound itself by its own act. The engagement made was that this country should bear the expense of the fortifications of Quebec, and Canada should bear the greater portion of the expense of the fortifications of Montreal. The scheme for the fortifications of Quebec and Montreal was one scheme; and when Parliament voted for the fortifications of Quebec it substantially approved the entire scheme, and so far promised the loan under consideration. The measure was no menace to the United States, as some had urged. The disparity between the resources and population of the two countries would not permit this idea to be encouraged, any more than the Belgian fortresses could be construed into a menace to France. This guarantee was a part of the price England paid for being relieved of the obligation to protect Canada by military. England had now arrived at that state of things in which Canada was to undertake almost entirely its own defence, and the pernicious system of the past was no longer to be encouraged. Canada would be relieved, in a great measure, from all control, and England would be relieved from demands upon her Exchequer on account of Canada. The impression that the construction of this fortress was being forced on Canada had no foundation. It was from no pressure on England's part, real or supposed, that Canada built these fortifications; it was her own spontaneous wish that they should be constructed, and that England should fulfil her engagements respecting them. England had undertaken to make the guarantee, and he would urge the acceptance of the Bill as a means of getting rid of that demoralizing system, the burden of supporting troops in our Colonies.
  MR. MONKsaid, he must express his surprise that a large crop of loans should be brought forward at a period of the Session when they could not be fully discussed. The same thing occurred last year and the year before; and no one had expressed himself more strongly against such loans than the Prime Minister, unless it were the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the supposed
  1260
  pledge, the sums granted to Quebec were a free gift voted in Committee of Supply. The present Government had undertaken to carry out a pledge given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in 1865, but it certainly was not the opinion of the late Government that any pledge had been given to Canada that the loan should be guaranteed; and, in proof of the latter assertion, he might mention a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) when Colonial Secretary. He should cordially support the Amendment of the Member for Ayrshire (Sir David Wedderburn).
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 17: Majority 48.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 234.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 234.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Householders' schedules to be left at dwelling houses).
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Peeblesshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) to move the insertion of the words of which he had given Notice. He would not detain the Committee at that hour of the morning by stating the reasons why he, in common with a very large number of the people of Scotland, desired that the Census about to be taken should contain this information. But he might say that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had expressed its strong desire that the religious profession of the people should be recorded, and he might express his regret that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce), representing as he did a large and influential Scotch constituency, should not have adhered to the views which he believed he held, that this information should be recorded.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "condition," to insert the words "religious profession,"—(Sir John Hay.)
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

VISCOUNT GOUGH (GUN METAL FOR STATUE).

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord OTHO FITZGERALD)reported Her Majesty's Answer to Address [27th July] as follows:—
  I have received your Address praying that I will direct that sufficient Gun Metal be issued for the construction of the Statue about to be erected in Dublin to commemorate the services of the late Field Marshal Viscount Gough, and assuring me that you will make good the cost of the same:
  And I have given directions in accordance with the purpose of your Address.

  TRUCK ACTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary BRUCE, Bill for facilitating in certain cases the proceedings of Commissioners to be appointed to make inquiry respecting the operation of the Truck Acts and alleged offences against those Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary BRUCE and Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 252.]

  EXPIRING LAWS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 253.]

  SANITARY ACT (DUBLIN) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill amending the Sanitary Act (1866) so far as relates to the City of Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 254.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (259); Local Government Supplemental (No.4)* (260); Census* (264); Petroleum* (265).
Second Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2)* (227); Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3)* (228); Dublin City Voters Disfranchisement* (237).
Committee—Elementary Education (235–262); Telegraph Acts Extension* (206).
Committee — Report — Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment* (231).
Report—Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland)* (240); Absconding Debtors* (256–263); Sheriffs (Scotland) Act (1853) Amendment, &c.* (257).
Third Reading — Curragh of Kildare* (183); Settled Estates* (255); Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland)* (192), and passed.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—ALLEGED DRAFT TREATY.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having given me permission to ask him a Question, I
  1150
  now rise to do so. It relates to the projected Treaty between France and Prussia. I remarked last night that your Lordships and the country would be very anxious for further information respecting the Projet de Traité which appeared in The Times of Monday. A few days after its publication in that journal my noble Friend (Earl Granville) stated to your Lordships that Lord Augustus Loftus, the British Ambassador at Berlin, had verified the document as authentic, and that it would be published in the Prussian official journals. My noble Friend also stated that he had had a conversation with the French Ambassador, who treated it as a project which had never been seriously entertained, and to which the two parties had never agreed. Since my noble Friend made that statement to your Lordships, the Prussian Government has apparently published in the official journal a letter which Count Bismarck, the Chancellor of the North German Confederation, has addressed to Count Bernstorff, the Prussian Ambassador at this Court. That letter also appears in the newspapers this morning, and after its perusal it appears to me a document of such an extraordinary nature that I can only make use of the word "appalling" to describe its tenour. It is almost impossible for us, I think, to believe implicitly what it states; but I wish to ask my noble Friend if he will state to the House what he knows of the matter? The letter is as follows:—
  "To Count Bernstorff,
  "Your Excellency will be good enough to communicate the following to Lord Granville:—
  "The document published by The Times contains one of the proposals which have been made to us since the Danish War by official and unofficial French agents, with the object of establishing an alliance between Prussia and France for their mutual aggrandizement. I will send the text of an offer made in 1866, according to which France proposed to aid Prussia with 300,000 men against Austria, and to permit Prussia's aggrandizement by 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 of subjects in return for the cession to France of the district between the Rhine and the Moselle. The impossibility of agreeing to this course was clear to all except French diplomatists. On this proposition being rejected the French Government began to calculate upon our defeat. France has not ceased to tempt us with offers to be carried out at the cost of Germany and Belgium. In the interests of peace I kept them secret. After the Luxemburg affair the proposals dealing with Belgium and South Germany were renewed. M. Benedetti's manuscript belongs to this period. It is not likely that M. Benedetti acted without the Empror's

  1151
  sanction. Finally, the conviction that no extension of territory was attainable in conjunction with us must have matured the resolve to obtain it by fighting us. I have even grounds for believing that had not this project been made public, after our armaments on both sides were complete, France would have proposed to us jointly to carry out M. Benedetti's programme against unarmed Europe, and to conclude peace at Belgium's cost. If the French Cabinet now repudiates aims, for our participation in which it has uninterruptedly laboured since 1864, either by demands or promises, this is easily to be explained by the present political situation."
  This paper actually accuses the French Government, in a time of profound peace, and of perfect amity with the rest of Europe, of joining Prussia in a violent attack on an independent State, which may be described perhaps as the most innocent and quiet kingdom in Europe. Now, it is not fair under any circumstances, but certainly not for us as neutrals in this war, and as old and faithful allies of the Emperor of the French, to accept this statement as true without hearing what may be said on the other side; but it so happens that on the very day that the projected Treaty appeared in The Times a document appeared in The Daily Telegraph, which I believe to be thoroughly authentic, though it was not official, and was in the form of a letter, signed anonymously by "An Englishman." It was not taken notice of in this House on Monday evening, for the reason I believe that the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) was not then aware of its publication; but I regard it as a French comment and key to the Projet de Traité published by The Times. It states that the writer, whose name I believe is very well known, and who has been for some time resident at Paris, had an audience of the Emperor, that they touched upon the question of the war, and that the writer afterwards inquired whether he was at liberty to repeat the Emperor's words; whereupon His Majesty answered that he wished nothing better than that he should be represented to the people of England as holding these views. The letter, although not official, may therefore be deemed trustworthy. "The Emperor," says the writer, "proceeded to say—
  "I had no notion that war was at hand, nor am I, even at this moment, by any means prepared for it. I trusted that, when the Due de Gramont had set me straight with France by speaking manfully in public as to the Hohenzollern candidature, I should be able so to manipulate and handle the controversy as to make peace certain.
  1152
  But France has slipped out of my hand. I cannot rule unless I lead. This is the most national war that in my time France has undertaken, and I have no choice but to advance at the head of a public opinion which I can neither stem nor check. In addition, M. de Bismarck, although a very clever man, wants too much, and wants it too quick. Alter the victory of Prussia in 1866, I reminded him that but for the friendly and self-denying neutrality of France he could never have achieved such marvels. I pointed out to him that I had never moved a French soldier near to the Rhine frontier during the continuance of the German war. I quoted to him from his own letter in which he thanked me for my abstinence, and said that he had left neither a Prussian gun nor a Prussian soldier upon the Rhine, but had thrown Prussia's whole send undivided strength against Austria and her allies. I told him that, as some slight return for my friendly inactivity, I thought that he might surrender Luxemburg, and one or two other little towns which gravely menace our frontier, to France. I added that in this way he would, by a trifling sacrifice, easily forgotten by Prussia in view of her enormous successes and acquisitions, pacify the French nation, whose jealousies it was so easy to arouse, so difficult to disarm. M. de Bismarck replied to me, after some delay—'Not one foot of territory, whether Prussian or neutral, can I resign. But, perhaps, if I were to make some further acquisitions I could make some concessions. How, for instance, if I were to take Holland? What would France want as a sop for Holland?' 'I replied,' said the Emperor, 'that if he attempted to take Holland it meant war with France and there the conversation, in which M. de Bismarck and M. de Benedetti were the interlocutors, came to an end.'"
  Now, it appears from this that there must have been some pourparlers upon these questions. Your Lordships will observe that there is a remarkable point in these two papers and also in the Projet de Traité. The Emperor speaks of Holland, and says that Count Bismarck would have agreed to his terms if he had consented to give up Holland to Prussia; whereas in Count Bismarck's statement and in the draft Treaty nothing is said of Holland, Belgium alone being mentioned. Now, this country must naturally be very anxious for some elucidation of those contradictory and confusing statements. My Lords, it would be very unfair to the Emperor of the French not to give him credit for the loyal manner in which he has always behaved to this country. I know it, perhaps, better than any man, for I recollect that when I was appointed to the Foreign Office for the second time, in 1858, it was, unfortunately, at the very moment when France was in a state of the highest excitement on account of the attempt of Orsini on the Emperor's life and of the letter written by the French colonels, entreating the Emperor to go to war with

  1153
  England. That letter had just been published, and had created an immense effect. I must say, in justice to the Emperor, that it was to him, and him only, that we owe it that peace was not broken at that moment. France did not then "slip out of his hand." He held her fast, and gave time for the passions of the people to subside. To him, therefore, we owe it that peace was maintained between England and France then, and that it has been maintained till now. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the Emperor's conduct during the Indian Mutiny, when he offered a passage for our troops through France, as the shortest route to India; nor need I remind you of his conduct when we received an insult at the hands of the United States in the matter of the Trent. With these recollections before me, it is with the greatest pain—with the greatest difficulty, that I can conceive that those accusations made against him by Prussia are true. In some measure, we may say the same of Prussia. Although she has not had the opportunity of showing so positively her good faith towards England, she has, as far as I know, always maintained towards us an attitude of friendly alliance. It, therefore, makes it almost impossible for us to believe that these two Powers should have at any time seriously contemplated the violent revolution in Europe which these documents represent.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the other day, after the publication of the alleged draft Treaty in The Times, I ventured to state to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government felt sure that both parties would be desirous of giving full explanations of the whole matter; and, having expressed that desire, I was anxious not to delay in any way giving publicity to any explanations which they might officially offer. I think, however, that for the future it would be more convenient to your Lordships, and more advisable in other respects, that these communications should not be carried on by daily Questions and Answers, but that I should be permitted to make them to your Lordships at the fitting time. With regard to the present Question, I will now give an Answer, though it must necessarily be a condensed one. I will not say anything that is not perfectly significant; but while I communicate to your Lordships what has passed,
  1154
  your Lordships will bear in mind that I simply repeat what has been said to me, and that I reserve any opinion I may form on any part of the question. I prefer to read the English translation of the telegram which Count Bernstorff has been good enough to put into my hands. It is very similar to the telegram which my noble Friend has quoted from this morning's papers, though it is not precisely in the same words. It is as follows:—
  "Berlin, July 28, 1870.
  "Your Excellency will communicate to Lord Granville the following, reserving a further written explanation:—
  "The Draft of Treaty published in The Times contains one of the numerous propositions which have been made to us since the Danish conflict up to recent times through official and non-official French agents, in order to bring about a Treaty between Prussia and France for the object of mutual aggrandizement. I shall send to your Excellency the tenour of another proposal made to us in June, 1866, also planning an offensive and defensive alliance, according to which France promised to us the aid of 300,000 men against Austria, and an aggrandizement of six to eight millions for the cession of a tract of land between the Rhine and Mosclle.
  "The impossibility for me to agree to such propositions were certainly clear to everybody, with the sole exception of the French diplomacy. After we had refused to agree to this or other propositions in June, 1866, the French Government began to speculate upon our defeat, and the profit it might derive from it, and to prepare it diplomatically. Since the patriotic "pang" of M. Rouher, France never ceased to lead us into temptation by propositions at the expense of Germany and Belgium. For the sake of peace I kept the secret, and treated the propositions in a dilatory manner. When the more modest French designs with reference to Luxemburg had been counteracted by events which are publicly known the more extensive propositions embracing Belgium and Southern Germany were renewed.
  "It was at this time, in 1867, that Count Benedetti's manuscript was communicated to me. That the French Ambassador should have drawn up this Draft with his own hand, and repeatedly have conferred with me on the subject without the consent of his Sovereign, is improbable.
  "The difficult phases of French discontentment and warlike inclination which we experienced from 1866 up to the Belgian railway question coincided with the inclination or reluctance the French agents expected to meet with on my part regarding these negotiations.
  "The final conviction that no territorial aggrandizement for France could be obtained with our co-operation has undoubtedly ripened the resolution to gain it by war against us. I have every reason to believe that if this publication had not taken place France would have proposed to us, after the completion of her own and of our own preparations for war, to enforce Count Benedetti's programme at the head of the two armies against unarmed Europe—that is to say, to conclude peace at the expense of Belgium.
  "The Draft of Treaty which is in our hands, and which Lord Augustus Loftus has seen, is from beginning to end, including the corrections, in Count Benedetti's own handwriting, well known to the English Ambassador.
  "If the French Cabinet now denies tendencies for which it has constantly tried to obtain our consent since 1864 by varying promises and demands, this seems very natural under the present political circumstances."
  "BISMARCK."
  My noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) has alluded to a letter which was published in The Daily Telegraph a few days ago. Now, of course, I can deal with nothing but official communications, and I can give no opinion whatever as to the authenticity of that letter or of its contents. The letter from Count Bismarck to Count Bernstorff was put into my hands yesterday morning; and in the afternoon just before the House met and when I had not time to digest what he stated to me in time to answer a Question upon it, the Marquis de Lavalette made a statement to me. The tenour of it I think I shall best state by reading a despatch in which it is embodied, and which will be sent off this evening to Lord Lyons. It is as follows:—
  "Foreign Office, July 29, 1870.
  "My Lord,—The French Ambassador called upon me on the 28th inst., for the purpose of communicating to me the purport of a despatch which had been addressed to his Excellency by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the pretended Draft Treaty published in The Times.
  "In that despatch, which M. de Lavalette was good enough to read to me, the Duke de Gramont observed that the very form in which this Treaty was drawn up, and the terms in which it is couched, showed clearly whence it came, and can deceive no one.
  "Those who have watched the course of European affairs since the accession to office of M. de Bismarck are aware from which side have come those suggestions which are now attributed to France.
  "Ever since the year 1865 M. de Bismarck has constantly endeavoured to carry out his own plans by endeavouring to turn the attention of the French Government to territorial aggrandizement. He told M. de Lefebre do Béhaine, then Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin, that Prussia would willingly recognize the rights of France to extend her borders wherever the French language is spoken, thereby indicating certain Swiss cantons besides Belgium.
  "These overtures the Government of the Emperor declined to entertain.
  "The following year, immediately after the battle of Sadowa, similar proposals were made at Brunn to M. de Béhaine, and on this occasion Count Bismarck told him that the course of France was clear. The French Government should go to the King of Belgium and explain that the inevitable
  1156
  increase of Prussian territory and influence was most disquieting to their security, and that the sole means of avoiding these dangerous issues would be to unite the destinies of Belgium and France by bonds so close that the Belgian Monarchy, whose autonomy would, however, be respected, would become in the North a real bulwark of safety for France.
  "Further reporting a conversation with Count Bismarck in July, 1866, the French Ambassador informed his Government that he reported nothing new in stating that M. de Bismarck is of opinion that compensation should be sought by the French in Belgium, and offered to come to an understanding on the subject.
  "The Government of the Emperor, the Duke de Gramont went on to say, declined to listen to these proposals, and when, at a later period, they sought the rectification of their frontiers, they expressly declined in the discussion to mention even the name of Belgium.
  "The Duke de Gramont then points out that if such designs against Belgium had really been entertained by his Government, it would have been easy to carry them out with the proffered assistance of Prussia, who was only anxious to secure the fruits of her victories.
  "These suggestions were again made at the time of the Luxemburg affair. They were unwillingly received and categorically rejected by the Emperor.
  "Finally, the Marquis de Lavalette was instructed formally to assure Her Majesty's Government that in these proposals the initiative was entirely taken by the Prussian Cabinet. M. de Lavalette then informed me that he had received instructions by telegraph to acquaint me that the document in the handwriting of M. Benedetti was written by him under the dictation of Count Bismarck, who wished to entangle the French Government in a conspiracy against the liberties of Belgium, and that then, as at other times, the scheme was positively rejected.
  "I am, &c., GRANVILLE."
  I have had a communication from M. de Lavalette since, to say that this is not a complete answer to the telegram which the French Government only received this morning, but that further information will be sent.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  (NO. 235.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3—Preliminary.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Definitions).
  EARL RUSSELLproposed, page 1 lines 22 and 23, to omit the words "the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council on Education" and insert "the Minister of Education or President of the

  1157
  Board of Education," with the view of confiding the charge of the education of the country to a separate Department. The Committee of Council consisted, among other Members, of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, of the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, these Members of the Government were fully occupied with the duties of their respective Departments, and were unable to give any attention to the question of education. Another reason for the change he proposed was that, although the Committee of Privy Council might be able to superintend the existing system, the extension now proposed and the many difficult and important questions to which it would give rise demanded the formation of a distinct Department. The only question, indeed, was whether the change should be made at once or whether at some not very remote date. Now, he maintained that all the difficult questions connected with political and religious differences, considering the apathy which prevailed in the rural districts, should come at once before a permanent Department, instead of being partly decided by the present interim administration. He found that the Department as at present constituted, contained 61 Inspectors and 15 Assistant Inspectors, and with the clerks and others engaged it numbered 150 persons. Now, surely, such an extensive machinery adapted to a system of such great importance required to be placed under the control of a responsible chief.
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he rose with considerable reluctance to express a difference of opinion from his noble Friend who had just sat down. He felt regret at all times in differing from his noble Friend, but most especially in differing from him on the subject of education, to which his noble Friend had given so much attention through many years of his life. He would not enter into the abstract question what was the best composition for the Education Department; but he would ask his noble Friend not to press his Amendment in the present circumstances. While he bore his willing testimony to the excellent working of the Department, he was ready to admit also that there were some serious defects, and that its reorganization
  1158
  would probably have to be considered. With regard to the present constitution of the Department, he considered that he, as Lord President, had been singularly fortunate. Their Lordships had shown, by the observations which fell from noble Lords on both sides of the House at the second reading, how much they appreciated the great ability and the eminent services of his right hon. Friend the Vice President. But he must also say that he had been fortunate in the permanent chiefs of departments. There were two men especially, whose ability and experience he could not too highly eulogize—he meant Mr. Lingen and Sir Francis Sandford, who had on all occasions given him the most complete and efficient assistance. His noble Friend (Earl Russell) had pointed to the Members of the Committee of Council on Education, who held the highest official offices of the State, and asked how is was possible that they who were so occupied with the duties of their own Departments could give any attention to education. Now, he (Earl de Grey) must mention that the composition of the Council of Education was regulated merely by two considerations—the first was that those Ministers were appointed whose Departments were more or less associated with education; and the second was the personal qualifications of the Members themselves. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, for instance, was a Member of the Committee not because he was Foreign Secretary, but because he had been for a long time President of the Council, and his assistance and advice in the Department was therefore of very great value. It was time the Committee was not often called together; but when it was called the advice of the Members on the points on which they were to be consulted was found to be of great value. But he did not mean to deny that when the educational arrangements of the country were placed on a sounder basis it might, and would, be necessary to reconsider the organization of the Department. At present they were passing through a state of transition, and it would be better to wait and see what new features the question would assume—not only elementary education, but middle-class and public school examination, for all those must come under the charge of the Department. But he would go further,

  1159
  and say that they could not make that change alone. If they made that change in the Education Department it would be necessary to take account of a great many other Departments which would be affected by the change. The question was one that eminently deserved the consideration of the Government, and it would be for the Government not only to consider what changes were necessary in this Department, but what modifications that change would render necessary in others. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would not, under these circumstances, press his Amendment.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he thought the arguments of his noble Friend were rather reasons for his Amendment than against it. When they were about to make a great change it was the proper time to consider its effects upon the other arrangements. If other Departments were likewise to be considered, he should wish to propose some extensive alteration. For instance, he should like to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and to create two new Secretaries of State—one for Ireland, and one for Law and Justice.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, his noble Friend (Earl Russell) had given cogent reasons for that proposal; while no very conclusive arguments had been used in opposition to it.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped his noble Friend would not press the Amendment. He agreed that it was not a perfect argument to say that because up to this time a system had worked well, therefore at no future time should you make a change. It was very desirable, however, that at that stage, before their Lordships knew what development the Bill would have, a decision should not be taken upon a point not comprised in the measure sent from the other House.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he should be content if he could hope that the arrangement for appointing a Minister of Education would be adopted at no very remote period.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was unwilling now to discuss whether there ought to be a Minister of Education or not; but, supposing he were of that opinion, he did not think that, having regard to the form in which the Bill was presented to their Lordships, this was the proper time for carrying out the object of the noble Earl. If, therefore,
  1160
  the noble Earl divided the House he must vote against him.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the Amendment; but he could not think this the proper occasion for proposing the alteration. He hoped the noble Earl's proposal would be carried at no distant day.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was also much disposed to agree with the noble Earl as to the expediency of having a Minister of Education; but thought it inexpedient to press the subject now.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

  PART I. LOCAL PROVISION FOR SCHOOLS.
  Clause 4, (School districts, &c., in schedule).
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, this clause and the Schedule to which it related provided that the parishes should be taken as the rating unit, and that the educational rate should be levied over the entire parish. Now, nothing could be more unfortunate for the good working of this Bill than that it should be unpopular; and he thought this clause and the Schedule which related to it would have this effect. The framers of the Bill seemed to have failed to observe a process of great importance which had been going on throughout the country for many years in the subdivision of extensive parishes; and that in numberless instances the new parish, or the ecclesiastical district constituted out of the ancient parish, often surpassed both in wealth and population the old mother parish. It often happened, too, that the same causes which had led to the creation of the new parish—a spirit of self-reliance and a readiness to provide funds for ecclesiastical purposes—had tended to provide the new district with a more complete ecclesiastical and educational equipment than the old parish had possessed, and, consequently, educational destitution was greater in the old parish than in the new one. The effect of the Bill, however, would be, that if the inquiry of the Privy Council showed a deficiency of education in the mother parish, the Department would be bound to require that a school should be built and a rate levied over the whole area of the original parish; so that the subdivision which had provided fully and efficiently

  1161
  for its own educational wants would be rated over again for the wants of the mother parish. Now, there was no more fruitful cause of irritation against church rates—now dead and gone—than was created by the fact that, after a church had been erected at considerable expense and labour in a new ecclesiastical district, such district was liable to support not only their own but the mother church. Surely it could not be the intention of the Government that the same source of irritation should exist under the Bill. As the measure stood, however, there would be ecclesiastical districts with schools coming up to the requirements of the Privy Council, while the central parish would have rate-supported schools to which the whole of the inhabitants were obliged to contribute. He moved his Amendment in the interests of the measure itself, which would only work well if the rate were popular, but against which, on the grounds he had indicated, there would in such cases be considerable indignation. It was quite possible his proposal was one with which it was not competent for their Lordships to deal. If so, he should not press it; but without such a provision the satisfactory working of the Bill would be seriously imperilled.
  Amendment moved, at end of clause insert the following words:—
  "Provided always, That it shall be lawful for the Education Department by order to declare that any new parish or other ecclesiastical district which has been or shall be constituted under the provisions of any Act of Parliament shall be a parish within the meaning of the first schedule hereto, and thereupon such new parish or other ecclesiastical district shall be a parish for the purposes of this Act, and in the event of there being no overseers appointed for such new parish or district the Education Department may appoint the overseers of any parish out of which the new parish or district, or any part thereof, has been taken, to be the overseers of such new parish or district, provided that the Education Department may at any time revoke any such order."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the noble Duke was right in the supposition that the clause was one with which their Lordships could not deal, as it proposed to alter the incidence of rating, and their Lordships could not interfere with it, without trenching upon the privileges of the other House of Parliament. He would not rest his opposition to the Amendment, however, merely on that point—he was also of opinion that the
  1162
  alteration proposed was on general grounds undesirable The principle of the Bill was to take the Poor Law division as the area of rating, and the rate was to be levied through the ordinary machinery of the poor rate; and that being the case it would be very undesirable to establish a separate rate on a separate system. Similar Amendments had been rejected by the other House on precisely the same ground.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved that the Poor Law Board had now the power of dividing a parish into separate parishes, and he should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would not, on the Report, be prepared to introduce words providing that any of the new divisions should be regarded as a unit for the purposes of the Bill?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he believed the case was provided for under the Bill as it stood.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 7—Supply of Schools.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Regulations for conduct of public elementary school).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEmoved the omission of the words—"A copy of which regulations shall be conspicuously put up in every school." Was that desirable? The object sought to be attained by the use of those words was, no doubt, that parents should know on what conditions their children were admitted to the school; but the very persons who did not go into the school were the parents, while the children did, before whose eyes he thought it was very undesirable that the regulations should be constantly placed. He did not object to the regulations themselves; but they were the result of a compromise after a somewhat bitter controversy, and they retained marks of that bitterness in their provisions relating to attendance at Sunday schools, and the conditions under which the children were to receive religious instruction. If it were thought essential that the parents should be distinctly informed of the regulations, it would be much better to send a printed copy of them to the parent of every child in the school.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that if that were done the consequence would be that the children would have to read the regulations to their parents in almost every cottage.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as the words of the clause were considered a necessary security for the children, and the best and most convenient mode of providing that security.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYconcurred in the spirit of the remarks with which the Amendment had been proposed. If some such alteration were not made in the clause the children, who had the regulations constantly before them in school, would be misled into believing that it was better not to go to church, seeing that the regulations stated that no child should be required to go there, or to have any religious instruction.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that, as the clause stood, the children would be very likely to put whatever pressure they could on their parents, in order to get relieved from religious instruction and have more time for play.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to the first sub-section of the clause, which to his belief was not only not contrary to the principle of the measure, but which in point of fact would tend to carry out the intention of the framers of the Bill, and to render the clause, which at present was somewhat ambiguous, rather more clear. The sub-section, as it now stood, declared that—
  "No child shall be required, as a condition of being admitted into or continuing in the school, to attend or to abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere."
  He believed that the intention of his noble Friend (Earl De Grey) was to leave the matter to the option of the parent of any child; but Mr. Forster, who had the conduct of the Bill in the other House, put a different interpretation on the words. To make the meaning quite clear, therefore, he would propose the insertion of these words at the commencement of the sub-section—"Whenever it shall be contrary to the wish of his parent or guardian" no child shall be required to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, &c. He
  1164
  would remind their Lordships that if the clause were interpreted according to the sense put upon it by Mr. Forster, it would at once disqualify all the schools in connection with the National Society from receiving the Parliamentary Grant. There were no fewer than 13,000 schools in connection with that Society, which might be regarded as the representative of Church education in this country. Three years ago there were 1,500,000 scholars on the registers of the Society, which had received aid to a large extent from public as well as private sources. The total amount it had directly administered during the last 40 or 50 years was no less than £1,000,000, while the amount subscribed for the erection of schools amounted to something like £12,000,000. Therefore, this society had a very strong claim to have its interest protected by that House, yet, as the sub-section now stood, the Society would be disqualified, because it was one of the conditions of that society, that all the children receiving instruction in its schools should attend religious instruction and go to some place of worship; and the society could only allow that condition to be dispensed with under this Bill where the parents of a child actually objected to its being carried out. There was nothing in the Amendment which was at all inconsistent with the rest of the Bill.
  Moved, "Whenever it shall be contrary to the wish of his parent or guardian."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  EARL NELSONsaid, he had himself intended to move an Amendment to the same effect as that just proposed by his noble Friend. He believed that the provision about children not being forced to attend the Church schools really went to the root of the religious difficulty; for it was no doubt true that hitherto, notwithstanding the Conscience Clause, a great many children of Dissenting parents were pressed to attend the Sunday schools. He, therefore, would not advocate any alteration which would prevent the clause from being a real and practical Conscience Clause. At the same time, a fair amount of support ought to be given to the National Society, which had no objection to children being withdrawn from the Sunday schools and the services of the Church at the request of their parents

  1165
  or guardians. That society objected, however, to place on the walls of the schools a notice to the effect that no child should be required to attend that kind of instruction for the imparting of which the society had been mainly founded.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that school children might be divided into two classes—those who received regions instruction at home and those who did not. In the interests of those who did not, their Lordships ought to insist that they should have religious instruction in school unless their parents objected to it. If there were any positive objection on the part of the parents that objection ought to be respected; but if there was no such objection, the children ought to be compelled to comply with the requirements of the school in respect of religious instruction.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, there was one point which had not been noticed; the clause as it stood would enable all the Church of England children, whether their parents wished it or not, on every Saint's day, inasmuch as those days were appointed by the Church of England for religious observance, to put on their caps and go to play; and nobody could stop them, for they would be acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle) had raised a very ingenious difficulty, which he confessed he had not foreseen. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would not expect him to do more than promise to consider the point; but he must say that he very much doubted whether the clause would bear the construction put upon it. As to the main question, he was sorry to say that it was not in his power to consent to the Amendment which had been suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon). Their Lordships would remember the circumstances under which the clause assumed its present form, and the various propositions which had been made in respect to this question of the Conscience Clause by a very influential body in "another place." With these propositions Her Majesty's Government had been unable to agree, and the clause, as it at present stood, was the result of much discussion and compromise. He admitted that the religious difficulty had
  1166
  been very greatly exaggerated; but the clause had been much canvassed in the other House, and he believed the concessions that had been made were due to the conscientious convictions of the Nonconformists. Looking back on the history of the clause, he earnestly hoped their Lordships would not insist on the Amendment, the effect of which would be to render it possible to establish a direct and compulsory connection between Sunday schools and schools which were now for the first time erected as a part of a really national system.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that poor men would often be afraid to make a declaration that they did not wish their children to receive religious instruction; but he thought the difficulty would be met by an alteration in the wording, so that the sub-section might run thus—
  "No parent shall be required to cause his child, as a condition of being admitted to the school, to attend religious instruction."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it appeared to him that the question in this clause was not a question between Church and Dissent, but whether they would put into an Act of Parliament that a child of five years of age was to be asked whether he would have religious teaching or not. There was no objection on that side of the House to leaving the matter to the discretion of the parents; what they did object to was the extreme absurdity of putting up in the school a placard that the child was to choose for himself whether he would or would not be taught religion. His noble Friend (Earl De Grey) seemed to attach great importance to religious teaching, and also to the supposed safeguards in the clause, and he imagined his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon) would have no objection to insert qualifying words before the words in line 13—"instruction in religious subjects;" so as to meet any objections, while removing from the clause the reproach of asking a child of five years to choose on a question of such momentous importance.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, there could be no objection to the proposal of the noble Marquess.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the pressure should be put on the parents and not on the child.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no objection to the insertion of

  1167
  some qualifying words as proposed by the noble Marquess. The noble Earl then suggested certain terms.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he should be sorry to make any alteration in the clause if it could possibly be avoided—for as it now stood it was evidently the result of a compromise; at the same time, it was necessary to remove any patent defects. But with regard to this religious instruction, who was to be the negotiator with the schoolmaster? Was it the child or the parent? The clause at present left that perfectly uncertain. From the 1st section one would draw the conclusion that the child himself would perform this function; but the 2nd section enabled the parent to withdraw the child. Thus, if the parent wished to keep the child at religious instruction, and the child did not wish it, the latter could withdraw—for the parent had no power under the clause to make him attend. If the child happened to be an enlightened child, he might say—"I desire only secular instruction;" but his parent might desire that he should receive religious instruction—whose wish was the schoolmaster to obey? The Government should make it clear what they really meant. The clause in the Act relating to Irish schools was to the effect that no child should receive religious instruction whose parents or guardians disapproved; and that was what should be in the present clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he approached this question with some anxiety. He believed that this clause had been gravely considered in the other House of Parliament, and that it was the result of a compromise of very varying opinions, in which each party had sacrificed some of their peculiar views. The Nonconformists were represented in the other House, where they had been able to state their views: but in their Lordships' House they were not represented; and that was a consideration that could not be ignored. In his opinion, if the Amendment proposed were adopted, the principle of the old church rate controversy would be raised, and the whole principle of the Bill would be destroyed at one blow. As the clause now stood the child would not be asked any question—the whole thing was to be left to the parents, who might do exactly what they pleased: they would not have
  1168
  to express their assent to, or dissent from, anything. When they wished the child to do a thing they could make him do it. When they wished him not to do it they could make him refrain from doing it. The schoolmaster or school managers had nothing to do with imposing conditions. He hoped their Lordships would do nothing to disturb the compromise that had been arrived at.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he thought the clause inevitable under the circumstances and ought to be accepted. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it contained a provision that the objection by the parents should be in writing; but the Government were driven from that position. Then a proposition was made that the objection of the parents should be stated; but the Government were again overruled. No doubt the reason in both cases was that those who opposed the proposed provisions knew that the parents never would object. However, the provision at present in the Bill was the result of a compromise, arrived at after long and angry discussions. The compromise was a very unsatisfactory one no doubt; but it was inevitable. After a long conflict, several nights' debate, and many Divisions, all parties came to the conclusion that the terms in the clause were the only terms in which they could agree. He thought the Government had saved a great deal for the friends of scriptural education. They had saved the admission of the Bible into the schools, and they had saved religious instruction as an integral part of the education to be given in them. But he feared very much that the adoption of the Amendment, however just that Amendment might be, would be regarded in the House of Commons as a breach of the compromise, and consequently would cause the loss of the Bill. He should very much regret such a result. And why? Because he felt as sure as he did of anything, that if this Bill were lost a measure of purely secular education would be passed by the House of Commons next year. He believed that even many of those who had stood up for the Bible this year would in another give up the struggle from more weariness. He implored their Lordships not to run the risk of exposing the country to the loss of this Bill.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONhoped their Lordships would give a careful consideration to the advice just given by the noble Earl, who spoke with so much authority on this subject. He was anxious, if possible, to bring about a satisfactory settlement, and with that view he would suggest an Amendment to be substituted for that of the noble Earl, if he (the Earl of Carnarvon) would so accept it. What he begged to propose was that after the words "any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or elsewhere" these words should be inserted, "from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent." Some slight verbal Amendments would be required in the previous part of the sub-section in order to make the words proposed read with the rest of the sub-section.
  THE EARL of CARNARVONsaid, he was much obliged to the President of the Council and would accept his suggestion.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Then an Amendment made by inserting—"from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent."
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLmoved to omit the words—
  "The time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting."
  So much had been said about the arrangements and adjustments which had occurred "elsewhere" that it was almost impossible to believe that any arguments could have weight with their Lordships; but the objection to those words being retained in the clause was that by such a provision religious teaching would most certainly suffer; and the opinion of all experienced schoolmasters was against it, as was shown by their meetings and Petitions. He wished to confine their Lordships to the simple issue whether they would be well advised to pass the clause in such a shape, when the opinion of many practical men in all parts of the kingdom was against it? What had induced the House of Commons to pass the clause in its present condition after the many objections that
  1170
  had been made to it? This clause was prospective, and the words were a compromise in respect to a state of things that might come into existence. It was in contemplation to apply compulsion hereafter, and it would be a formidable argument against that plan if it could be applied to religious instruction; the limit of time was therefore thought to be a convenient mode of meeting the objection. He contended, however, that the interests of religious education ought not to be sacrificed for some probable and prospective advantage to be derived if compulsion were applied to secular education.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he heartily supported the Amendment. Religion must be the essence of all education, and if it were driven into a corner—if it were placed, so to speak, on the outskirts of secular teaching—what must be the impression made both on the children and the teacher? You thereby discredited and disparaged Christianity itself, treating it as though it were a thing to be ashamed of — as though secular instruction were the one thing needful, and religious instruction of comparatively minor importance: and he feared that the result before long would be a race of godless teachers and infidel scholars—that the sanguine expectations of many as to this Bill would be frustrated, and that many of the children thus educated would be disaffected and disloyal, using their instruction as a means of mischief rather than of good.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERadmitted that it was somewhat of an inconvenience to tie down the teacher to the precise time at which any specified instruction should be given; but he did not share the exaggerated opinions of the evils resulting from such an arrangement. To say that religious instruction was treated with contumely by being placed on the "outskirts" of secular teaching was to assume that there was some special virtue in the middle school-time. His own experience, however, as a schoolmaster was that the beginning of the school-time was the best by far, and if he wished to choose any special hour for giving religious instruction he should choose that time in preference to any other. He therefore believed it would be very unwise to disturb a compromise, in order to remedy what, at worst, would be but a small inconvenience.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDpointed out that there was no security that if the child were withdrawn from religious instruction it would be taught anything daring this interval. He thought the clause gave to religious instruction the appearance of being a punishment.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought that some of the objections expressed to this clause arose from the fact that it was supposed to restrict the teaching of religion to the beginning and end of the day; but as there were two school meetings per day, and religious instruction might be given at the beginning and end of each meeting, it followed that there were four distinct times at which religious education might be given. By adopting the Amendment their Lordships would get rid of the security intended to be afforded by the Time Table Conscience Clause. No doubt any interference with the time of teaching was, to some extent, inconvenient; but he found, from the tables sent to the Education Department in accordance with a Minute issued some time since, that nine-tenths of the existing time tables were framed, as to the period of religious instruction, in perfect accordance with this clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped, after the concession which had been made by the Government in the earlier part of the clause, and the explanation just given by the noble Earl, his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol) would not deem it necessary to press his Amendment. He wished, he might add, to point out that if religious instruction were to be given for a half or three-quarters of an hour or so at the opening of the school, many children would not, in all probability, attend till the expiration of that time, and considerable irregularity would thus be produced.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in answer to the suggestion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), pointed out that although a child might be withdrawn from the religious instruction, it did not follow that he was to be withdrawn from the school.
  THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERwas of opinion that in the morning, at the opening of the school, was the best time to give religious instruction, which to be solidly given must be regular. The morning, also, would be the most convenient
  1172
  time for the clergyman to attend. He therefore preferred the original clause to the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSremarked, that the part of the clause of which the noble Earl (Earl De Grey) had just spoken, if read alone, did not provide for the withdrawal of the child from the school; but when taken in connection with the Proviso as to the time at which religious instruction should be given, a strong presumption arose that the object of proscribing that religious instruction should be imparted at the beginning or end of the meeting, was to enable the parents to withdraw the child from the school altogether at those times. Therefore the Government would do well to consider whether they ought not to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Carnarvon), in order to remove any doubt which might exist on this point.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he would not press his Amendment in the present state of the House.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment to the effect that the time table should not only be approved, as provided by the clause, but also be "formed and framed" by the Education Department.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that if the Department were to issue a certain number of forms, which they were prepared to approve, the elasticity of the system which the Bill desired to establish would to a great extent vanish. It was clear, however, that the Department ought to have a certain amount of control over the arrangements of the time table, in order to insure that sufficient time was devoted to secular education; but dry forms would restrain the action of the managers in a very inconvenient manner. In his opinion the proposal embodied in the Bill was far simpler than that of his noble Friend, which he trusted would not be pressed.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought nothing could be more inconvenient than to have a great variety of modes of arrangement for time tables sent out to different schools. The result would probably be that the Education Department would themselves suggest

  1173
  a form applicable to all schools, and it would, therefore, be much better to insert it in the Bill in the first instance.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Amendment was not open to the objection of the Lord President, as it merely provided that the necessary forms should be approved—not prepared—by the Committee of Council.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment for the purpose of preventing children being kept away from school during the time devoted to religious instruction. It provided that during the time religious instruction was being given, children whose parents objected to such instruction should receive instruction in secular subjects.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could conceive cases in which it would be almost impossible for two sorts of instruction to be going on at the same time; where, for instance, there was only one school or one teacher.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, there were many parents who would not keep their children away for the purpose of their avoiding religious instruction, but would withdraw them for the sake of the half-hour's work. He thought the school Boards should have power to regulate the schools according to the condition of the localities.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought that the object aimed at by the noble Earl would be attained by the clause as it stood. The Proviso would very seriously infringe on the principle upon which the clause was founded—if, indeed, it would not render the clause altogether illusory. It was necessary that the rights of conscience should be secured absolutely.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, as he had understood the noble Earl (Earl De Grey), the clause did not give power to withdraw altogether.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that remaining in the school was consistent with withdrawing from religious instruction.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the arrangement should be such as would not encourage suspicion that the right of withdrawal was being infringed, and suggested to insert the provision—
  "Any scholar so withdrawing shall receive instruction in other subjects if the same can be done
  1174
  without the scholar being in the same room in which such religious instruction is being given."
  This would impose no rigid rule on the school managers, and yet would preserve the right of parents.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would consider this proposal in conjunction with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, and announce his decision on the Report.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper suggesting a Proviso that when there is a class-room the managers may, with the consent of the Education Department, cause instruction to be given in religious subjects at any other time to be specified in the time table, and approved by the said Department. He trusted this also would be taken into consideration by the noble Earl.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, from his experience in schools, was able to say that children were instructed in the same room in all sorts of subjects in different classes without any interference with each other, and that therefore the proviso suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) was quite unnecessary.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was afraid he could not accept it, as it went far beyond the scope of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon).
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved to insert in sub-section (2), line 27, the following words:—
  "Provided that when there is a class-room the managers may, with the consent of the Education Department, cause instruction to be given in religious subjects at any other time to be specified in the time table, and approved by the said department;"
  and in order to give greater effect to this Proviso, he had to move the further Amendment that "the Inspector shall be bound to perform" no duties which might extend to an inquiry into the religious instruction given at the school. The Amendment was proposed in the interest of the district Inspectors; and he was confident the other House would not refuse to consider any Amendment of the clause for which good ground could be shown.
  EARD DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that admitting the value of the services of the Inspectors he preferred the clause

  1175
  as it stood. He did not think conscientious parents would object to the mode in which it provided for the religious instruction of their children: nor was he inclined to believe that the Inspectors in the future would act differently from the efficient manner in which they had hitherto discharged the arduous duties of their office. There was nothing in the clause to prevent the Inspector from examining the children, as a private individual and out of school hours, as to their religious knowledge.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid, that the clause, in its present form, would postpone the effective and universal operation of the measure, unless the Education Department acted in defiance of all precedent. Before a school could obtain a Parliamentary Grant, it was required to be under a certificated teacher. It was estimated by the Department that they would be able to send out 1,600 certificated teachers per annum, which, after allowing for the estimated annual waste of 900, left only 700 available teachers; whereas no fewer than 25,000 certificated teachers would be required after the Bill came into force, in order to entitle the schools to the Parliamentary Grant: so that, unless the Department relaxed their terms, upwards of 20 years must elapse before the object of the Bill would be attained. Another matter to which he wished to refer in passing was the charge directed by some persons against the clergy of the Church of England, that in their efforts and self-sacrifice for the spread of education they had been actuated by nothing better than sectarian and proselytizing motives. That charge he most emphatically repudiated. His belief was that, on the contrary, they had engaged in school work simply to elevate the condition of the people by whom they were surrounded. He regretted the Bill did not afford more encouragement to the clergy to continue their efforts in the cause of education.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONassured the right rev. Prelate that none could be more ready to acknowledge the great services of the clergy of the Church of England in the cause of education than the Government, and he did not think it fair to speak of this Bill as one in which those efforts were disregarded
  1176
  or discouraged. No doubt the Bill did not deal with the question the right rev. Prelate had raised; but he promised that the whole matter should come under the careful consideration of the Education Department.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 13—Proceedings for Supply of Schools.
  Clause 8 (Determination by Education Department of deficiency of public school accommodation).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved to add to the clause—
  ("As also every Sunday school not at present used as an elementary day school, but of which the trustees or managers are willing that it should be so used within the meaning of this Act; provided, that in estimating the amount of school accommodation required for such district due allowance shall be made for the number of children between the age of eight years and the age of thirteen years subject to the provisions of the Factory Acts Extension Act, or the Hours of Labour Regulation Act, or any further extension of those Acts, where under the same school provides for two sets of children, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon, and where consequently the total accommodation is for double the number of children who can be received at any one time.")
  He also wished to know whether the Inspectors in examining into the sufficiency of educational accommodation would be directed to take into account the amount of industrial instruction given in many of the schools at present established in some of the poorest and densest portions of the metropolis, and the other large towns of the country. If not the majority of them would be closed?
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONthought the object which the noble Earl wished to secure would be achieved by the Bill as it stood.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it would be very desirable that instructions should be given to the Inspectors, to guide them in coming to a conclusion as to the efficiency of the school accommodation in any particular district; because it would be exceedingly hard and unjust on those who supported the schools to have to bear the expense of appealing in order to set right any mistake the Inspectors might make. It was absolutely necessary that the gentlemen employed in making the Returns should take into

  1177
  account those matters to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had alluded.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the noble Earl had not replied to the question whether industrial employment would be taken into account, for, if it were not, the greater number of the schools in which the poorest classes were educated would be annihilated?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the Inspectors would have to be satisfied that the schools gave a sufficient and proper education to those children who were required to attend. In reply to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he had to remind him that there were clauses in the Bill which related particularly to the adoption of industrial schools.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 27 — Management and Maintenance of Schools by School Board.
  Clause 14 (Management of school by school Board).
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEmoved to omit the regulation as to religious catechisms and formularies, and to insert the provision that "at whatever time religious teaching may take place no catechism or formulary" should be taught in schools. He thought the Amendment would have no effect on the sense of the clause, though it would have on its meaning, and would have no general bearing on the character of the Bill. Having little local knowledge of the circumstances with which the Bill had to deal, he could only look at the general character of the Bill, which seemed to him, so far as he could understand it, to have much in it that commended itself to their Lordships' acceptance. The great difficulty in connection with the subject of education was that which arose from the difference of religion; and this Bill had had to encounter all those difficulties which sprang from the religious animosities which were the bane of this country. He admired much of the machinery for national education provided by the Bill; but he thought it a subject of great regret that there was no clear indication in this
  1178
  Bill that it was the intention of Parliament that there should be religious teaching in these schools. It should be remembered that this was not a Bill which was intended to mould the character of the youth of England alone; it spoke, he might say, to the youth of the world at large; and in these times it was their duty to speak out clearly and distinctly their opinion that religion was an essential part of education. Now there were allusions to religious teaching in the Bill; but there was no distinct declaration that there should be religious teaching. It might be that it was an oversight on the part of the framers of the Bill, and to remedy that oversight he begged to propose his Amendment.
  Amendment moved, page 6, line 7, to omit ("no religious catechism or formulary,") and insert ("at whatever time religious teaching may take place therein no catechism or formulary.")—(The Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he regretted he could not accept the Amendment of his noble Friend; nor did he understand how his Amendment could be less of a mere allusion to religious teaching than the words to which his noble Friend objected. The clause, as it stood, simply and directly expressed the intentions of Parliament, and the Amendment would require no further religious instruction. He did not see how Parliament could make any direct declaration with respect to religious teaching without adopting some formulary; which would be contrary to the whole principle of the Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONattached no value to the introduction of the mere name of religious teaching, and thought the words proposed to be inserted would be of no service. Parliament could not define religious teaching, and he thought the only satisfactory way was to leave it to school managers to settle it for themselves in their own way.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he sympathized with the object which the noble Viscount had in view, and regretted that, in the case of the school Board schools, there was not some greater recognition of the necessity of religious instruction. It might, however, be a question whether it was wise to impose, by Act of Parliament, the necessity of doing that which it might be

  1179
  reasonably presumed would be done by the voluntary action of the school Boards themselves; and he submitted to the noble Viscount whether his object was not attained by Section 7, which, in the case of public elementary schools, required a Time Table Conscience Clause, and as these were public elementary schools there was thus an inferential recognition of the necessity of religious teaching.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD COLCHESTER, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, he hardly hoped, at this stage of the Bill, to succeed in making so considerable a change as it proposed; but he was anxious to express his strong protest against the form in which the clause had come up to their Lordships. When introduced into the other House of Parliament the Bill contained no restriction as to the religious teaching which the school Board might see fit to provide for those children whom their parents did not withdraw. The noble Earl (Earl De Grey) stated that he still had a parental affection for the clause in its old form: but unhappily, when opposition arose "elsewhere," the Ministry, like a prince of antiquity, sacrificed their child to appease the winds; or, like the subject of a more modern caricature, threw out one of their children to divert the wolves who pursued the rest. It appeared to him that the original clause was just and fair, and that similar justice and equity were not to be found in the present clause. As it stood, where the Church had a majority its formularies and catechism might be taught, subject to a right of withdrawal of children whose parents dissented. If any sect of Dissenters were in the majority they might equally authorize Dissenting teaching; and if the majority were opposed to denominational teaching it might be omitted altogether. The noble Earl (Earl De Grey) urged that by this latitude dissension, ill-blood, and sectarian animosity might be stirred up in the localities. This argument, as far as it had weight, seemed to go too far:—it applied to our whole constitutional system and all our system of local government. Debates in the Houses of Parliament might create irritation. General Elections, especially if, like the last, they turned on religious questions,
  1180
  might excite the highest amount of religious agitation. Such an argument, so far from being one to be expected from the President of the Council of a Liberal Ministry, was rather what he should have expected from philosophers of the type of Hobbes or Joseph de Maistre—men who, with great talent and great earnestness, advocated absolute as against constitutional government. And, in fact, the very argument now used by the opponents of the original clause was precisely what he found in Clarendon was used against the extension of the power of the House of Commons—that it would cause faction in the places where they were chosen. If, however, the object were good, the clause failed to carry it out. The school Board might still establish either any form of religious instruction or no religious instruction whatever. Churchmen, Dissenters, Secularists might still struggle for the election of the Board who elected the schoolmaster. The only limitation was the somewhat ambiguous one of the exclusion of catechisms and formularies distinctive of any peculiar denomination. He did not know how those words would be interpreted. He hoped the Ministry would explain whether they intended to exclude only such formularies as were peculiar to any one denomination alone, or any which, like the creeds, were common to many religious bodies, but not to all. If it were intended in the former sense, then, as except Roman Catholics, who were scarcely any where a majority, and the Presbyterians, who scarcely existed in England, the only body using distinctive formularies was the Established Church. An invidious distinction was thus created, and a special disability imposed on that Church. But local dissension as to the religious management of the school was not excluded. It could only be excluded by a regulation far more sweeping, far more restrictive, and which neither the House nor the Ministry would be prepared to advocate. He did not think that it was to avoid dissension that this change was demanded. The opponents of denominational education themselves—only an education sect or party—claimed to be the whole people. They demanded that their principles should prevail not only where the majority of a district desired it, but where the majority repudiated them altogether. They wished, in fact,

  1181
  to establish an undenominational ascendancy in districts where the people were denominational. Now, he regarded these pretensions as grasping, unjust, irrational. He considered that they had been exposed and torn to pieces by the Vice President of the Council in his speech on the subject. And it was to be regretted that he and the Education Department, abandoning the views he had eloquently and convincingly upheld, should have altered this clause in accordance with the fallacies which he had overthrown. The Amendment which he ventured to propose was one which fell far short of the latitude of the clause originally introduced. It only suggested that where a majority of the ratepayers expressed a desire that the restrictions on religious teaching should not apply, their wishes should not be thwarted by the opinions of a small minority among themselves, or the theories of a political sect elsewhere. In a later clause of the Bill the school Boards, which were here restrained from giving certain teaching to children willing to receive it, were empowered to compel the attendance of the children of unwilling parents. If both these clauses were retained, it would appear certainly to support the admission of the Government that their Bill was neither logical nor consistent. He urged the Government and the House to remedy in some degree this blemish, and, as the words he moved proposed, allow respect to be shown to the wishes of localities, when expressed by unmistakable and decisive majorities. They thus might modify the evil of a clause which was both unjust and insufficient, but for which the Government were not originally responsible, which was contrary to their better judgment, and which was only adopted in deference to a clamour undeserving of the respect it received.
  Amendment moved, page 6, line 14, insert—
  "Unless a majority of ratepayers of the school district petition the Education Department in favour of such teaching."—(The Lord Colchester.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment, which would only re-open that difficult question which induced the other House to adopt the change in the Bill embodied in this section.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLdesired the noble Earl to explain the meaning of the sub-section, for at present he was in doubt between two opinions—would it be allowable to teach any religious catechism or religious formulary which was not distinctive of any particular denomination—for instance, would it forbid the teaching of our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour, because that duty was inculcated in the Church Catechism; or whether it merely forbad the teaching of a Church formulary as such?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONwas understood to say the section would forbid the teaching of the Church Catechism as such.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNasked whether it would forbid the teaching of the Lord's Prayer, which, although in the Church Catechism, was common to all Christians?
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, the noble Earl's explanation was unsatisfactory.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Government appeared to have tried to reconcile conflicting sides by using words which neither side could understand, and when they had done that they announced they had effected reconciliation. The result was it was impossible to give any clear legal definition of the 2nd sub-section; it would be differently interpreted in all places, and each set of disputants would submit their case to the Committee of Council; and the utter absence of definition would give the Committee an absolute and despotic authority in determining the matter. As a matter of fact, the use of the word "distinctive" would admit the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed, because they were common to the Presbyterian as well as the Church of England, and not "distinctive of any particular denomination."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this Act would be interpreted, as all Acts were, according to the reasonable meaning of the words. If a man was found teaching the contents of the Church Catechism in a sectarian spirit or as a formulary he would be checked.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Fees of children).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved the omission of the words, "the whole or any," in order to prevent school Boards from defraying the whole of the school fees of children whose parents were too poor to pay them.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the Amendment. No doubt it was not desirable that the Board should give education gratuitously where it was possible for the parents to pay towards it. In Scotland the parochial Boards were authorized to give free education to the children of parents who were unable to pay for it; and under this clause, which was very carefully worded, the same discretion was given to the school Boards to be created by the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Maintenance by school Board of schools and sufficient school accommodation).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved an Amendment, to the effect that the school Board might remit the whole or part of the fee in the case of a child whose parents were unable to pay the same—
  "With the sanction of the Education Department, if no offer is made with the sanction of the said Department by any body of managers within six months to undertake the same without assistance from the rates."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Powers of school Board for providing schools.)
  LORD HOWARD OF GLOSSOPmoved the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He thought it was not the object of the Bill to prevent voluntary schools having a fair chance as compared with other schools. In towns like Middlesbrough, which had nearly tripled its population in 10 years, there must be ample room for voluntary action. Now, the plan he proposed was not a violent but a reasonable one. It was that a school Board for a district should have power to purchase land by compulsion, thereby placing it on an equality with the school Boards under the Bill. All he contended for was that voluntary education should be placed on a par, and no more, with the new system of education
  1184
  which the Bill would establish. He begged to move the omission of the words "every school Board" at the commencement of the clause.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONopposed the Amendment. He could not go so far as to assent to enable private and individual bodies to take land except by the process laid down in the Bill. Neither could he agree to a proposal to give them power to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; moreover that was a proposition which the other House of Parliament would not be likely to accept.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Managers may transfer school to school Board).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved an Amendment—line 42, after "purpose," insert—
  "Provided that in every case under this section the majority of those voting at any meeting to give effect to its provisions shall be not less than two thirds of those present at such meeting."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHmoved to insert a new clause between Clauses 22 and 23—
  "If the ratepayers of any district in which a school shall have been transferred to a school Board shall at a meeting duly summoned for the purpose resolve that such school shall cease to be managed by the school Board, and there are trustees or other persons who in the opinion of the Education Department will represent the management of such school before it was transferred and who are willing to undertake the management thereof, the school Board may transfer to such trustees or persons such school, and convey and assign the schoolhouse and any other property belonging to such school vested in the school Board; but in every case such transfer shall be made only,—(1) with the consent of the Education Department; and (2) with the consent of a majority of the School Board; provided, that no money raised by rates shall be applied for the support of such school after the transfer thereof by the school Board."
  He thought that schools transferred to school Boards should not be irremovably fixed, so that no opportunity could be afforded the managers of the schools to resume the control of them. He thought the clause would be as much in the interest of the ratepayers as of the managers.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he did not object to the principle of the clause; but thought that it would require some amendment at a future stage.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause inserted.
  Clause 23 (Alterations of regulations affecting management, &c.).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved to omit the clause, on the ground that it gave a power in excess of any power given in any other part of the Bill, and which would operate injuriously against the parish schools.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the clause was not in the Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons. There might be occasions in which it would be useful to have such a power vested in managers. He was willing to be guided by the sense of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Establishment of free school in special cases).
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved to omit the clause.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was impossible to deny the existence of many districts where the inhabitants were too poor to pay school fees.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 65: Majority 4.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Establishment of industrial school).
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to insert after Clause 27—
  "The school Board shall have the power of granting the use of rate-provided schools for the purpose of religious instruction or any other purposes except those of a place of religious worship, provided that such use shall not interfere with the ordinary school hours."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he must oppose this addition.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 35—Constitution of School Boards.
  Clauses 28 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 36 to 38—School Board in Metropolis.
  Clause 36 (School Board in metropolis).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved an Amendment, giving to the metropolis the same six months' grace as was given to large towns and rural parishes. He could see no reason why Returns should not be made in London, as well as in every other part of the country, for no one could tell the amount of educational accommodation in the metropolis.
  Amendment moved.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the reason for putting the Act in force at once in the metropolis was the pressing necessity for avoiding delay in the establishment of schools. The want of schools in the metropolis was so well known and acknowledged that it would be a waste of time to wait until inquiries had been made. The only effect of the Amendment would be to cause unnecessary delay in the formation of the school Board, and in ascertaining the educational wants of the metropolis.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHasked how the metropolis was to be rated? Would each district have to provide for its own wants, or would the rates be spread over the whole area?
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked if the Government had made allowance for voluntary efforts?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the education rate would be levied over the whole area of London; and, even, if in one district the education should be sufficient, that district would be rated to supply the requirements of another district. It was impossible for voluntary efforts to supply the educational deficiency of the metropolis. The joint efforts of the school Boards and of voluntaryism would be needed for many years to come to supply this deficiency.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 73 (Attendance of child at school).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was the height of absurdity to require children five years old to go to school. For himself he should never dream of educating a child of that age. It might be desirable to keep them out of mischief; but he begged his noble Friend to alter the limit of age from five to seven years.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed an Amendment altering the ages of children who should be required to attend school. The clause said that these children should be "not less than five years nor more than thirteen years." He proposed it should read, "not less than four nor more than ten years." It should be borne in mind that the exercise of such power was at the discretion of the local authorities. The great object should be to make the Bill as acceptable and palatable as possible—to take from it all that might be alarming. The measure was tentative and experimental. Now, in the London ragged schools there was a vast number of children not much more than two years old. They were not subjected to teaching, but they were brought by older children, were taught habits of order and regularity, and went through some few motions of physical exercise. Now, if the little girls of six years of age were taken to school, who, when the mother went out charing—and go she must in many cases—would take care of the younger ones? The neglect, the dirt, and danger in which these little things passed their lives was lamentable. In many parts of the manufacturing districts children of five, four, and even three years of age were put to continuous labour, and it was only that very day that he had heard of a child of two years of age who had gone through a large amount of work. Now, the Workshops Act was no protection to those children, because they toiled in the houses of their parents, and the only protection which could be given them was that they should be placed under the care of the school Boards. In London the number of employments in which children were engaged under 10 years of age was very small. That was, however, the age at which they began to be employed, and at which parents expected to gain something by their labour. If, therefore, it were to be insisted on in the Bill that those children were to attend at school from 6 to 13, for the purpose of being educated, a perfect panic would be created
  1188
  throughout the country. The parents would believe that the children were to be taken whether they wished or not, and that they would not only lose their services, but would be obliged to provide for their maintenance while they continued to go to school. The extent to which persons in London depended on the labour of their children their Lordships could scarcely be aware of, and it was impossible that a man could maintain a wife and family on 9s. or 10 s. a week, unless he was assisted by such labour. If, however, a motive such as that embodied in his Amendment were held out to the parents it would be the means, while securing the education which was required, of leaving them the services of their children. It would to a certain extent be effecting that which it was proposed to effect by the Factory Acts, and until that principle was introduced—the combination of labour and study—he did not think the Legislature would be justified in saying that parents should be altogether deprived of the services of their children from the age of 6 to 13. At the outset, therefore, it was, he contended, desirable that the limit should be fixed at 10 years; if that was not found to answer it might be afterwards extended to 12 or 13. He found, during a visit to the Potteries, a great number of children, some on half-time and some who did not work at all, but went regularly to school; but the masters had told him that the half-time children from Lancashire were superior intellectually to those who were engaged in studying the whole day. Various Returns in the higher standards furnished evidence of a similar result. Let them, therefore, do all that they could to introduce a system which had operated so successfully; but until they had introduced it to a certain extent it would, he maintained, be unjust that up to the age of 13 parents should not be allowed to derive any benefit from the labour of their children. He was the more anxious to make the Bill acceptable because he saw that the principle that the State should provide education would work so rapidly that in the course of a short time thousands of children would be thrown on the streets who were now receiving a certain amount of care and instruction. He was informed that within the last few days three ragged schools, containing over 1,000 children, were to close on

  1189
  the 29th September, because it was believed the Government intended to take charge of all the poor children. He was anxious, therefore, that when voluntary efforts ceased the operation of the Bill should be made as easy and effective as possible.
  Amendment proposed, in sub-section 1, line 34, to leave out ("five") and insert ("four"), and leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("ten.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he could hardly imagine that the school Boards would resort to a system of compulsion; and even if they did he doubted whether the magistrates would enforce it. In his judgment this clause would be the most unwise and impracticable one in the Bill, and he should like to see it omitted altogether.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he was satisfied that efficient instruction could be imparted to infants, and submitted that, as the time allowed for the education of children was exceedingly short, it was of great importance that they should begin to be taught at an early age. In answer to the arguments urged by the noble Earl, he would remind their Lordships that the power to compel the attendance of the children was only a permissive one, and that it might be desirable in some localities to continue the education to the age of 13. Again, the power of compulsion was to be exercised by Boards elected to a large extent by the parents of the children, so that it would be no easy matter to adopt the compulsory system, if the parents were opposed to it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYremarked that under the clause the school Boards might select any limit of age they pleased provided they did not go lower than five nor higher than 13 years. If we were to have compulsion at all he did not see how it could be put on any other basis.
  LORD LYTTELTONthought this permissive compulsion was one of the most unwise things that had ever been attempted. He doubted whether those who were most zealous to carry it out would not grievously fail in doing so, and thereby bring discredit on the cause of compulsory education, which he had himself advocated for many years. He objected to the clause because the indefinite powers conferred by it would in many instances
  1190
  be vested in persons utterly incapable of exercising them in a proper and judicious manner.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, it would be found impossible to carry out the system of compulsory education up to the age of 13. Boys from 10 to 13 were of great use to the farmers. A boy 10 years of age could earn 6d. a day. This amounted to £8 a year; and where a man had six boys they together could add £50 a year to the labourer's income. To cut off such a sum from the income of a man with 10 s. a week and a family, was a hard matter.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONpointed out that the clause simply would not allow compulsion to be exercised on children of lower age than five or higher age than 13; the Boards could fix on any ages within these for the limit. The Amendment of the noble Earl wholly or partially exempting children who had reached a certain standard of education from compulsion he willingly accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at end of clause insert—
  ("Provided, that any bye-law under this section requiring a child between ten or thirteen years of age to attend school shall provide for the total or partial exemption of such child from the obligation to attend school if one of Her Majesty's inspectors certified that such child has reached a standard of education specified in such bye-law.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD COLCHESTERurged the rejection of the clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 74 to 93, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART II. PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.
  Clause 94 (Conditions of annual Parliamentary Grant).
  THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment, in page 36, line 12, after "school" insert—
  "Or that it shall be carried on by a teacher certificated by the Education Department."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONhoped their Lordships would not assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to add, at end of Clause 94—
  "Provided, that no conditions shall be required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to

  1191
  obtain an annual Parliamentary Grant by any Minutes of the Education Department not in force at the time of the passing of this Act, unless such Minutes shall have been laid for six weeks upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament and shall not have been objected to in an Address to Her Majesty from either House."
  Were the clause to be passed as it stood it would be competent for the Privy Council to turn the compromise secured by the Church of England, after what, he must confess, was a severe battle, into a complete defeat. The Amendment he proposed would give that body some security that the results they had obtained should not be destroyed at the caprice of the Executive for the time being.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was willing to accept the first part of the Amendment; but he did not think the House of Commons would approve the regulations of the Privy Council being set aside by a single vote of the House of Lords. He had no objection to accept the Amendment, provided the noble Marquess would make it necessary that the Address should be agreed to by both Houses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he must ask the House to consider his proposal as a whole, because without it the security for the future of the Church of England would be very precarious indeed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONmoved to add another column, showing the amount of rate levied for school purposes exclusively.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that having addressed the House upon the subject of the mode of election proposed by this Schedule at some length upon the second reading of the Bill, he did not propose to make many observations on the subject on the present occasion. He did not think that election by Ballot was a mode fairly applicable in the present case. As the Schedule stood it was provided that—
  "Any poll shall be taken by ballot in accordance with the principles upon which a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855."
  He proposed that in lieu of the foregoing
  1192
  words, there should be inserted words providing that in the metropolis the poll should be taken in like manner as votes are now taken under the Metropolis Management Act of 1855, and that in other districts it should be taken in like manner as the poll is now taken of burgesses or ratepayers in the election of town councillors or guardians, as the case may be. If this Amendment were adopted, the votes in the country districts would be taken as the votes for Poor Law Guardians had been taken for many years past.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("taken") to the end of the paragraph, and insert—
  ("In the Metropolis in like manner as a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and shall be taken in any other district in like manner as a poll of burgesses or ratepayers (as the case may be) is usually taken in such district.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would not delay their Lordships at that late hour by going at any length into the circumstances under which the Ballot system had been introduced into the Bill. He was sorry he could not agree to the Amendment. He did not regard taking the votes by Ballot in the same sense the noble Duke did, but as a convenient mode of conducting these elections. Its adoption in this Bill would have the advantage of shielding the voters from the pressure of political leaders or the leaders of any particular religious denomination, who wished to see a man elected on the Board not from his educational merits, but solely from his connection with a particular party or denomination. He believed it was by no means an imaginary danger, considering that an amount of denominational heat had been expressed in reference to this Bill that he had not expected to see exhibited in these days.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYregretted that the mischievous word "Ballot" had been introduced into the Education Bill. He detested secret voting. He had never blackballed a man but once, and then he told him of it immediately after.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 72: Majority 19.
  Words struck out.
  Then the words—
  ("In the Metropolis in like manner as a poll is taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and shall be taken in any other district in like manner as a poll of burgesses or ratepayers (as the case may be) is usually taken in such district,")
  inserted in lieu thereof.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, referring to the question he had opened upon a previous clause of the Bill, moved to insert—
  "Whereas it is most desirable to extend the advantages of education throughout the whole compass of England and Wales in such manner that no one shall be excluded from any elementary school by reason of religious scruples, and also to consider religious instruction grounded on Christian principles as the true complement of sound elementary education."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONasked his noble Friend not to press the Amendment, which was undesirable—besides which there had been a practice of late years to dispense with long Preambles that had no enacting power. He could not agree with the statement that there was not in the Bill any provision as to religious instruction, although it was not set out in so many words. The words proposed might raise questions which it would be undesirable to discuss.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think the noble Earl was justified in dealing with the Preamble as a formality after the animated conflict which took place on the Preamble to the Bill of last Session. In the present state of the House he did not think that his noble Friend could press his Amendment; but he thought the words proposed would give a more satisfactory interpretation to the Bill. The Government might accede to words which they themselves confessed could not do any injury.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Preamble agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 262.)

  PETROLEUM BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Petroleum Acts 1862 and 1868—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a. (No. 265.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, A.M., to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.