Sitting of 30 June 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Election Commissioners Expenses* [220].
Second Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment* [215]; Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment* [188].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [203].
Committee—Report—Intoxicating Liquors (New Licences)* [157–219].
Report — Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavels* [190].
Considered as amended—Army Regulation [39]; Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation* [143].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Prayer Book (Tables of Lessons) [181], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that, although more than a year has elapsed since the whole of the business connected with the Telegraphic system

903
in England was transferred to the Post Office Department, no additional pay has been received by the Postmasters, Sub-Postmasters, and Letter Receivers for the additional work thus entailed upon them; and, if so, when it is the intention of the Government to consider their claims to increase of salary?
MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, it was not true that no additional pay had been received by postmasters, sub-postmasters, and letter receivers for the additional work. In many cases additional payments had been made, and all the cases were now under consideration. He could not state with certainty how much had been done, because, as he had before explained—for the question had been put three times—the schedules showing what had been and what would be done which he had called on the Surveyor to furnish had not yet been presented. It had been found impossible to do so up to the present, though the question had been pressed on as rapidly as circumstances would permit.

ARMY—ROYAL ARTILLERY—MEDALS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Financial Secretary of the War Department, Whether it is a fact that all soldiers in the Royal Artillery are entitled after twenty-one years' service, if they have never been tried by Court Martial, to a good conduct medal and a gratuity of five pounds, and that an intimation to this effect is read out to the men on muster days; and, whether he is aware that under such conditions an application for the gratuity has been refused on the ground that there are no funds available for the purpose?
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN: Sir, no order of the nature referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend is read to the men of the Royal Artillery on muster or any other days. The only orders on this subject read to the regiment are those contained in the General Regulations and Orders for the Army, by which soldiers, who have duly qualified as regards service and character, may, at the discretion of their commanding officer, be awarded medals with gratuity, subject to the limit laid down by Article 896 of the Pay Warrant. That article limits the amount to £40 per 900 rank and file. I may remark that in the Royal Artillery,
  904
  to their great credit, the number of men qualified for this reward greatly exceeds the number who obtain it, owing to the limit as to money to which I have referred.

ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Knight Storks, Captain, Vivian, The Judge Advocate.)
ARMY REGULATION BILL— [BILL 39.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration.
  LORD ELCHO, in rising to move—
  "That it is inexpedient to consider the Bill, as amended, until the whole of the scheme of the Government for the first appointment, promotion, and retirement of officers, together with an estimate of its probable, possible or ultimate cost, have been laid upon the Table,"
  said, the Tichborne claimant, in describing some change for the better in his physical condition, was reported to have used this expression—"It has busted, and I feel much better." In words more euphonious, but similar in sense, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister announced on the 12th of June to the astonished House of Commons the collapse of this measure. "We have lightened our Bill," he said, "of everything that was immaterial." In point of fact, it was the bursting of the bubble which had been so industriously blown by the officials on the Treasury Bench, and which their friends in the Press and elsewhere had done their best to swell. Pricked by public discussion, that bubble had collapsed, and they had nothing but a few soap-suds in their hands, in the shape of the Bill now to be reported. The danger the country ran was that the circumstances which gave rise to the measure should be totally forgotten. He would, therefore, remind the House what these circumstances were. The Bill was brought in in deference to a strong feeling roused by recent events abroad, which urged and invited the Government to settle for ever the great question of our military organization. This public feeling was based upon the urgency of affairs abroad; upon the knowledge that we had engaged to defend Belgium; that in every branch of the service there was disor-

  905
  ganization; that the age of the men did not fit them for active service; that there was a want of artillery, and no proper amalgamation between the Regular forces and the Reserves. It was based, moreover, upon the acts of the Government, or rather upon the striking contrast between their acts and their words. Last year the Government represented everything as coleur de rose, took credit for reductions in the number of men, even in the artillery, and declared they had never been so strong since 1815, though they might under the changed conditions and requirements of the times, just as well have taken the standard of our military forces during the Heptarchy. But it was found that the reductions were made to a much greater extent than they ought to have been, and the contrast between the words and the acts of the Government became very strongly marked, for before Parliament separated, they had to take powers to add 20,000 additional men to the Army, and when Parliament re-assembled last February, the artillery, for the reduction of which they had previously taken credit, was nearly doubled. This Bill was then introduced for the purpose of dealing with the whole subject; it was not then regarded as a partial measure, affecting only one branch of the subject. But when, on the 12th instant, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that purchase was the one thing of importance contained in the Bill, he (Lord Elcho) disputed the point, on the ground that the Secretary of State for War, when introducing the Army Estimates, and explaining the provisions of that measure, stated that its object was to render panics for ever unknown. On the 16th February last, when the Secretary of State for War brought forward the Army Estimates, he practically introduced this Bill, and on that occasion he made these observations—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the noble Lord was not in Order in reading any report of what had taken place during any of the debates of the present Session.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, in explanation, that the quotation he wished to read had immediate reference to the subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that did not alter the question of Order involved in the case.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that as he was precluded from reading the quotation, he should have to rely on his memory. The Secretary of State for War on that occasion said substantially that the Government felt the necessity of welding into a harmonious whole the various component elements of our military forces—the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Reserves; and that what they intended to do would have the effect of rendering panic, or the apprehension of panic, for the future altogether unknown. He (Lord Elcho) confessed that when he first saw the Bill he did not think it came up to the description which had been given of it. As he before observed, on the 12th instant, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister repudiated the idea that the Bill was anything but a purchase Bill. Now, whatever view might be taken on that point, he would only say that if that speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been made on the 16th of February, instead of the 12th of June, it would have been scouted by the country and by that House as an indication of any settlement, or proper mode of dealing with this great question. The right hon. Gentleman, on the 16th of February, dared not have made such a statement—it was only after he had tested the well-marshalled character of his majority, and the readiness of that majority to follow him into the lobby, that the right hon. Gentleman could use such language. What the House had to deal with now was, not the measure as a whole, but a mere fragment, abolishing purchase, transferring the powers to appoint to commissions from the Lords Lieutenant of counties to the Secretary of State, and putting Volunteers under the Mutiny Act. The Bill had been forced through that House without any concession of any kind to anyone, and that fact was made the subject of boasting on the other side of that House; but hon. Gentlemen should recollect that they had only passed what was left of the Bill—not the whole measure. The Government had laid great stress on the absolute necessity of abolishing purchase in order to do certain things; but that House had had considerable difficulty in getting to the bottom of those matters. One of the objects of the Government was to amalgamate the Regular and the Reserve forces, for which purpose

  907
  the power of the Lords Lieutenant to nominates to commissions was to be done away with. But it turned out that that amalgamation of the Regular and Reserve forces was all moonshine. As to having brigadiers with a command of 20,000 men, they would simply be inspectors under another name. Then as regarded commissions in the Militia, the recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant was still to be taken; and as to the transfer of officers of the Regular forces to the Militia, they learnt that supersession would only be resorted to in extreme cases as at present. In fact, excepting the nominal transfer from the Lords Lieutenant to the Secretary of State, everything stood as at present; and all that the Government said was necessary to be done could be done without the abolition of purchase, and without throwing such an enormous charge upon the national Exchequer. The improvement in the education of officers; the preventing of incompetent officers from commanding regiments; the opening up of the service to men with no money, by giving more commissions at Sandhurst; and the grant of more commissions to men rising from the ranks—all these objects could be attained at the present annual cost to the nation. As to the proposal to put the Volunteers under the Mutiny Act, it gave the Government no hold upon the Volunteers — which was the thing wanted—and did nothing to weld together the Regular and Reserve forces. All that fragmentary measure now did was to disorganize; there was nothing constructive about it; it was wholly destructive, and the House neither knew the cost of it nor the future system which was to take its place. The only Amendment of any value adopted during the discussion on the Bill came not from the Government, but from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens)—namely, that men below a certain age should not be sent to India to die there like flies. And how had the minority in the House of Commons been treated by the Government? That was a grave question and really overshadowed all others connected with the Bill. Hon. Members were sent there to guard the national institutions, to see they were not wantonly destroyed, and if any were swept away to see that the substitute was known and understood. They were sent there to act as jealous
  908
  guardians of the public purse; to see that no new taxation was levied on the hard earnings of the people without sufficient justification and full knowledge of the purpose to which it was to be appropriated and the benefits to be derived therefrom. He considered that in any contemplated reform implying great changes—he might almost say a complete renovation—without the necessary facts and materials it was impossible for the House to legislate. But in that case the necessary materials had been refused. The House had been kept studiously in the dark, and the answer of the Government had invariably been—"Pass the Bill and then you shall know what the cost will be and what the substitute will be." In short, they had invited the House to embark on an unknown expenditure for unknown results. Now, when they found a system working well, giving them efficient officers, being, in fact, the only sound part of their military system which had stood the test of war, was it not the extreme of folly to sweep it away? At all events, if it was to be swept away, the House of Commons had a right to know what the substitute was to be. Yet they knew practically nothing, except that the system of selection was to take the place of the system of purchase. As to that new system of selection, however, everything was vague. They were told it was to be selection tempered by regimental considerations and seniority, and eminent men were said to be laying down some plan. But the House ought to know the details of the plan, for the whole question turned upon details. They were told that the Secretary of State would not himself interfere, but that the patronage would be in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. But what was the Commander-in-Chief's position in the War Office List of June, 1870? He was there put on the same level as the Financial Secretary to the War Department and the Surveyor General, and his name absolutely appeared as fifth in the list. The Secretary of State was supreme, and there was great danger of Parliamentary influence and favouritism being again brought to bear on the appointments to the Army as well as in the Militia. Then they were told they must not interfere with regulations, but must trust to the Government; but Government was always changing, and, more-

  909
  over, there was nothing in the past conduct of the Government to give that House any confidence that they had the power of laying down a clear system in Army matters—but still he had a precedent for asking for the production of some plan, because in last Session the Government yielded to the demand made that, before passing the Bill for establishing the offices of Surveyor General and Financial Secretary, they should lay down the regulations, showing what the duties of those officers were to be before Parliament. Strong as the argument was as regarded the abolition of purchase, it was infinitely stronger as to the cost. The Government proposition entailed an expenditure of £8,000,000 to be spread over a certain number of years, though everything they professed to do could be done without that expenditure, and, in addition, the cost of the annual retirement was calculated by some persons at £1,250,000, while at present the officers themselves paid the expense of the system of retirement. He was told that the conduct of those who opposed the measure of the Government had been criticized by the Liberal Press in the country, which suppressed the speeches of those hon. Members who objected to the Bill, and the opposition had been characterized as the opposition of colonels suddenly becoming economists, and fighting for their own interests, or the interests of those connected with them, and desiring to establish in this country a military caste. He was himself neither a soldier nor the son of a soldier, and had no interest in the Army as regarded over-regulation prices. At any rate, his interest was less than that of the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), for though he had a son in the Army, his son was only a lieutenant, while the son of the right hon. Member for Morpeth was a major or colonel. But that contest had not been carried on by colonels in the sense insinuated. He understood that there were only four colonels in that House receiving full-pay, the other colonels having seats as Members of Parliament being either Militia colonels or retired colonels. Therefore, the charge that the opposition to the present measure arose from motives of pecuniary interest was most unjust, and it should be borne in mind that resistance to it had proceeded from both sides of the
  910
  House, and included the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz); Nottingham (Mr. Seely); Stroud (Mr. Dickinson); and Waterford (Mr. Osborne); all of whom had respectively criticized and denounced it in the severest terms. He could multiply instances of that nature—instances showing that whether they looked at speeches, or the Amendments on the Paper, stronger opposition to the measure had come from the Liberal than the Opposition side of the House. Then they were charged with suddenly becoming economists; but he could say that he had on many occasions expressed the opinion that the county did not get its money's worth for the amount voted in the Estimates; and he opposed the present Bill on the ground that it entailed now burdens, without establishing the military system on a sound and enduring basis. As to the charge that the Opposition wished to create a military caste, he would observe that it was to the creation of a military caste which the Bill would effect that objections had been taken; for when purchase was abolished, and when the Government got rid of that class of officers whom he ventured to think were the salt of the service, and substituted for them another class, who must make the Army their profession for their whole life, then a military caste would be practically established. Then came the question whether the Opposition had been factious, in treating upon which—making, in passing, an allusion to himself (Lord Elcho)—the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) summed up in a lucid and impartial way the conduct of the Opposition, and held out the example of a contrary course which he alleged they had pursued on the Irish Land Bill. But he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman took occasion to tear that Bill to shreds. He had heard that hon. and learned Gentleman give utterance to the most admirable sentiments with reference to the security of property as affected by that Bill, and one naturally expected that he would support them on a division; but he had always some saving clause; his feeling for the Prime Minister, and his unwillingness to injure the Government, led him to abstain from recording his vote against them. But there really was no analogy whatever between the course taken by the Government on the Irish

  911
  Land Bill and the Army Organization Bill. The Ballot Bill was full of details, and there were numerous Amendments, some of them pictorial, showing the form of the tickets under which the poll at elections was to be taken. Suppose the Government had said the present system of conducting elections should cease, certain charges would be incurred by its abolition, various parties must be compensated; but they were resolved to give no information to the House as to what subsequent charges would be incurred; all they would say was, that they intended to substitute the principle of secret voting. Such a course would be similar to that which the Government had pursued in regard to this Bill. He ventured to say, therefore, that the Opposition, having resisted that course, had done only what was right, and that the faction, if it existed, was in the Government. Besides, he maintained public opinion was with the Opposition upon this question. He gathered this from the divisions that had been taken. The purchase clause was carried by a majority of 39, while Ministers boasted of a majority of 120; on the next Amendment the majority was 20; then the majorities were 19, and the last 16. These divisions were before Whitsuntide. After the holidays there was a snatch division, in which the Government had a larger majority, and the last division within the four corners of the Bill, upon which their majority dwindled down to 2. He therefore said public opinion was clearly with the Opposition on this question. And as to the way in which the Government had secured their majorities, all he need say was, that on one occasion he saw four hon. Gentlemen on the other side going into the lobby with the Opposition, when the Government Whip put his arms across the door and stopped them; they could not resist, and went away from the lobby into which they were going. How many had gone through the same process he could not tell; but the incident at least showed how majorities were got up. If, again, they looked into the public prints, they would find that the views advocated by the Opposition had been largely supported. But it was said by the Prime Minister that they had wasted the public time by discussing this matter so fully in Committee. Now, he would refer to a precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman the
  912
  Prime Minister himself on another Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would remember the Divorce Bill of 1858. [Mr. GLADSTONE: 1857.] Well, in 1857 the right hon. Gentleman was strongly opposed to that Bill for relaxing the law of divorce. He did not know whether he had changed his views—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No!] — but after what they had seen he did not despair. The right hon. Gentleman might yet go to the American system of what they called "free love." Did the right hon. Gentleman confine himself to one speech and one division against the Divorce Bill? No: he made three speeches against the Bill before it went into Committee, and 66 speeches before it was through Committee. Reverting to the treatment by the Government of the House of Commons upon the present Bill, he must say it was the more objectionable as the commencement of a system of personal government under the guise of a Liberal Administration. The minority, he repeated, had only done their duty, without at all exceeding the limits of Parliamentary government. But the result had been that the officers were denounced as incapable. When Balaklava was mentioned there was an approving smile on the lips of the Prime Minister. But Balaklava was in favour of the officers of the Army, not against them. If there was anything wrong in it—he did not say there was—it had occurred under the system of selection. The officers were said to be uneducated—he did not say they were, but if so it was not their fault, but the fault of the Government. [Lord EUSTACE CECIL: They are not incapable.] It was not for a moment to be supposed he coincided in such a disgraceful charge, for he maintained, on the contrary, that when tried the officers had never been found deficient; and it was the fault of the Government if they had not been like the Prussians accustomed to campaigning. For the first time the camps and manœuvres in Berkshire would give to the officers of the Army the opportunity of learning their duty at home in the field. The officers of the Army had been threatened, in the House, in the Press, by the Secretary of State for War, and by the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Over-regulation Price Committee (Sir George Grey), that they would not get over-regulation prices.

  913
  He would call that not confiscation, but repudiation, for everything showed that they were absolutely bound in honour to pay over-regulation prices; the meanness of saying that because the Government had been beaten on the Bill they would not pay over-regulation prices was equalled only by its foolishness; and, as there might be weak-kneed people who would believe in the threat, it was necessary that the matter should be put fairly before the House. The Solicitor to the War Office, Mr. Clode, in an Appendix to the Report of the Over-regulation Commission, said that prices more or less in excess of the regulation had always existed in the Army was scarcely open to doubt, nor was it less certain that the Crown, through its responsible officers, was cognizant of it, and the concluding paragraph of the Report stated that there had been a decided acquiescence in the practice, amounting, in the opinion of the Commissioners, to a virtual recognition of it by the civil and military Departments and authorities. Speaking in 1868, when he calculated that £7,126,000 represented the regulation prices, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary (Captain Vivian) added that justice required an addition to be made for the sums paid under the system which had been connived at, and he was certain the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not say that officers were to be dealt harshly with and denied compensation, because the Government had failed to pass their Bill in its completeness. That over-regulation prices had been allowed could easily be proved, because they gave them the Reserve Fund of £1,700,000, and that promoted retirements, which would now cost them £1,200,000 a-year. In 1869, when a Question was asked by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock (General Forester), about four cornetcies of the Secretary of State for War, he said the Reserve Fund would be called upon to provide the means of purchasing them, adding that new arrangements were to be made to bring that fund more directly under the control of Parliament; and yet the Prime Minister had spoken of the fund as a mere trifle. Under these circumstances, it was unwise and undignified to use threats which would not be acted upon, and to accuse officers of breaking a declaration which was analogous to the
  914
  declaration against electoral corruption that used to be required of hon. Members, and which was at last set aside because it was not wise to press it. The state of the case was this — In obedience to public demand, the Government brought in a Bill which proposed to settle the whole question; it would not have done that had it been carried in its entirety; owing to opposition it had been reduced to a simple Purchase Bill, involving unknown expenditure for an unknown result; they knew that the cost was at least £8,000,000, and that they must sooner or later have a retirement scheme, which would cost £1,250,000 a-year; and the main questions, which thy wished to see settled were left untouched. Speaking only for himself, he was confident he had expressed the opinion of those who had patriotically and conscientiously resisted the progress of the measure. They had done so because they wished to see the question of military organization satisfactorily settled; but instead of settling it, the Bill shirked the question and pandered to popular prejudice and ignorance. If the Bill had in any way given effect to the original account of what it was intended to do, it would have found its warmest supporters amongst hon. Gentlemen who, sitting on both sides of the House, had been unwillingly obliged to fight this great national question to the death. He was glad it would leave the House as a fragmentary measure, because, if it were passed, although it did not add one iota to their strength, it would otherwise be made an excuse for doing nothing more, and there would be danger of their falling into their former state of apathy, induced by money-getting and the shirking of personal sacrifice in the matter of military service — a result which there was reason to fear from the reception given to such melancholy trash as The New Armada, in quarters where different things might have been expected, and by authorities which in November were urging the country, not to such a measure as this, nor anything approaching it, but to nothing short of a system of conscription. Then, had the Bill become law, they would have been in danger of falling into the condition he had described, and the country could only have been aroused by another European war or some internal disaster. The Government had not done their duty in

  915
  foisting upon the House such a miserable Bill; and in the conduct of the whole matter they had gone far to degrade that deliberate Assembly into a mere instrument to seal the record of the foregone conclusions of the Government and the unknown intentions of the Executive. Holding those views, he begged leave to propose his Resolution as a protest against the measure, and in order to give the House an opportunity of repudiating the position to which the Government desired to reduce them.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to consider the Bill, as amended, until the whole of the scheme of the Government for the first appointment, promotion, and retirement of Officers, together with an estimate of its probable or possible ultimate cost, have been laid upon the Table,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was unfortunately not in the House when the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) began his speech; but he had been informed that the noble Lord alluded to the position which he erroneously supposed his (Sir George Grey's) son held in the Army, thereby implying that he had a pecuniary interest in the passing of this Bill. The noble Lord was wholly mistaken. His son was several years in the Army; but he sold out of the Army more than six years ago, and the only Commission he now held was that of a major in the Northumberland Militia, and neither he nor himself (Sir George Grey) had the slightest pecuniary interest in the passing of this Bill; in fact, had he possessed any such interest in that event as had been inferred, he should have hesitated before he undertook the duties of Chairman of the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject. Neither had he, as his noble Friend implied, used any threat with reference to the officers. He stated, on a former occasion, as strongly as he could, that it would be in his opinion most unjust to officers, who had acted only in accordance with a long-established system, unchecked by any authority, to withhold from them an equitable consideration of the claims they had acquired in respect of over-regulation price. He concurred in every word of the Report of the Royal Commission, which, in fact, was drafted by
  916
  himself. Every part of that Report, expressed his own opinion, and was adopted, with the exception of a slight modification. He had stated that it was impossible for the Government to let the Report of the Commission lie on the Tables of both Houses without taking any step to sever themselves from all complicity with the habitual violation of the law set forth in that Report. He had also expressed an opinion that one mode of effecting this would be to repeal the Act of George III., which imposed penalties on those who paid over-regulation prices; but he added that as no one had proposed such a course the only other plan they could adopt was that embodied in the Bill of putting an end to over-regulation payments for the future by abolishing purchase altogether. He did not allude, however, to officers who had already paid the over-regulation price; but he said that with regard to the future, he thought it was the bounden duty of the Government to declare in the most explicit way that they would no more be parties to this violation of the law, that they should take every means in their power to stop this practice, and that they would not recognize future claims founded on a continuance of an illegal practice. He could not concur in the opinion of the noble Lord with reference to the Bill. Irrespective of all party feeling, he hoped that consideration for the discipline of the Army, as well as for the interests of the officers, would produce wiser counsels than those which the noble Lord hoped would prevail in "another place." He believed that it would be most injurious to the Army if this question should be made a hustings' question throughout the country. Although no doubt many officers in the Army were in favour of the continuance of the purchase system, yet he believed the general feeling of the officers of the Army was that if purchase is to be abolished, the terms proposed by the Government were just and liberal. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill would become law.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he wished merely to say a word about the unpopularity of the Bill. Last night they were told that there were in favour of the Ballot Bill 45 Petitions, signed by 7,500 people. What did the House suppose was the number of Petitions in favour of this Bill? One, signed by two

  917
  persons. There were, on the other hand, 217 Petitions against it, signed by 10,653 people.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, it was perfectly right that the discipline of the Army was a consideration that should not be lost sight of, and therefore whatever might happen to the Bill he hoped the purchase question would be settled for good and all. But he believed it could only be settled by the adoption of a moderate course by the Government, who had still time to accept the proposals in reference to payment of regulation and over-regulation price made by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir William Russell), and exchanges, as proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Colonel Anson). If they refused to pay attention to those propositions the blame of disorganization would rest with them. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had had the moral courage to produce a decisive measure he would have met with the cordial support of those who had opposed that Bill.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had hitherto taken no part in the discussions on that Bill, believing it would be better left to military authorities to deal with the subject; but he could not forbear at that stage from giving expression to the dissatisfaction entertained by people out-of-doors with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Last year there was a panic in the country arising from the state of the Continent, and that panic was increased by the position of affairs in the East. In Her Majesty's gracious Speech she was made to say that no time would be lost in laying before Parliament a Bill for the better regulation of the Army and the land forces. But the Government had done nothing except what, in the opinion of military authorities, would be of great injury to their Army. He was in company with several foreign military men lately, and they were perfectly astonished at what was being done. They said that England possessed a very small Army, but it was perfect. General Trochu had stated that it was small, but admirable, and that they were entering upon an experiment that might hereafter prove most destructive to the welfare of it as a permanent in-
  918
  stitution; and now the Government were going to destroy purchase, which was the mainstay of it as a military system. In case of danger arising, how should we stand? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said he was improving the military service, but the most important part of the Bill had been withdrawn. He was only expressing the dissatisfaction of civilians that that Session should have been allowed to pass without any step being taken to increase the security of the country in case of danger.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) who had introduced that question had spoken very frequently in the course of the discussions on the Bill. He had spoken at great length, and, as always, with great ability; but he must be pardoned for saying that the noble Lord had very frequently, but never more absolutely than on that occasion, spoken very little to the point. He did not blame the noble Lord, who was a very well-intentioned person. He had no doubt the noble Lord was actuated, as he told the House, by an earnest desire to do the State some service. He did not impute anything factious to the noble Lord, or those who agreed with him; on the contrary, he believed all those hon. Gentlemen, in common with the noble Lord, were honestly and conscientiously opposed to the Bill. But what was the reason the noble Lord had spoken at such length, and so little to the purpose? It was because the noble Lord was dealing with a subject with which he was not entirely familiar. The noble Lord had described himself to-day as a civilian. For some time the noble Lord had been a great champion of the Fine Arts, and those who watched his career in that House thought he might well aspire to occupy the post now filled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets; whereas now there were rumours abroad that the noble Lord actually aspired to the office filled by his (Captain Vivian's) right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Whether that were so or not, if hon. Members went into the Library they would find that the noble Lord still toyed with his old love, though he had taken on with a now. But in these discussions the noble Lord depended very much upon others for his military information, and he was not

  919
  able to digest all which he swallowed. He would give two illustrations. The noble Lord had talked of the son of the right hon. Member for Morpeth being in the Army, when the fact was he had left it six years ago; and then the noble Lord had given Notice that he would move for an Address for a Return of the Household Troops that had paraded on the Queen's birthday, by way of showing to the country the force we had got in London to fight a future Battle of Dorking. [Lord ELCHO said, it was suggested by the commanding officer of a regiment.] Well, then, either the commanding officer had intentionally misled the noble Lord, which he was perfectly certain was not the case, or else he must congratulate that gallant officer on having arrived at the command of a regiment before selection was substituted for purchase. The strength of the brigade was 4,151; but if the country was to judge of the fighting power of the Guards in London from the Address which the noble Lord intended to move, they would concludes that only 650 men were available. The noble Lord, in opposing the second reading, told the House that the Bill was nothing but a Purchase Bill, and he scoffed at the idea of calling it an Army Regulation Bill. But when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War proposed to withdraw a portion of the Bill, then the noble Lord changed his note, and said—"Oh, you have withdrawn the most importaut part of your measure;" and as a climax, on that, the third reading, declared that the Bill had collapsed like a soap-bubble, and that nothing but the suds remained. The noble Lord had also said—"You can do everything you want without passing this Bill." Quite true, he admitted it; but with what justice to the officers? Let the House look to the five second lieutenant-colonels of cavalry now reduced, and see where their interests had gone. What was happening in the reduction of the companies of infantry regiments from 12 to 10? And what had happened last year when his right hon. Friend was endeavouring to carry out the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), for abolishing the rank of ensign and cornet? What interests came then into play? Therefore, he maintained that his right hon. Friend could not carry out his alterations with-
  920
  out the Bill, except at great pecuniary sacrifice on the part of the officers, and the first step towards doing justice to them was to abolish purchase The noble Lord had also told the House that Her Majesty's Government had treated the House very badly because they had not told the public anything, and then in the next breath he told the House that Her Majesty's Government were going to substitute selection for seniority. [Lord ELCHO: What kind of selection?] Government said it meant that in future no officer who was not qualified should be advanced, and that there should be a system of seniority tempered by selection. But the noble Lord wanted to have everything done in a moment. The fact was, the reform of the Army must be made gradually, and the first step towards it was the abolition of purchase. Until that was done it would be impossible to do justice to the officers. The noble Lord had said that the Government had uttered threats. But he defied the noble Lord to bring forward a single word in any speech that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General, or himself, which could be construed into a threat. They had claimed support for the Bill on the ground that it would be an advantage both to the officers and to the public, and had not uttered a single word by way of threat. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) that purchase was doomed, and also with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that it would be a great misfortune to the Army if anything happened to hang up this Bill for a year. That would be a great misfortune to the Army and the country, and therefore he hoped the noble Lord would not protract the discussion to the length which a celebrated trial was now occupying, but that he would allow the House to proceed to a division.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he hoped the House would agree with the last suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary, though the general tone of his speech was rather provocative of continued debate. It was not desirable to pursue the debate on the present occasion, The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord

  921
  Elcho) had expressed his opinions with remarkable ability and power; he had delivered a protest against the measure, and in a manner which would not be forgotten. But they were awaiting an important debate on the third reading of the Bill, when an opportunity would be afforded of entering upon many of the subjects which had just been mentioned. He therefore trusted that this part of the discussion would end, and that the Report on the Bill would conclude to-day.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  LORD ELCHO, in rising to move the following clause—
  "That no soldier shall be permitted to enter the Reserve Force until he shall have completed his twenty-third year,"
  said, he earnestly hoped that as everything was tentative, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would not, any more than a fisher, be satisfied with one bait and one hook, but try different modes of inducing men to come into the Reserve, and that both the system of pension and pay should be attempted. If a man entered the Army at 18, he was unfit, either physically or in the matter of discipline, to enter the Reserve at 21; and to improve the discipline, solderly feeling, and esprit de corps of the Army, he proposed that at whatever age a man entered the Army, the minimum age at which he should be allowed to enter the Reserve should be 23. But he would be satisfied with an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as practicable, Government would not allow men to enter the Reserve under that age.
  Clause (Age for entry into Reserve Force,)—(Lord Elcho,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MAJOR GENERAL SIR PERCY HERBERTasked, what was proposed to be done with regard to the proposed Amendment for securing compensation to non-purchase officers in certain cases?
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex had been in communication with the draftsman
  922
  of the Bill, and two letters had passed between them. It was in evidence, according to the opinion of the draftsman of the Bill, that the words in the Bill were sufficient to cover the whole of his (Lord Eustace Cecil's) Amendments. He did not think that was the opinion of the hon. Member for Sussex, but at the same time he recommended that the two letters should be placed side by side in some safe custody, with the opinion of the draftsman of the Bill, so that in case litigation should arise in future the letters could be referred to.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a rumour which was in general circulation, as to the course taken by him on the subject of short service enlistment. The rumour was that about March or April last an Order was issued from the War Office, inviting all men who had served the Crown for three years to enter the Army of Reserve; that shortly afterwards so large a number of men accepted the proposal that the Secretary of State took alarm, and issued another Order to stop any men from entering the Reserve; and that more recently a third Order had been issued, inviting some of the men who had left the Army to join the Reserve to come back again and serve with the colours. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to contradict this report, because it gave an idea of vacillation on the part of the Government which would excite great alarm and annoyance.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was glad that he could entirely contradict the rumour. An Order, dated March 22, had been issued for this reason—It was thought very desirable, although at the time the number of men required for the infantry had been obtained, not to stop recruiting, for the Government desired that the First Army Reserve should be materially strengthened. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had on one occasion called the First Army Reserve a "ridiculous little force." As his right hon. Friend was the author of that force, it was curious that he should thus disparage it. When the present Government came into office it was about 1,000 strong; and the object of their legislation last year was to strengthen that Reserve. They took power to remove into the Reserve any men who were willing

  923
  to enter it after three years' service. When they found that the infantry was full, they still thought it not right to stop recruiting. Such a step was mischievous for several reasons—because we had no conscription; because our Army had the greatest amount of foreign service of any Army in the world; because, also, there were in this country high wages, a fluctuating labour-market, and, in consequence, a migratory population. They must, therefore, consult the feelings and wishes of those whom they desired to enlist, and they could not do a worse thing than be perpetually altering the terms they were offering. It was desirable to make those terms familiar and acceptable to recruits. Under these circumstances, the Government desired not to stop recruiting, and also to add to the First Army Reserve. They therefore issued an Order, not, as was alleged, inviting everybody who had seen three years' service with the colours to go into the Reserve, but stating that well-conducted men belonging to regiments of infantry of the Line at home, if of the prescribed age and otherwise eligible, and of not less than three years' service, would be permitted to enter the Reserve "within such limits as may be found necessary as to numbers." This Circular had been misunderstood, as though it were an invitation to everybody who chose to enter the Reserve; but the words he quoted showed that the offer was subject to limitations. The result of the Circular was that 22 sergeants, 186 corporals, and 2,462 privates desired to avail themselves of the invitation. The Government had always been told—"What is the use of offering 4d. a-day? Men will not take it." He was glad, therefore, to find that over 2,000 of the rank and file were willing to take it. He was also happy to say that the Government were not now withholding permission to go into the Reserve; and this "ridiculous little force" amounted to between 6,000 and 7,000 men, 9,000 being the whole number taken in the year's Estimates. With regard to the recent Order referred to by his right hon. Friend, he believed it was a Circular pointing out to the men the terms on which they might go into the Reserve, and the conditions on which, if at all, they would be permitted to return to the service. It was nothing of the kind mentioned by his right hon. Friend. With
  924
  regard to the question of the right hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Sir Percy Herbert), it was said in the discussion on the Bill, that the non-purchase officer, after 20 years' service, would not get the full value of his commission. At the time he thought the Bill did give this compensation, and the draftsman who had been consulted did not deem it necessary to amend the clause. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) admitted, with regard to the Reserve, that any scheme must be tentative; and the reason he (Mr. Cardwell) had declined to lay upon the Table a cut-and-dried scheme was, that it would be mischievous to represent that certain things were fixed and settled as the condition of passing a Bill when they knew that everything they did must be tentative. The Government were extremely desirous that the men in the Army and the Reserve should not be men of extreme youth, but should be of an age the most suitable for military service. But according to the system of long service, whether in the Crimean War, in the Indian Mutiny, or upon an emergency like that which lately led the House to add 20,000 to the Army, they were compelled to make any such addition with young men, and hence complaints that they died off like flies. But establish, as they were now doing, an Army Reserve, and then they called to the ranks men who had passed through the Army in their youth, and who, when they called upon them to return for actual warfare, were exactly of the age you wished—from 20 to 30 years old, men capable of rendering the services which the Prussian Army rendered during the late campaign. The noble Lord seemed to think that short service and 4d. a-day discouraged men from the service. This however, was not the case. A short time ago, when the infantry was full, recruiting was limited to six years with the colours and six with the Reserve; and he was informed that the recruiting for the infantry during four weeks in May produced a larger number of recruits, though they were only taken for short service, than in any year since 1859. In the six weeks from April 1 to May 6 there were, on the whole, 2,238 recruits, of whom 418 were for short service; and then, when the recruiting was limited to six years and six, there

  925
  were, from May 6 to June 17, 2,678 recruits, of whom 1,545 were infantry for short service. He did not say this fact was conclusive, but as far as experience went it encouraged him to believe that for short periods of service they would find men ready and willing to join the standards. If so, an immense advantage would be gained. The financial saving effected with regard to the pension list was very important, and the moral and social advantage derived from bringing men into the service for only a brief period, instead of for a long period of enforced celibacy, was still more important; and the advantage to the country in the matter of military defence was also very great. Altogether, he was exceedingly sanguine that the experiment would be successful. The complaint in reference to sending young men to India was no new one, and it had no peculiar connection with the system of short service; for even before there was any limitation at all in the period of service there was the same complaint. He hoped that they would be able to give effect to the wish of the House upon that subject, but he could not say that he was prepared to assent to any statutory limitation with regard to the age for going into the service; he did not desire to go further than this—that was to say, that they desired that they should get into the Army and into the Reserve men of the age most suitable for military service, but in certain cases it might be extremely convenient to be able to put men into the Reserve without a strict limit as to age. When they came to work the system of short service they would have to consider carefully the case of the regiments upon the rota for India, so as to fill them up with men who had the longest period to serve.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that 6,000 men would have to be relieved in India every year, and he thought that there would be some difficulty in doing this under the short-time system.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War appeared to think that some definite plan should be arrived at; yet at the same time that he should like to have the opportunity of enlisting upon such terms as he should think best, so as to enlist men for the full period to go to India. Now, that would be a very mischievous proceeding. The recruits liked
  926
  to know what their term of service would be. It would be far better to say positively that there should be six years in the Army and six years in the Reserve, because then the men would understand it.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that there had not been any inconvenience experienced at present from enlisting men for different periods of service. The arrangements for sending troops to India had been entered into with the concurrence of the Indian Government, and there would be a saving of expense by sending only short service men to India, because those short service men would not be allowed to take wives and children with them.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  EARL PERCYsaid, that the position of the Volunteer force was by no means a very desirable one at that moment, for they were alternately coaxed, laughed at, and censured, and although it was constantly said, they could not rely on their Reserve forces, nothing appeared to be done to increase their efficieny, and he believed that the great portion of the Volunteers would bear with satisfaction the imposition of a stricter degree of discipline. Greater powers should be given to officers of the Reserve force. At present they had only the powers given them under the 21st clause of the Volunteer Act—namely, the power to place a man under arrest during the continuance of parade, and the power of dismissal. He thought they should have the power of imposing fines for other offences than those at targets, provided for in the by-laws of certain regiments. It was most undesirable that the power of dismissal should be the only one possessed by a commanding officer. The punishment of dismissal was either too great or too small. He, therefore, moved the following clause:—
  "Any Volunteer committing any of the offences mentioned in the Volunteer Act, 1863, Clause 21, shall, in lieu of or in addition to the penalties therein enumerated, be liable at the discretion of the commanding officer for the time being of the corps to which he belongs, or of the administrative brigade of which it forms a part, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, subject to such rules and regulations with regard to the procedure against such offender as to the ascertaining and registering the offence as may from time to time be drawn

  927
  up by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and the provisions of the Volunteer Act, 1863, Clauses 21 and 27, affecting the revision of the decisions of commanding officers as well as the recovery of the fines inflicted under such decision, shall for all such purposes be deemed to form part of this Act."
  Clause (Additional powers to commanding officers of Volunteer corps,)—(Earl Percy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYsaid, he looked upon the Amendment of the noble Earl the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) as one calculated to do a great deal more harm than benefit to the Volunteer service, because it would introduce a system of coercion of a very distasteful character. He always considered the imposition of fines on Volunteers to be most objectionable, especially as from experience it had been proved to be almost impracticable—from the impossibility of recovering them. The very fact, therefore, of their evasion would be a breach of discipline, and it would be nothing more or less than a premium upon insubordination and disobedience. At the commencement of the Volunteer movement the system of imposing fines was introduced into every code of regimental and corps regulations, with the view of preventing certain irregularities, which it was thought it might check; and the best reason why it would be inexpedient to recur to that system was, that there was probably not a single battalion or corps in the service that kept the imposition of fines in its code of regulations. It was wrong on principle, because it was obviously distasteful to men who volunteered their services for a national object—such as defence against invasion. He was surprised to hear from the noble Earl such a reflective account of insubordination in the Volunteer service as compared with the Militia during the last nine years. He considered that the tone and character of a corps, as to its discipline and general contentment, was dependent, to a great extent, upon its commanding officer, who, from the fact of his undertaking the command of men who had volunteered con amore to fulfil certain duties, had the opportunity of endearing himself to them; and he felt strongly that if a commanding officer was unable to conduct the tone and bearing of his regiment without having recourse to the
  928
  system of fines, the sooner he left it the better, and if the regiment could not be carried on with credit to the country, without such an exaction, the sooner it was dissolved the better. Then, what were these fines alluded to by the noble Earl intended to effect? They were intended to enforce more efficiency for one thing—a coercion which would signally fail. The noble Earl said that greater powers should be given to officers of the Reserve forces. He (Colonel C. H. Lindsay) contended that they did not want greater powers—they had quite enough; the only fear he had was, that what they had was about to be diminished. He argued that attendance at drill, and parade, and reviews could not be enforced in the Volunteer service, when not embodied, as it would be in time of emergency; and it was useless to argue that it could without endangering its position throughout the country. It must be borne in mind that the Volunteer service was composed of men of business, whose time was not their own, and it often happened that when members had to attend an early parade, or drill, they had a portion of their wages deducted, owing to their absence from their employment. Now, men who had wives and families dependent upon them, could not afford to lose money in such a manner, without any chance of a return, and when they did so in a national cause; and there was no doubt that commanding officers did their best to secure the attendance of their men, and the men, with few exceptions, could not be Volunteers at all unless they wished to perform their duties as far as they could. But, he repeated, that being men of business, it was impossible to enforce such attendance, and if commanding officers, by good feeling and persuasion, could not succeed in procuring all their men at once, and when they wished it, no Government pressure or coercion, such as forfeiture of capitation grant after being earned, or the imposition of fines, such as the noble Earl had sketched out, would have the slightest effect; but it would tend to drive men out of the service. He remarked that there was little or no insubordination amongst the battalions of the Metropolis, which made up a large force. The instances to which the noble Earl alluded, such as in reference to the demonstrations in favour of Jules Favre,

  929
  were exceptional, and were dealt with in an exceptional manner by instant dismissal by the commanding officer, who possessed that power in order to deal with extreme cases. It had been said that dismissal was not so severe a punishment as imprisonment; but he considered any punishment of the severest character in a service such as that of the Volunteers. He wished to see the Volunteer service left alone; they had been worked up to a high pitch of efficiency as Volunteers and civilians, much higher than the country had the slightest idea of, and they neither required the Mutiny Act or Martial Law to regulate their conduct after 11 years probation. He hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not entertain the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he must oppose the clause as one which would tend to drive men out of the ranks of the Volunteer service.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the clause, and he pointed out that by the 27th clause of the Volunteer Act commanding officers had now the power of making their own rules.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was most unreasonable and inexpedient to subject the Volunteers to the rigid rules of the Mutiny Act.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE moved the following clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the raising and application of the Trophy Tax as heretofore levied and applied in the City of London."
  He explained that this was a tax of a penny in the pound upon property in the City of London to defray the expenses of its Militia. He was not aware how it came to be called the Trophy Tax. The Government had assented to the clause.
  Clause (Saving as to Trophy Tax,)—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence,)—added.
  MR. STACPOOLE, who had given Notice of the following Proviso at the end of Clause 3:—
  "Provided notwithstanding, that if any officer, being on half-pay upon the said appointed day,
  930
  shall prove to the Commissioners that he has been last placed upon half-pay by reason of the reduction of the establishment or the disbandment of his corps, he shall, for purposes of compensation under this Act, be deemed to be on full-pay of the corps from which he has been so displaced on retirement,"
  expressed his regret at being precluded from moving it by reason of the Rules of the House. He, however, hoped that the Government would take the case of the officers referred to into consideration.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he should support the request, and would mention the Canadian Rifles, the West India Regiments, and the Cape Mounted Rifles as the disbanded corps the officers of which were affected.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved, in Clause 6, page 5, line 6, after "lieutenants of counties," to insert "and to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)assented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON moved, in Clause 6, page 5, line 15, after "force," to insert—
  "And all commissions held on the appointed day by officers in the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers shall be deemed to have been so issued."
  COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYsaid, he concluded that the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) was to secure that all commissions, which were at present held by officers in the Reserve forces, should he converted into Queen's commissions as soon as the Bill was passed into law. In that case he wished to know whether, in the event of the officers of the Reserve forces holding commissions from Her Majesty, they would enjoy the same privileges in every respect as the officers of the Army; and whether their social position, no matter what it previously might have been, would be at once elevated to that of the officers of the Regular Army? He also wished to be informed whether these commissions, which used to be held from Her Majesty, would be actually signed by her? He gathered that they would be, for according to the wording of the clause the intention was so expressed. Notwithstanding which, he wished to know whether the parchment documents, which were supposed to be issued to the officers, would bear the signature of Victoria R?
  LORD ELCHOsaid, an impression had gone abroad that they would be, and that that fact had caused the acceptance of the transfer of power from the Lords Lieutenant to the Secretary of State for War. He wished to know if that were so, and if Volunteer officers were to be placed exactly in the position of officers of the Regular Army? When he was in the field he was as much under the discipline of the officer commanding as any officer of the Regular Army; but when his uniform was off, and those of his men's, they ceased to be soldiers, and were absolutely civilians, and he should repudiate holding the commission of a Volunteer officer if that position were altered. By the rules of the service officers were prevented from criticizing the acts of the War Department; but he should object to being deprived of the liberty of speaking and writing his opinion of the acts of any Secretary of State for War. He objected to his losing by a stroke of the pen his civil liberty. In conclusion, he should like to know whether Volunteer officers were to be presented at Court?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had already stated that the rules which regulated presentations at Court were not within his Department. He was not sanguine if this or any other clause could deprive the noble Lord of his civilian character, or control his freedom of speech within or without that House. The clause provided that Volunteer and Militia commissions should be prepared the same as commissions in the Army.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would give the House some further pledge or security that in future the local element would be confirmed, and that the Lords Lieutenant should have the first recommendation for appointments in the Militia.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he concurred that it was desirable to keep up the local connection of the counties with the Militia corps, especially with regard to first appointments.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whether it would be necessary to have a question put to Lord Sydney in order to obtain a satisfactory reply to the questions that had been put relative to presentations at Court?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would not be within his province to advise Her Majesty on the question of receptions at Court; and if the question were put to Lord Sydney he thought the noble Lord would respectfully deprecate the introduction of such matters within the arena of politics.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ELCHO, in rising to ask the House to strike out Clause 9, which proposed to put the Volunteers under the Mutiny Act, said, every man in that country was bound by statute law to undertake the defence of the country; but they shirked the duty: case-loving and money-making Englishmen shirked their first duty, while every Belgian, Swiss, Frenchman, and German were obliged to undertake the defence of their country. The Government shirked the question. Both sides shirked it, though they knew in their hearts that everything else was beating about the bush, and that they could not organize anything until they put on the screw. But they had not the courage. Some time ago there was an alarm in the country, the patrotism of the people was appealed to, and within 12 months 23,000 men marched before the Queen in Hyde Park, and from 1859 until now there had been nearly 200,000 Volunteers. In other words, these men had undertaken the duty which the rest of the country shirked. For 12 years the Volunteers had given up their amusements, and were doing their duty without pay. And now Her Majesty's Government wanted to bring these men under the Mutiny Act. He wanted to know why? It was said that it was necessary to make the Volunteers efficient. That was one of the humbugs and impostures of the whole of this Bill. It did nothing to make the Volunteers efficient. It did not give the Secretary of State any authority over them which he had not at present, nor the commanding officer any power to make his men efficient which he did not now possess. Wherein was the want of efficiency? Not in the lack of discipline, but in this—that they could not say to the men—"You must come out a certain number of days, and if you do not something will befall you." He said deliberately as a Volunteer, that that country was under a great debt of gratitude to the force for having for 12 years taken upon itself the duty of pub-

  933
  lic defence. The Volunteers were not as efficient as their commanding officers could wish; but to make them efficient powers must be given which the Government shrank from giving. Service in the Volunteers should be an exemption from something worse. They must either lead men or drive them, and that proposition did neither; it simply cast a slur upon the Volunteers as an undisciplined force. What was the history of this matter? A feeling grew up in the Regular Army that possibly the views of hon. Gentleman below the gangway might some time prevail, and that, with pressure brought to bear on them, the Government might reduce the Army. Accordingly, men were sent to reviews to write down the discipline of the Volunteers, and a dead set was made on the force on that point. He looked upon the Volunteers as an adjunct of the Regular Army, and maintained they were not an undisciplined force. When they had got the men on parade there was discipline; there was silence in the ranks, and implicit obedience. The Secretary of State alleged that Volunteers could not be put into camp with Regular soldiers, as they would be under two different systems of law. But the two forces were totally different in their positions; the one was a paid and the other an unpaid force, and, therefore, what applied to the one ought not to apply to the other. He admitted that if the powers under the existing Act were not sufficient when the different forces were put into camp, or if the Volunteers showed any want of discipline, there would be something to be said in favour of this clause. But he maintained that the powers under the existing Act were ample. There was the power of dismissal. To a Militiaman dismissal might be a relief; but to the Volunteers it was a stigma. And then, if a Volunteer was insubordinate in camp he might be put under arrest, kept under arrest until the camp broke up, and then dismissed. The House ought not to apply to the Volunteers an Act which was not intended for them, which was not necessary, and which was a bad return on the part of the Government for services that had been willingly rendered; and he hoped the House would support him in doing justice to that force. He would, in conclusion, move the omission of Clause 9.
  MR. ANDERSONexpressed a hope that the Government would accede to the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). What was necessary with regard to the Volunteer force was an inducement to them to enter the service, and not the infliction of disabilities such as those which would arise from the operation of the clause in question.
  COLONEL C. H. LINDSAYsaid, he should certainly support the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to omit that clause which applied to the Mutiny Act to Volunteers when in training with the Regular forces. He had on a former occasion expressed his opinion upon that unnecessary, and he must add insulting, application; and as one who had had some experience in the Volunteer service, and who had been a hard and devoted workman in the cause of national defence, he felt that to place such a badge of military bondage, even for a day, upon free and independent citizens, who came forward as they did gratuitously, to assist the comparative impotency of the country as a military nation, and who made themselves as efficient as it was possible for men of business to be, he felt that after 11 years of a nation's devotion of the cause—and after having been so justly though tardily eulogized by the leading statesmen of the day as well as by every nation in Europe—to be for the sake of a temporary quasi-convenience brought down to the level of private soldiers in time of peace, was a humiliation as uncalled for as it was unnecessary. Besides which, it was imposing a law upon citizens which it was not possible to enforce in time of peace, in the event of the provisions of the Mutiny Act being challenged by a Volunteer. He need not describe the numerous penalties to which soldiers were liable under the Mutiny Act—penalties which were chiefly composed of stoppages, which, considering that Volunteers had no pay could not be realized—penalties which, if pressed, could only be so by military law, and as he maintained that military law could not be applied to Volunteers when off duty, it would be a farce to attempt to carry it out. Moreover, the application of the Mutiny Act, which could only be a matter of form, would take away the power of commanding officers over insubordination, and other irregularities should

  935
  they occur—a power which was greater than that possessed by the Mutiny Act. He therefore entered his strongest protest against such a policy, which must be very prejudicial to the service.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consent to the striking out of the clause. He had voted in every division in favour of the Bill, believing the abolition of purchase to be absolutely necessary. But having had some experience of the Mutiny Act, he must say that he considered it utterly inappropriate to the Volunteer force in time of peace. The Volunteer Act of 1863 contained provisions quite sufficient for the preservation of discipline among the Volunteers in time of peace, and it provided that in times of emergency or danger the Volunteers should be placed under the Mutiny Act, and then they were entitled to be paid for their services. He thought the House ought to pause before sanctioning the retention of the clause now under consideration. The Mutiny Act was, in fact, a violation of the Constitution of the country. Since 1689, when it was first passed, it had been year by year passed as an annual Act, and he trusted the time would never come when it would be made a perpetual Act. The Militia were not placed under it till the year 1750, and the Yeomanry not until 1804. But its application to those bodies was no argument for its application to Volunteers. They were paid soldiers and could not resign, whilst the Volunteers were unpaid and could send in their resignation at any moment. The Volunteer force, too, was composed of a different class of men from ordinary soldiers, and the application of the Act to that force would deter many persons from joining it, because it would deprive them of the ordinary rights of Englishmen, and subject them in some cases to penal servitude for life, and in others even to sentence of death. Even in its application to the Militia there was a proviso that, during training or exercise, no punishment should extend to the loss of life or limb. In the present clause, however, there was no such exception. He considered that the present provisions for the discipline of the Volunteers was sufficient for the ordinary purposes of training, and that if the clause should
  936
  be passed it would be found impossible to apply it.
  MR. MELLYsaid, that having been connected with the Volunteers for several years, he had never found any difficulty in maintaining discipline, the power of dismissal being quite sufficient for that purpose. He trusted the clause would be withdrawn, because he believed that its passing would have a bad effect, and diminish the number of Volunteers who were in the habit of attending reviews.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, the Volunteer force had conducted itself not only to its own credit, but to the satisfaction of the country; but there was something more to be considered. The Volunteers aspired to be of use to the country in times of necessity. They wished to be associated with the Militia and the Regular Army. They wished to take on themselves the obligations of armed men. If so, they ought to be properly disciplined and treated in the same manner as the Regular Army. With respect to the pay, he thought the right thing for the Government to consider was, whether the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had not something more in it than they had given it credit for, and whether some kind of conscription or compulsion was not necessary. The Volunteers behaved well, and would not fear going out under the clause now before the House. No good soldier or Militiaman was afraid of the Mutiny Act, and the Volunteers had no reason to be afraid of it. He believed that it would be a good thing for the force, and feeling that the country expected that they should attain more discipline, it was his intention to support the clause.
  COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYsaid, he did not think the application of the Mutiny Act to the Volunteers could be considered as at all insulting to them. He believed that they were ready for it, and were willing to place themselves under its discipline. As more money had been given to the Volunteers than they received formerly, he did not see why the reins of discipline should not be drawn more tightly, and why a certain number of days' drill in the year should not be made compulsory. Supposing there should be a camp consisting of 10,000 Volunteers, no officer would like to take the command of such a force unless they

  937
  were subject to the discipline of soldiers. He did not believe that the Volunteers would consider it any disgrace to be placed under the Mutiny Act, and wished to disclaim any such idea. With regard to the discipline of the force, he admitted that it was not in a satisfactory state. They must either go forward or backward. They could not remain where they were at present. When larger payments were made to the Volunteers the Government ought to expect greater efficiency, and it was absolutely necessary to consider what should be the future of the Volunteer force.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that having been for 32 years connected with the Volunteer force, he had never found any difficulty in keeping the men in an efficient state of discipline. He believed the Volunteer force to be essential to the welfare of the country. They had entered into a certain engagement with the Government, and he considered it a breach of contract to place them under the Mutiny Act.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the object of the Government was that the Volunteers should be brigaded with the Regular troops, thus enabling them to take a part in those preparatory trainings which would fit them really to form a portion of our defensive forces. In the approaching campaign in Berkshire the proposal was to include Militia, Regular troops, and Volunteers, placing the whole under a General Officer, and training them to act together just as in an actual campaign. How was the discipline, how were the common proprieties of a camp to be maintained, except by vesting the whole power in a General Officer? It was true the commanding officers of Volunteers had certain powers over their men. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The General Officer was not to be subject to the question whether the commanding officers of Volunteers discharged their duties. It was necessary to arm him with the supreme command by law over the whole force. In Committee the same objection had been raised, and such high authorities as the hon. and gallant Members for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), Berkshire (Colonel Loyd-Lindsay), South Derbyshire (Major Wilmot), and South Lancashire (Captain Egerton) supported the clause, the latter stating as he understood that there had been a meeting of Volunteer officers in his district, and there
  938
  had been no dissent as to their desire to submit to the Mutiny Act when associated with the Regular forces. The clause in the Bill had been represented as something new; but it was merely a proposal to apply to the Volunteers when exercised with the Regulars and Militia—that was, when put directly under military command for the purpose of training for war—that which Parliament had already applied to them when war was declared. The Government were endeavouring to throw together the forces of this country for the purpose of constituting one defensive force on an efficient basis. Did the Volunteers desire to be thus associated? If so, they must be under the same command and submit to the same discipline as other soldiers. How could we expect the same discipline from the Militia and Regulars if the Volunteers, when brigaded with them, were not subject to the same conditions? This proposal was made with a desire to compliment the Volunteers, as forming one of the real defences of the country, and he hoped it would be accepted on their part in the same spirit.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had been requested by two distinguished Volunteer officers to say that they entirely dissented from the view taken by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) on this question.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Elcho.)
  Question put, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 30: Majority 182.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

ABYSSINIAN WAR—PRIZE—THE ABANA'S CROWN AND CHALICE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  COLONEL NORTH, in rising to move—
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the Abyssinian Abanas Crown and Chalice captured at Magdala by the force under General Lord Napier of Magdala, shall be purchased for the Nation, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expense of the same,"
  said, he brought forward the subject from no party considerations, still less from any hostility to the Government, but merely in the hope that justice might be done to a body of men who certainly deserved well of the country. No Englishman could look back to the Abyssinian War without feelings of interest and admiration. The War was undertaken in a country little known—hardly known at all—full of difficulty and danger; and almost the whole of Europe anticipated that the result would be disaster and disgrace to the Army; but, thanks to the courage, discipline, and unconquerable pluck of our soldiers, it was brought to a splendid termination, which added largely to the glory of this country. When the Expedition was despatched the British Musum sent a Mr. Holmes, for the purpose of collecting any article of worth to add to the collection in the British Museum. After the assault and taking of Magdala, Mr. Holmes applied to Lord Napier to retain the Abana's crown and chalice for the British Museum, and Colonel Milward, R.A., with Colonel Fraser, V.C., deposited the articles at the British Museum. On the 6th of July, 1868, the correspondence commenced to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The crown and chalice were to be sold as prize, the officers giving up their share for the benefit of the soldiers engaged in the expedition. They were offered to the Trustees of the British Museum for £2,000; but the Trustees having no funds at their disposal, being obliged to surrender the balances in their hands to the Exchequer, applied to the Treasury for funds to complete the purchase as soon as possible. About a year elapsed before any definite answer was received. A year and a-half after the articles had been placed in the British Museum application was
  940
  made for payment in a letter dated December 13, 1869; the date of the first letter which the Treasury was pleased to send, was January 22, 1870; and in it their Lordships stated that they declined to authorize the purchase. Colonel Milward then wrote that, under the circumstances, the Prize Agents must hold the Trustees of the Museum responsible for the value of the articles. He would remind hon. Members that this was entirely a private soldiers' question, and they all knew how touchy soldiers were on the subject of money; moreover, it would appear that the Army believed they would receive that money, and that with that single exception each soldier had received his prize money.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  COLONEL NORTHresumed, and said that in the course of further correspondence it was represented that, had the refusal of the Treasury been communicated earlier, the Prize Agents might have been bound by it; but the detention of the articles for so long a period must be interpreted into a virtual agreement to purchase them. Then the Treasury asked Colonel Milward to refer them to the letter, from which it was inferred that the Treasury had sanctioned the purchase; and, in reply, the Treasury was referred to the letter from the Trustees making application for a special grant. The result was that, after the lapse of two years, the Treasury, in a letter, stated they could not admit there existed, or had existed, any undertaking or promise on the part of the Government for purchasing the crown and chalice, and they saw no reason to alter that decision. The Government did not take the slightest notice, for 19 months, of a letter that was addressed to them, and that was what he had to find fault with, because the opportunity of selling the articles were thereby lost. A letter was subsequently received by Colonel Milward, asking where he wished the crown and chalice to be delivered.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted and 40 Members being found present,
  COLONEL NORTHresumed. An application was next made to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State

  941
  for War to urge the justice of the claims upon the Treasury, who promptly replied that he had no power to compel either the Trustees of the British Museum or the Treasury to authorize the payment in question, and did not feel himself entitled to interfere with their decisions respectively; but the Army would hear with deep regret that the man to whom they had a right to look to assist them in obtaining justice had entirely and absolutely refused to do so. Lord Napier of Magdala, in a Minute which he drew up on the 27th of August, 1868, attributed political importance to the possession of that Crown. Lord Napier said the best way of treating the crown and chalice would be for the State to purchase them and deposit them in the British Museum until an opportunity offered for restoring them; and that opportunity would arrive when a Government was established in Abyssinia with some prospect of stability. Their selection of the party to whom they should give the crown and chalice would be an indication that they regarded them as the rightful rulers of the Empire. He (Colonel North) thought Her Majesty's Treasury might have found time from the 7th of July, 1869, until the 15th of June, 1870, to reply to the various letters that had been written to them urging the purchase for the nation of the crown and chalice. In speaking of the Abyssinian Expedition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) highly extolled both the officers and the men engaged in it. The present Prime Minister, on the same occasion, was equally liberal in his praise of those troops. In "another place" similar compliments were paid to them. Not only was the expedition to Abyssinia a most exceptional and wonderful feat of arms, but all Europe was astonished that they should have retired from that country after having accomplished the objects of the war in a manner that showed that they were actuated by motives entirely devoid of ambition. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  SIR JOHN HAY, in seconding the Motion, urged upon the Government the propriety of at once acceding to its terms, and of paying the sum realized by the sale of the articles in question to the Army. The sum to be realized by
  942
  the sale would only amount to about £2,000, which was a very small amount to divide among such a large number of soldiers, and the officers had at once declined to receive any portion of it, while the soldiers proposed to devote it to the orphans of the whole of the Army. That House had been occupied day after day in discussing how many millions ought to be given to the officers of the Army, and it was strange if they should refuse to pay this small sum to the private soldiers to whom it was due.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that the Abyssinian Abanas Crown and Chalice captured at Magdala by the force under General Lord Napier of Magdala, shall be purchased for the Nation, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expense of the same,"—(Colonel North,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) was of a rather unusual character, it being to require Her Majesty's Government to purchase for the nation the crown and chalice captured in Abyssinia. Now, a purchase was usually a free transaction, and not carried out at the dictation of a higher power. Another peculiarity of the Motion was that it ordered the Government to purchase these articles at a price higher than they would fetch in the open market. What were the grounds upon which the Motion was supported? Putting aside any general praise of the British Army, he came at once to the question why the Government was to be called upon to purchase articles which, in their opinion, ought not to be purchased, and to give for them a price which they would not fetch in the open market. The Government were asked to purchase these articles out of the money which belonged to the British Museum, because they were connected with the Abyssinian War. Now, he could imagine no greater misconception of the duties of the Trustees of the British Museum. They were intrusted with large sums of public money

  943
  for the purchase of various articles, and he must say that the purchases had been made with great judgment and discretion. The principles which should guide the Trustees was the obtaining of articles calculated to promote art, and winch were admirable in point of workmanship. But the fact was, that the articles in question, independently of their associations, were not fit objects to be purchased for the British Museum; he was informed by competent authorities that they possessed no artistic merit whatever. They consisted of large masses of gold which had a certain intrinsic value in themselves, and whatever sum they would sell for in the open market might be realized and distributed among those who were entitled to it. Lord Napier proposed that the articles, having been purchased with the money granted to the British Museum, they should be deposited in that building until they were restored to the individual who proved to be the strongest in that country; but with all deference to that distinguished officer, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think the British Museum was intended for a temporary storehouse for the reception of barbaric spoils of war, nor did he think it was right that public money, intended for a totally different purpose, should be applied in purchasing articles to be given away whenever a convenient opportunity should arise. But there was another ground which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put forward in support of his Motion that was entitled to much more attention—he meant the delay in the affair that had occurred. It was quite true that these articles had been placed in the British Museum in July, 1868, and that it was not until January, 1870—that was to may, not until one year and a half afterwards—that a definitive refusal to purchase them was given by the Government. The circumstance was, however, easily to be explained. From the time when the articles were first deposited in the Museum until the following December, when the late Government left office, Colonel Milward was unceasing in his applications to the Government to purchase them; but to those applications no reply was given. When the late Government left office, curiously enough all the papers connected with this subject also disappeared, and it was not until July, 1869, that similar applications
  944
  were made for the first time to the present Government; but, owing to some neglect, those applications were not brought to his knowledge until January, 1870, when he at once declined to purchase the articles. Under these circumstances, he was not to blame for the delay that had occurred in the matter. He could not think that it was the wish of the House that public money should be spent in the purchase of those articles, which were not exactly such spoil as it became an Army who had scarcely met with any resistance to bring away from the country they had attacked. However, here they were, and the best thing that could be done was to sell them, and to distribute their proceeds among the captors who were entitled to the prize. All he asked was, that the Government should not be forced to expend the money of the British Museum in purchasing such property, for, as he said before, they were not worthy the attention of the Trustees.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the observation that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the fact that their troops encountered no great amount of resistance in Abyssinia was scarcely worthy of him, and it was to a great extent owing to their extremely good conduct and the care they took to avoid giving any unnecessary provocation to the people among whom they were. Army prize was in a great degree given as a reward for the forbearance shown by men who, in the heat of action or in the excitement of the moment, might be tempted to appropriate to themselves articles of value belonging to the enemy; and in that case, though their soldiers did not meet with much resistance, they had to endure a good deal of severe hardship and trial. Although he had not seen them personally, the articles in question had been described in a way that led one to suppose they were of considerable historical value and antiquarian interest, like many of the articles now possessed by the British Museum. Moreover, he thought the British Museum was not, like the Museum at South Kensington, an institution merely for the promotion of art and of taste, but a collection of works interesting to the nation for various reasons; and he thought that was evidenced by the fact that an officer despatched from that very

  945
  Museum accompanied the expedition for the express purpose of observing whether any of the articles which the Army came across were such as it would be desirable to secure for national purposes; and the claim that these particular articles should be reserved was in the first instance put forward, not by the Army, but by Mr. Holmes, who on first seeing them thought they should be sent to the British Museum. From the correspondence on the subject it appeared that the Trustees of the British Museum, who should be the best judges of such a matter, had acknowledged £2,000 to be the fair value of those articles, and that they would have paid that sum for them if they had had the money at their disposal. Again, it was admitted that the delay which had arisen in connection with that question had borne hardly on their soldiers, who did not now make a peremptory demand, but only such a statement, couched in a respectful spirit, of the hardship which they felt they laboured under in that case, as might receive public attention and secure reasonable and just consideration for the claim they put forward in respect to articles which were impounded by an officer of the British Museum at a time when they might have fetched a considerable price, and which, after much delay, the Treasury declined to purchase.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTsaid, he was present when those articles were captured, and thought it expedient that they should be bought for the nation, because in addition to their intrinsic worth they possessed an historical value and interest which would increase with the lapse of time. He admitted that the sum asked for them was a fancy price, but then everything connected with the Abyssinian Expedition fetched a fancy price. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but it was only because they had grudged no expense for its execution, that the Abyssinian Expedition had been so successfully carried through. On several critical occasions the willingness and ability to pay turned the scale in our favour. If the money claimed for these articles was now withheld a breach of faith would be committed towards their soldiers, because they were sequestered, and not put up to auction like the rest of the prize property sold for the benefit of the non-commissioned officers and men, merely because it was
  946
  believed that the agent of the British Museum was virtually the agent of the Government, and that what he undertook to do would be afterwards performed by the Trustees of the British Museum or by the Government. The effect on the discipline of the Army of not fulfilling that engagement would be very serious, because it would encourage our soldiers in any future war to act on a rule which in civil life was perhaps a wholesome one—namely, to get all that they could and to keep to all that they got. It had been said during the debate, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the dissatisfaction arising in connection with these proceedings had come about in consequence of the papers having been mislaid—a cause precisely similar to the cause of the war itself. And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked superciliously of the proceedings of the Army. It was true it was not a very bloody campaign; but there was a good deal of hard work, and on the occasion when the Vote of Thanks was proposed in the House the present Prime Minister spoke in glowing terms, not only of the conduct of the Army, but of the Government which had planned the expedition. Perhaps as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not then contemplate occupying his present position he did not participate in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he sympathized with the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). That there had been great delay somewhere was evident, from the fact that it appeared the first application was, after 12 months, followed by a second, which remained unanswered for six months more, and then after another three months a final answer was given. The officers of superior rank who went in the Expedition had been handsomely considered and rewarded for their great exploits, and no one grudged them the honour conferred upon them; but while the rank and file had had their toils and hardships, they had been the heirs of very small proceeds. Mr. Holmes doubtless went to Abyssinia with the consent of the Government, and contributed to make up the £9,000,000 which had been thrown away. If the hon. and gallant Member divided he should certainly go with him into the lobby, because it seemed to him that those men who had

  947
  not shown an ungenerous spirit should be dealt with in no niggardly spirit.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he would appeal to the Government to accede to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). It appeared that the prize was deposited in the British Museum at the recommendation of Mr. Holmes, and having been detained there for 18 months he thought they ought to be paid for. Soldiers did not reason very closely, and they would expect that a great nation which sent its soldiers into every part of the world to risk their lives would not haggle over a matter like this.
  MR. EASTWICKsaid, he trusted it was not too late for the Government to make some concession with regard to that question before the House went to a division. He would not inquire how far the British Museum was or was not a proper place for depositing these relies; what he would urge on Ministers was, that it was not worth while for so paltry a sum, as was here in dispute, to leave a cause of discontent to irritate the Army. His idea was that those articles should be purchased, and given back on a proper opportunity to the Abyssinian Government. A time would very likely soon come when they would be desirous of making some present to that Government, and there was nothing of our own manufacture which would be so acceptable to the Abyssinians as those things. Although the Abana from whom they were taken was dead, there was, or would be, another Abana in his place, and to him let those articles be given. In that way they would obtain a double advantage—they would conciliate the people of Abyssinia, and they would remove out of the way a matter which would for a long time to come rankle in the minds of the soldiers, and make them dissatisfied and discontented.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he wished to state how the case actually stood. Mr. Holmes, as an officer of the British Museum, accompanied the Abyssinian Expedition, and among the things secured for the Army Prize Fund were those articles which Mr. Holmes thought it would be for the advantage of the public that the British Museum should possess. Mr. Holmes, had however, no authority to bind the trustees except provisionally, for the trustees of the British Museum were powerless until they ob-
  948
  tained the sanction of Parliament; and the only way they could purchase such articles would be by application to the Government and obtaining their sanction. These articles were, therefore, deposited at the British Museum by Colonel Milward, who represented the Army Prize Fund, until the price could be ascertained. [Colonel NORTH: No!] That was the fact. The trustees took the matter into consideration, and they thought that there were circumstances connected with the Expedition giving an historical value to the articles which might make it advisable to purchase them. A representation to that effect was made to the Government, but no notice was taken of it. On Colonel Milward applying again, that representation was made to the Government, but no reply was sent. Another Government came into office, and a fresh application was made, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering it, did not imply that the Government had no intention of purchasing the articles, but rather that they would not pay the price. If the matter had been dealt with in 1868, there would not have been much difficulty about purchasing these things. He quite agreed that the value of the articles was not what it had been thought then. But the historical interest was not diminished, and therefore the matter stood on the same footing as when they were deposited with the British Museum. Unfortunately there had been this delay, and in consequence there had been created the impression on the mind of those interested in the Army Prize Fund that the Government were considering the matter, and would certainly purchase these articles for some sum or other, because the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he would not pay the amount asked. If that view was adopted, it would not be worth while to disappoint the Army for the sake of a few hundreds more or less; and it would be a gracious act if they allowed these articles to be purchased, after doing which they might take their time in considering how and where they should dispose of them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose in obedience to the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), although he answered him with the

  949
  greatest regret, because of the unsatisfactory state of the question from first to last. He (Mr. Gladstone) deeply regretted that those articles were over brought from Abyssinia, and could not conceive why they were so brought. They were never at war with the people or the churches of Abyssinia. They were at war with Theodore, who personally had inflicted on them an outrage and a wrong; and he deeply lamented, for the sake of the country, and for the sake of all concerned, that those articles, to us insignificant, though probably to the Abyssinians sacred and imposing symbols, or at least hallowed by association, were thought fit to be brought away by a British Army. He admitted that the Trustees of the British Museum had done their duty by dealing promptly with the application made to them; but he entirely dissented from the conclusion at which they arrived. In the first place, the Trustees in their letter had apparently, through the use of an unguarded expression, gone far to sustain the declaration that these articles were impounded. The expression was that the articles were "secured" by Mr. Holmes. Inasmuch as Mr. Holmes had no authority to "secure" them, he, no doubt, merely suggested that the articles should be sent to the Museum, in order that the Trustees should have an opportunity of considering whether they should be acquired for the nation or not. Still, the term was most unfortunate, and so also was the conclusion of the Trustees. Mr. Holmes was truly described as an archæologist sent to Abyssinia. He perfectly remembered the discussion at the meeting of the Trustees, when it was determined to send out Mr. Holmes, whose mission was with respect to really ancient remains, and had nothing whatever to do with uncertified unexamined articles, as to which there was not a word in the letter of the Trustees tending to fix their value, their age, their country, or their manufacture. The Trustees said they would constitute a permanent record of the most remarkable event of the present time—certainly a highly-coloured description when they considered what events had lately marked the 19th century. But was it the business of the Museum to accumulate records of the most remarkable events of the present time? In his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion, it was the business of
  950
  the Museum to do everything else almost except that. It was the business of the British Museum to acquire objects which would serve as sources of instruction, and tend to elevate the taste of the people. It was also the business of the Museum to accumulate objects of historic interest and instruction. Under which description did these articles fall? Who made them? When and where were they made? Not a word of information was supplied on these and other points, but the Trustees of the Museum said they would serve as a permanent record of the most remarkable events of the present time; and, if we could acquire a piece of the ruins of the Column in the Place Vendôme, that would be another such record. As to the delay which was complained of, his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had not explained why the Government which received this explanation kept it six months without replying to it. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to blame, because for some months after the new Government came into office he had no Papers whatever, and all records of the transaction had disappeared. When in January, 1870, his right hon. Friend became acquainted with the facts, only a few days elapsed before he sent a perfectly explicit reply, to the effect that it was impossible the nation should pay a fancy price for articles of a very moderate intrinsic value. It was true he did not close the door altogether to any dealings upon another footing; but no modification or mitigation of the terms were offered, and he consequently declined to enter into the matter. There was one element in this affair which was more agreeable—namely, Lord Napier's letter. With that just and kindly spirit which belonged to him, Lord Napier said these articles, whatever the claim of the Army, ought not to be placed among the national treasures, and said they ought to be held in deposit till they could be returned to Abyssinia. It was rather a painful confession, because, if they ought to be returned, it seemed to follow that they ought not to have been brought from Abyssinia; but he must say that he agreed with Lord Napier. He saw in the Correspondence that mention was made of a probable reference to Lord Napier, and that might account for much of the delay, while the

  951
  disappearance of the Papers might have been accidental. He could not consent, after consulting with his Colleagues, to the Address moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it contemplated the execution of the arrangement originally contemplated—that these articles should be purchased for the nation; and whatever became the property of the nation, to be added to the national treasures, could not, according to the law, be alienated to any other purpose. If those articles were acquired it should be upon the basis described by Lord Napier, with the view of their being held only until they could be restored. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be satisfied with the undertaking that they would look into the matter, with the object of doing that which was fair and equitable. He might have seemed to censure more severely than was justifiable some of those who had taken part in this matter; but such was not his intention. By a complication of accidents expectations had been raised which they could not fairly overlook.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman; but wished to observe that the troops who brought away these articles had no means of leaving them in the charge of anybody in Abyssinia.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that having been Secretary to the Board of Treasury, the original application on this matter was made to him in July, 1868. The then First Lord expressed a desire to communicate with Lord Napier on the subject, and viewing the transaction as a matter of expenditure it was worth consideration. As large donations in the way of batta had been made to the soldiers of the Expedition, there did not seem to be any ground for demanding a payment in excess of the intrinsic value of the articles. He was glad of a postponement until the conference had taken place. The second application was made in the October following, and although the letter was not addressed to him, he admitted that it would have been better to have given a definite answer. But he was then the only political officer in attendance at the Treasury, for a General Election was impending; and at the time the Revenue was in an unsatisfac-
  952
  tory state. In view of possible contingencies, it was also undesirable that any expenditure should be incurred which could hereafter be called in question; and under such peculiar circumstances it did not seem unreasonable that the matter should stand over for a few weeks longer. He had nothing to say as to the subsequent delay, which he believed had been explained to have been of a more or less accidental character.
  COLONEL NORTHasked if he was to understand that the £2,000 which were to have been given for the relies would be paid to the soldiers, but in another way?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that the Prime Minister wished to send these things back to Abyssinia, for it looked very much as if the collector of curiosities had put the soldiers up to doing something very near robbing a church. From the description given, it seemed that one of these articles had been consecrated to the Altar, and he considered that neither of them should have been brought from Abyssinia.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North), said, he had not pledged himself, as the hon. and gallant Colonel supposed; but he undertook, on the part of the Government, to look into the matter, and endeavour to settle it in the spirit of what he had said.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. GILPIN, in rising to call attention to the Slave Trade Papers recently laid upon the Table of the House; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue instructions for the negotiation of such a Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, as will relieve Her Majesty's Government from existing arrangements, by which they are made parties to the Slave Trade; and that She will use all lawful means to procure the entire suppression of the Slave Traffic and all export of Slaves from the East Coast of Africa,"
  said, that that was a subject involving the welfare of millions of human beings, who were more or less under the influence or protection of the British Government. But he should not need to enter into the question so fully as he had intended,

  953
  because he had received an intimation from the Foreign Office that the Government would be ready to grant a Committee to inquire into the matter. In justification of the adoption of such a course, he might state that this diabolical traffic had involved the destruction of 500,000 human beings within five years. Some evidence of that would be found in a Report presented to the late Lord Clarendon, who, like the late Lord Palmerston, had been ready to give cordial support to measures for abolishing the slave trade. From 1862 to 1867 the export of slaves from the ports of Zanzibar was 97,000, and as for every slave captured and brought to the coast it was estimated that at least five additional lives were sacrificed, making the enormous total of 582,000 human lives sacrificed. He believed that England and the Government of England were to no small extent responsible for this iniquity. He would not trouble the House at length on the subject, as he understood that Her Majesty's Government were going to substantially assent to his Motion. He might explain that the Government had a treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, whereby he was allowed during a portion of the year to export slaves from the mainland to the Island of Zanzibar. The Sultan was obliged to pay a certain sum to the Imaum of Muscat, and in virtue of that obligation the English permitted him and many of his subjects to carry on this iniquitous slave trade. He hoped that the Government would continue to keep Dr. Kirk in Africa, because his presence there was a standing discouragement to the slave trade. Another subject for serious consideration was that this trade could not be continued without the complicity of the Portuguese Government, of which they had had reliable testimony from the mouth of Dr. Livingstone, and there should be some communication made to that Government upon the subject, with a view to put an end to the traffic. For himself, he thought they had already sufficient information to take action upon, by revising the treaty with Zanzibar, so as to clear our hands of this accursed traffic; but if the Government should think that more information was required, then a Committee would obtain it, and he would gladly accept such Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRD, in seconding the Motion, said, that the first point to be observed connected with this reviving slave trade was, that it was carried on under a treaty for which they were responsible as a nation. How, he asked, could they deliver lectures to other nations on the iniquities of slave traffic, when they themselves maintained a treaty sanctioning it? For very shame sake they ought to wash their hands of the matter. The second point he would notice was, that it was impossible, even if it were desirable, to keep the trade within the limits of the treaty. It was extending and must extend, as appeared from the investigations of the Committee which sat upon the question. Were they, therefore, to witness the failure of their past efforts to extinguish slavery, which had been successful on the West Coast, by allowing it to proceed on the East Coast of Africa? Let the House consider the awful amount of human suffering involved in an annual export of 20,000 slaves, representing, perhaps, 200,000 human beings, dragged from their homes, nine out of ton dying or murdered by the way, and leaving that residue of 20,000 which he had mentioned for sale. They, by treaty, had their hands tied within the limits of the Zanzibar waters, while they maintained a police outside. He believed it to be practicable to put an end to the treaty, and with the treaty eventually to terminate the traffic, and that a heavy responsibility rested upon the Government and upon the country to do tins. Meanwhile, they had the duty resting upon them of watching over the interests of the slaves they had freed, many of whom were simple children, incapable of taking care of themselves. The total stoppage of the traffic should be their first object, and in the interim they were morally bound to protect and, if children, to educate those whom they had volunteered to set free. He would earnestly appeal in the name of humanity to that House to sustain the Government in ridding them nationally of complied in these crimes committed, and thus to prepare the way for legitimate commerce. He trusted that they might be permitted one long to welcome home that distinguished African traveller, whose personal influence would then be exerted to carry out that object for which he

  955
  had already risked his own life, thus forwarding the internal regeneration of Africa after centuries of cruel wrong inflicted by avaricious men, to whom life was as a worthless bauble if it was the life of a black man. He would conclude by stating for the information of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in 1851 Lagos, the last hold of the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa, was taken and became a British possession, lawful trade being there established; the attention of the Natives having been called to the commercial value of the natural produce of their country by those who had once themselves been slaves, Lagos soon rivalled and then outstripped Sierra Leone. The value of its trade was shown by the following figures:—Imports, £416,860; exports, £669,455; revenue, £33,220; the chief items being cotton, £76,956; palm oil and kernels, £542,927; Benni seed and nuts, £10,583.
  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, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue instructions for the negotiation of such a Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar, as will relieve Her Majesty's Government from existing arrangements, by which they are made parties to the Slave Trade; and that She will use all lawful means to procure the entire suppression of the Slave Traffic and all export of Slaves from the East Coast of Africa,"—(Mr. Gilpin,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the first thing to be done towards preventing the cruelty complained of was to bring the district under their dominion. If that were done they could take action consistently; but he hoped the Government would not be led by the benevolent enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) into proceedings against the Sultan of Zanzibar.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was glad attention had been called to that subject, and hoped the result of the deliberations of the Committee would be the suppression of the slave trade in that part of the world.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he must admit the importance of the question, and, speaking personally as well as officially,
  956
  he sympathized greatly with the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), and hoped that inhuman traffic would cease on the East Coast of Africa as it had ceased elsewhere. A somewhat complicated series of treaties existed between this country and Zanzibar, dating as far back as 1822, when permission was given to the British Government to have an agent at Zanzibar to watch the traffic. Since that time various treaties had been signed, tending more or less to the restriction of the trade; but he could not deny that the number of slaves annually shipped had terribly exceeded in amount that which might have been hoped and expected. There was what was called both a legal and an illegal traffic in slaves; and the Committee appointed by Lord Clarendon had made a variety of recommendations with a view to urge upon the Sultan the abolition of both kinds of traffic; to prepare the minds of the Natives for its abolition; pending that time, to place the traffic under the strictest supervision; to encourage the employment and education of freed slaves; and lay down more careful regulations for the proceedings of our cruisers. He should have deprecated the assent of the House to the Motion; but on the part of the Government he was willing to assent to the appointment of a Committee to consider in what way, having due regard to their treaty obligations with the Sultan, means might be found of terminating that inhuman traffic. He was not sure whether at that late period of the Session his hon. Friend would desire the appointment of the Committee, or defer its appointment till next year; but if his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole question.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYagreed that a Committee would be the best way of treating this question, but thought it hardly desirable that the subject should stand over till next Session. The information wanted was all within reach of the Foreign Office, and as a short time would suffice to terminate the inquiry, a full investigation might be made even at that late period of the Session.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDexplained that he left it entirely to the discretion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gilpin) whether the Committee should be appointed that

  957
  year or next. In either case, he was quite ready to co-operate with his hon. Friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  And, on July 6, Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the whole question of the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa, into the increased and increasing amount of that traffic, the particulars of existing Treaties and Agreements with the Sultan of Zanzibar upon the subject, and the possibility of putting an end entirely to the traffic in slaves by sea."—(Mr. Gilpin.)
  Committee nominated:—Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Viscount ENFIELD, Mr. KINNAIRD, Sir JOHN HAY, Sir FREDERICK WILLIAMS, Lord F. CAVENDISH, Mr. JOHN TALBOT, Mr. O'CONOR, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, Mr. KENNAWAY, Mr. ROBERT FOWLER, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, Mr. CRUM-EWING, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. GILPIN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  Mr. Speaker having retired from the House.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House, That Mr. Speaker was unable to return to the Chair during the present sitting of the House.
  Whereupon, Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRAYER BOOK (TABLES OF LESSONS) BILL—(Lords)— [BILL 181.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that by an Amendment proposed without Notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the new Tables of Lessons would be optional for use up to 1879, instead of 1873, as provided by the Bill when sent down from the House of Lords. He thought the alteration would be productive of great inconvenience, and he would therefore move an Amendment to restore the date originally in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 25, to leave out from the word "substituted," to the end of Clause 2, and add the words "No suit shall be instituted against any clerk for any offence against this Act in following the Table of Lessons hitherto in legal use alleged to be committed prior to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,"—(Sir Robert Peel,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the alteration was not proposed without Notice, and was adopted in Committee after full discussion, and after reference had been made to the heads of the Church.
  MR. MONKsaid, he had learned from very high authority that there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the Amendment of the Prime Minister, and one of the heads of the Church had asked him to move an Amendment to the same effect as that of the right hon. Baronet. Objections were taken to the clause allowing the clergy to use the old Lectionary up to 1879.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had made a declaration in favour of the lengthened term.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had to propose, as an addition at the end of the 2nd clause, the words—
  "And provided that the occasions whereon power to alter the appointed Psalms and Lessons is, by the Schedule to this Act, committed to the ordinary, shall be all occasions whereon the ordinary shall judge that such alteration will conduce to edification."
  Of that proposal he would explain the occasion. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) had given Notice of several Amendments on the Schedule to that Bill, which, as the House knew, was hereafter to constitute the Calendar, a portion of the Prayer Book of the Church of England. Now, it had been, he believed, the invariable practice of the two Houses of Parliament, from the earliest times, to refrain from interfering as to the details of the Services and Formularies of the Church. There could not be the smallest doubt of the competency of either House to deal in detail with these matters as much as they might think fit; but, practically, they had thought fit to abstain, as he

  959
  had described. He had, indeed, with the full concurrence of the Episcopal Body, made the addition by way of amendment to the Schedule in the Committee pro formâ—namely, a provision with reference to the Psalter; but that was one which had been recommended by the Ritual Commission, and also, he was assured, approved by Convocation. The usage, then, of the House to waive its privilege of original action in that matter, was one which he thought it plain the House would not be disposed to depart from, except it was for some weighty and important purpose. On looking, then, at the Amendments proposed by his hon. Friend, he found that several of them referred to matters of diction and designation, and he at once assumed, without entering upon their merits, that they could hardly, in the views even of those who approved them, afford a sufficient ground for deviating from the practice of that House. On looking, however, to one of these Amendments, he found that it touched the substance of the services. It was intended to make provision for the use of Lessons from the Canonical Scriptures, in lieu of those from the Apocrypha, in cases where it might seem expedient. Now, that was already provided for, in a more comprehensive form, by the Schedule; for the Ordinary had power to allow an alteration of the appointed Lessons upon special occasions. Such was clearly understood to be the meaning of the Schedule on the occasion when the Bill was in Committee, and when the Committee refused, by a majority, to alter it. He had, however, learned that doubts were entertained as to the scope of the words in the Schedule to which he had referred; and, indeed, his most rev. Friend the Archbishop of Canterbury had told him that he would have interpreted them with reference to such occasions as a harvest-home, or the festival of the dedication of a church. That being so, he now proposed to obviate any such doubts by declaratory words in the body of the Bill, intended to clear the sense of the Schedule, and to show that the terms might be altered pro hâc vice, upon any occasion whatever, where the Ordinary should judge it to be desirable for religious ends. He could not conclude without expressing his own particular thanks, and those of the Government, to his hon. Friend for the
  960
  considerate and handsome manner in which he had accepted that arrangement, and withdrawn his proposed Amendments, thereby relieving him from a considerable embarrassment, and from the necessity of occupying time by setting out in full detail, for the consideration of the House, the nature of the precedents and principles which seemed to apply to the case.
  DR. BALLsaid, he much preferred the words as they stood in the clause without the proposed addition. Instead of leaving it in legal phraseology, which anybody could understand, it was proposed to add words which, if they had any meaning, would abate the effect of the absolute and unlimited words, and to that he objected.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it appeared to him that questions of law could never arise. It was what the Ordinary thought best. If he considered it conducive to edification he could do it.
  MR. MONKsaid, he doubted if such words ought to be introduced into the Bill. The words, if it were to be left to the Ordinary, were mere surplusage. The measure would unsettle everything of uniformity in the Church.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MACFIErose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to substitute the words "the blessed Virgin Mary," for "our Lady" in a Schedule of the Bill. He said the words "our Lady" were found only once in the Prayer Book, and his Amendment would introduce uniformity in the book itself, and harmony with other Churches; and not only that, his objection to the latter term was that it implied power and authority.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 39, to leave out the words "our Lady," and insert the words "the blessed Virgin Mary,"—(Mr. Macfie,)—instead thereof.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could hardly express the pain and regret with which he heard discussions of that kind. He believed there was an increasing disposition on the part of the House of Commons to abstain from all religious controversy, and to pursue that course, in reference to such questions as this, which would be most conducive to peace and harmony. With regard to the philological part of the hon. Gentleman's

  961
  argument—for he would entirely eschew the theological part of it—they would get into hopeless confusion, were they to endeavour to trace the root meanings of words. This "cobbling" with the Service Book of the Church he most strongly deprecated, and he hoped the House would not encourage such a proceeding.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYhoped the hon. Member for Leith would not divide the Committee, but would allow the English to enjoy Lady Day as they had done for centuries.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONEthen moved, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he must oppose the Motion, of which no Notice had been given: more than that, it was contrary to the usual practice to take two stages of a Bill on the same day.
  MR. DODSONsaid, there was no rule of the House that Notice should be given of a third reading.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  ELECTION COMMISSIONERS EXPENSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Bill to amend the Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WINTERBOTHAM and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 220.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (226); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (227).
Third Reading—Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment* (135); Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* (208); Tancred's Charities* (216), and passed.

EMANUEL HOSPITAL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  A Petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London against the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, presented by the Duke of Richmond, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYrose to move that an humble Address should be presented to the Throne against the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of

  863
  Emanuel Hospital, and said—My Lords, two years ago Parliament passed an Act giving very large powers to the Endowed Schools Commissioners. It was an Act founded upon an inquiry that had previously been gone into by the Schools Inquiry Commission as to the mode in which the revenues of the large number of endowments existing in this country was spent. A great number of abuses was discovered. Perhaps their number was a little exaggerated, but no doubt there was a great number of real abuses, and the general feeling of Parliament was that large powers and efficient machinery were necessary to bring them to an end. Now, my Lords, under the influence of that feeling the Act to which I refer was passed with but little difficulty. The second reading passed without opposition; but the idea attached to the Act, and the understanding on which both sides agreed to it, was that it was intended to remedy abuses existing in the administration of endowments, and no idea prevailed that it was meant to give the power entirely to destroy the character of endowments, and to upset the dispositions which the founders had made for the disposal of the money they had left. Now, my Lords, the understanding on that head was not merely a tacit one. It rested on the distinct announcements of Mr. Forster, and made by him both in his public and private capacity, that the Act would only apply to schools that were ill-managed, and that schools that were well managed had nothing to fear from its operations. When he moved the second reading of the Bill he said he wished it to be distinctly understood, both by the House and by the managers of good schools, who had no ground for alarm respecting the measure, that it was meant to apply to badly managed schools, and that schools which are well managed need fear nothing from the Bill, the object of which is to introduce good management. Nor is that the only pledge of Mr. Forster. I have been informed by a member of a deputation that waited on him from the schools connected with the charities of Bristol, that he assured them that the Bill was only introduced to remedy the defects of endowments that were misapplied, obsolete, or mismanaged, and that as the Bristol schools were not open to these charges they had no cause for alarm,
  864
  for it was not intended to interfere with the good schools. That was also the tone of the Members of the Government in this House when the Bill was before your Lordships. Now, my Lords, I have to ask, in what spirit the enormous powers of the Act have been applied by the Endowed Schools Commissioners and by the Government which gives effect to their recommendations? The Endowed Schools Commissioners have altogether set aside the idea of interfering only with abuses. They have persisted in the theory of crushing the whole thing into the crucible and polishing it over after the pattern they had set up; or, in the language of the noble Lord at the Table, their principle had been that the founders should go to the wall, and that the middle classes should have the lion's share of the endowments. I will also say that, so far as it has gone, that also has been the principle on which the Committee of the Privy Council have acted. Now, my Lords, I will venture to ask the opinion of your Lordships on this individual scheme, not merely on account of its intrinsic importance—not simply because it interests the Corporation of London, though they are a very important body, but because it is a typical scheme; because it enshrines a principle, and because that principle has excited, throughout the kingdom, feelings of the widest and deepest alarm. It will be my duty to prove that, in the case of Emanuel Hospital, there are no abuses; because if an abuse can be proved, I abandon the case. I am not here to defend abuses in endowed schools. Wherever they can be proved, let them be treated as effectually and as drastically as you will. I am here to maintain that the bequests of founders ought to be thoroughly but intelligently carried out, and that unless abuses in their administration can be proved, the actual administration ought not to be interfered with. Now, my Lords, as to Emanuel Hospital the Commissioners have been shy of imputing abuses to it. There has been an active correspondence, but when they were challenged to indicate abuses they have generally shrunk from the task. But at last—quite at last—within the last two days, they have come forward somewhat more frankly on the subject, and in a Paper which they have issued to your Lordships—too recently for any distinct answer from those who

  865
  are attacked—they have stated two grounds of charge against the management of this hospital. One charge is that it is extravagantly managed, and the other that the benefit of the charity is given, not to the poor, but to the lower-middle class. Now, I think I am in a condition to disprove both these charges. The first and most important question is, have these schools been devoted to the class for which the founder intended them? The words of the founder are clear. They are "for poor children," and if it shall be proved that they have not been so applied—if they have been jobbed away and made a matter of mere patronage, without reference to poverty, I will admit that there is a strong case against the existing administration. But, my Lords, what are the facts? Mr. Fearon, the Assistant Commissioner, upon whose evidence the Endowed School Commissioners mainly depend, makes no statement as to Emanual Hospital in particular, but says that the class to which it belongs are used for the benefit of the messengers in the Houses of Parliament and of persons in the employment of the governors. Now, my Lords, it is a curious fact that in Emanuel Hospital only one such child is to be found. The official return is as follows:—Out of 57 children who were at the school when the Assistant Commissioner visited it, 23 were orphans (I suppose there was no question that orphans whose fathers were dead were poor children); one child was a deserted child; two were the children of incapacitated parents—I have no items respecting three of the children—and of the remaining 28 I have obtained the incomes of their parents, and the average income per day of each individual I will state. I learned that the average number of children in these families was more than seven, which is a very far greater abundance to relieve than the philosophers of the present day say is sufficient, and that number is five. Well, my Lords, I want to lay before your Lordships the amount which these families had to support each child, and so test the observation which had been made that these were not poor children. The average amount for each child was 6d. a-day. If 6d. a-day is not poverty, I do not know what is. I should like to see the Endowed School Commissioners living on 6d. a-day. Hitherto the school has been given to poor chil-
  866
  dren. Now, then, the question arises, has the fund been wastefully administered. The Commissioners—they do not condescend to particulars—said that the management had been obviously wasteful. That is a convenient phrase, but they abstain from particulars. I will ask your Lordships to go with me into the particulars of this point. There are 64 children now under education. The Commissioners say that the expenditure is £2,000 a-year; but in order to test whether this is extravagant or not, you should compare the amount with what the Commissioners propose to expend. Those 64 children cost £24 2s. a-year each for board and education. The Commissioners propose that their children at the boarding school should cost £26 a-year; and therefore I cannot see on what principle the governors of Emanuel Hospital can be charged with extravagance. At the St. Ann's Asylum the children cost £32 a-year. I have never heard it said that that was an ill-managed hospital; and believe that there is no ground whatever for this charge of extravagance which the Commissioners made in this transient manner, saying there was "obvious extravagance" without giving any proof. It may be said that the education in not sufficiently good. But in 1855, Mr. Moseley, the Assistant Commissioner, visited the schools and expressed himself satisfied. Then an examiner from St. Mark's Hospital, Chelsea, concludes his report by saying that he considered the instruction thoroughly sound and useful, and highly creditable to those engaged in the work. For what purpose, then, is there to be this change in the management? I consider this to be important when I consider how far it will work. If you upset the management of the Corporation of the City of London, the management in every other town in the kingdom will be upset also; and I cannot look with confidence or equanimity on the rough dismissal of the present trustees from the duties which they have well fulfilled, and the substitution of a new-fangled body at the veto and control of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The practice of England has become the practice of other countries. It has been our practice to trust to local enthusiasm and local zeal. We have not collected up all the strings into a single knot to be placed in the hands of central Commissioners. We

  867
  know that not far from us other nations have pursued a different course and had centralized their local institutions, and we are at this moment in a condition to judge how far the experiment has succeeded. But there is much more in the matter. It was not that the control of the City of London over these schools had been broken. It is that the schools have been wrested from the objects to which Lady Dacre devoted them. The poorer classes have gone abroad and the middle classes have got a large share of the endowments. The endowments have been taken from the poor, to whom they were given, and I come here to-night to ask your Lordships to interpose by your veto and forbid these schemes from becoming law. Now, my Lords, the scheme of the Commissioners consist of two parts. They set up a day school, and they set up a boarding school. With the day school I am not concerned to argue much. It is a day school at rates running up to £6 a-year, and at that rate for schools of 300 or 400 boys the schools ought to be very nearly self-supporting. It may be true that these schools will furnish accomodation to the inhabitants of Westminster. If the schools fill well the expense will be entirely covered, and the endowment will not be seriously interfered with; but if the schools do not answer, I would venture to suggest that at the point of day schools there is a very great departure from the founder's original bequest and the rights of the poor, because I think that even the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Lyttelton) will agree with me that if a child has only 6d. a-day to live upon the whole cannot be spent on education. It is as plain as possible that persons who pay 6d a-day for schooling must be of the superior classes. But I ask your Lordships rather to turn your eyes from the day school to the boarding school. Lady Dacre's bequest was entirely for a boarding school. The pupils were to be brought up in the hospital, and the object of the bequest was domestic education—the education of the boarding school; and the Commissioners have set up a boarding school, and they have assigned £15,000 for the building of this boarding school. It is proposed to charge from £24 to £26 a-year, with an entrance of £2. A poor person cannot pay £26 a-year for the education of his children. Such a sum
  868
  can only be paid by a person having at least £200 a-year. Persons struggling for a living cannot become boarders. And yet these are the persons for whom the school was founded. But, then, there are the exhibitions. The governors are authorized under this scheme to grant four exhibitions to such children as shall deserve them by merit. But merit means examination. Instead of looking on this money as money to be disposed of according to the will of the founder, the Commissioners look upon it as devoted to carrying out examinations. I do not wish to depreciate competitive examinations. My University in competitive examinations holds a high place, and competitive examinations have done great things to raise the standard of education. But it is proposed to apply competitive examinations to children of seven years of age. The rule is that no one shall enter who is more than 13 or less than 7, and the bequest will be given to those who succeed in these competitive examinations. I think it will be at once clear that success in competitive examinations will fall to the lot of those who have had money to pay for their teaching. As years go on native ability may make up for the want of money; but early in life success in competitive examination depends on previous preparation—and previous preparation means nothing more than the possession of money. The prizes are to be given to the middle classes. The payment of £26 a-year will insure this. Great attention is now being paid to the subject of middle-class schools, and philanthropic persons are giving of their means to promote the object if the movement goes on. But there is a difference between the old-fashioned Christian enthusiast and the philosophic enthusiast of the present day; and that difference is, that whereas the Christian gave his own money, the philosopher always tries to give the money of some one else. I freely admit that middle-class education is a noble work; but I believe it to be a greater and nobler work to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to educate the poor. These, my Lords, were the objects for which Lady Dacre left her money, and she did not leave it to that object by cheating her heirs, but she accumulated the money by her own self-denial. Now, it is proposed to take this money from the poor, and give it to

  869
  the middle classes. The middle classes do not ask for it. At a large meeting in the City of Westminster this scheme was almost unanimously rejected on the part of those who are supposed to be benefited by it. Still it is proposed to give it to the middle classes. I might dwell, I think, with some effect on your Lordships' minds on the political evil and danger arising from a wanton interference with the bequests of the day. Recollect that a carping spirit is going on now as it did in past times. If you once drive into the mind of those who are willing to give their money for the good of their kind that they cannot be certain that it will not be devoted to some philosophical crotchet of the day there will be no more bequests or endowments. I can imagine nothing, not even in private property, more sacred and inviolable than that which is left for the support of a class which has nothing else to depend upon, and I know that when I appeal to your Lordships to interpose your veto in the present instance to stop the proposed desecration I shall not appeal in vain.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the proposed scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of Emanuel Hospital in the parish of Saint Margaret in the city of Westminster will have the effect of diverting a large portion of the endowments of the said hospital from the education of the poor to which they were assigned in the charter of foundation, and of withdrawing the government thereof from the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the city of London against whose management no charge has been established; and praying that Her Majesty will withhold Her assent from the said scheme.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I would venture to remark that though the Motion of the noble Marquess is directed only to the case of Emanuel Hospital, his speech has raised the whole principle of the Endowed Schools Act, and might have been delivered against the second reading of that measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand it I am perfectly satisfied with the Preamble of the Act. I object only to the way in which it is being applied by the Endowed Schools Commissioners.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I will refer the noble Marquess to the enacting clause rather than to the Preamble, and I cannot help saying that I still think that his speech, both now and
  870
  on a previous occasion, was directed against the Act itself. That Act was passed on account of many schools being mismanaged, and on the recommendation of a Commission presided over by my lamented Friend, Lord Taunton—a man of calm judgment, and not at all likely to be led away by the philosophers of whom the noble Marquess appears to be so much afraid. The Commission was composed of men of great ability, of all shades of politics, and representing all classes of society, and was obviously entitled to great deference. In consequence of their Report the Endowed Schools Act was passed. The Act gave the present Commissioners the largest powers for carrying out the principles laid down by the Schools Inquiry Commissioners. The object was to put the schools into such a shape as would be most conducive to the promotion of education; and Mr. Forster, whose name has been brought prominently forward by the noble Marquess, and who had been one of the Commissioners, distinctly stated that the object was not the primary education of the children of the working classes, the necessity of whose sustenance compelled their parents to take them away at an early age—nor the education of children of the superior classes, who were able to remain at school and at the Universities to a late period—but the education of a secondary class—namely, the lower-middle class, with such portion of the working class as showed special fitness. Mr. Forster again said that these schools might be made to provide good education for the middle class, and also to meet those comparatively exceptional cases in which children of working men were specially fitted for a higher education and could be allowed by their parents to remain at school. In this House, too, a noble Earl, who is not now present, said the Bill was likely to give an improved education to the children of the middle class, and that a portion of the working class would also benefit. On that occasion some of the details of the Bill excited discussion, but no objection was taken in either House to its principle. The noble Marquess has denounced the principle of spoliation; but I contend that the Commissioners would clearly have failed in their duty to Parliament and the country had they not based their scheme upon the avowed principles

  871
  and intentions of the Act, and I say that to arrest their action would be to frustrate the whole course of inquiry and legislation which have been proceeding during the last two or three years. Then, my Lords, in reference to another point which has been mentioned by the noble Marquess—departure from the intentions of the founders—let me say that the Corporation of London have proposed a scheme which departs from them still more widely, for while the Commissioners would leave the almshouses under the management of the Corporation, dealing only with that portion of the funds intended by Lady Dacre for educational purposes, the Corporation are for giving up the almshouses and founding a school in the country. The noble Marquess says that funds are diverted from the education of the poor, contrary to the will of the founder. It should be borne in mind that in Lady Dacre's will there is not a word about the poor; her words were—
  "The relief of aged people and bringing up of children in virtue and good and laudable arts, in the same Hospital, whereby they might the better live in time to come by their honest labour."
  Now, my Lords, with reference to the management of the estates by the Corporation of the City of London, I fully believe that the Corporation have administered the Brandesburton Estate very well, though I cannot admit that its improved value is altogether owing to their management; for, knowing something of that part of Yorkshire, I must be allowed to attribute the increased value of the property mainly to the conversion of sheepwalks into arable land, as is the case with many other estates in the neighbourhood. I am perfectly willing to believe that the Corporation have done all that befits good landlords; but it does not necessarily follow that they are the best managers of a school. The two things are totally different and distinct. It must also be remembered that this scheme deals not only with Emanuel Hospital, but with three other foundations as well, which are to be consolidated with that Hospital, and are to be placed under one management. My Lords, it is my decided opinion that by adopting this plan much would be done to secure the good management of these schools. The noble Marquess opposite has said, and said truly, that these schools ought
  872
  to be placed under the management of a local body; but the proposed scheme would render the managing body far more local than it is at present. The Endowed Schools Commissioners thought a school can scarcely be well managed by a body constituted for other purposes, and that it ought to be managed by a government specially appointed for the purpose, which will be the case under the scheme of the Commissioners. Then, my Lords, comes the question whether the funds of these foundations ought not to be applied so as to provide eleemosynary education for the poor. In discussing this point I feel bound to remind the noble Marquess that there is no mention of the education of the poor in the will of the foundress of the institution. I showed, on a former occasion, that many of the children now educated are not the children of poor persons. The noble Marquess has questioned the accuracy of that statement. I do not profess to have any personal knowledge of the matter myself; but the statement I made was derived from a document drawn up by the schoolmaster of the school with the view of giving information, and not for the purpose of making out a case. The real question, however, is how to apply the funds of these various institutions most advantageously for the poor. The proposal to provide eleemosynary education for the poor has been unanimously condemned by the Report of the Commission, and it has already been shown in an able and eloquent address by one of your Lordships that eleemosynary education is the worst that can be provided for the poor. At the present moment in the four schools 147 boys are educated at an animal cost of £4,000; whereas under the new scheme, at the same cost, there would be educated 300 boys in a lower school, 300 in an upper day school, and 150 in a boarding school;—which latter number, if circumstances will permit, will be subsequently increased to 300. My Lords, the noble Marquess has complained that the boys will be required to show that they have received the rudiments of an education before they will be admitted into the school. But all that they will be required to do will be to read monosyllabic narrative and to write text hand. Again, the exhibitions are to be obtained by competitive examination, in accordance with

  873
  the recommendations upon all occasions of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. Were these recommendations to be set aside and the exhibitions to be given by favour the promoters of the scheme would be reverting to the old system of education, which has been generally pronounced to be inefficient and unsatisfactory. I will not trespass further on your Lordships' time by going further into this matter. I have done my best to show—and I trust I have shown—that the adoption of the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners will be advantageous to those whom it was intended to benefit, and that I have met the objections that have been raised by the noble Marquess to their proposal.
  LORD BUCKHURST: My Lords, I will trouble your Lordships with very few observations upon the subject-matter of the Motion before the House. In the first place, although there is no mention in the will of Lady Dacre of the education of the poor, yet in the Charter of Incorporation of Emanuel Hospital special provision is made for the maintenance of 20 poor aged people and 20 poor children. I must own that I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) say that the Hospital was not founded for the benefit of the poor. In the scheme of the Corporation of London it is said that not less than 70 poor children—to consist as nearly as may be of an equal number of boys and girls—shall be lodged, victualled, clothed, and educated in the new schools, in such a manner as the Governors may from time to time direct, and who, when admitted, shall not be under 7, nor over 10 years of age. Now, my Lords, I certainly find nothing of that sort in the scheme which is propounded by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. In conclusion, allow me to say that I am not myself in any way interested in this matter beyond family connection with the foundress of the charity. I am not personally interested in the charity beyond being related by descent to its foundress, and I rejoice to see it under the management of so liberal a Governing Body as the Corporation of London, while, on the other hand, I should very much regret if it were transferred to other hands, or if its revenues—which were originally intended for the benefit, of the poor—were appropriated to other purposes. I say, again, that I could not
  874
  help expressing my regret if I were to see it removed from the superintendence of so liberal and enlightened a body as the Corporation of the City of London, and appropriated to other purposes than those which were intended by the foundress.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that before he attempted to answer any of the arguments which had been brought forward by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) who had introduced this question to the notice of their Lordships, he might be permitted to say that if he was to continue to be connected with the Endowed Schools Commission he might, perhaps, naturally hope that the time would come when they should ceased to be called plunderers of the Church, robbers of the poor, perpetrators of sacrilege—and other flowers of rhetoric which on high authority in that House, in the Guildhall, and in other parts of the country, were now applied to them on all sides. Neither, perhaps, was it surprising if he should wish to offer a few words in their defence, and should take the first opportunity which was afforded him to go a little more into general topics than was suggested by that particular case. He wished in the first place to point out that all the attacks which had been made upon the Endowed Schools Commission were really attacks upon the Act of Parliament which it was their duty to carry out. Noble Lords, he must say, seemed never to have at all considered the Endowed Schools Act, and he would engage to say they had never paid proper attention to its 9th and 10th clauses; for it undoubtedly was because they were endeavouring to give honest effect to the intentions of that Act, that they were assailed as they had been. It was not for him to attempt to defend the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) which had been so often quoted; but the Endowed Schools Commissioners did not stand upon the words of any Minister of the Crown, or of anyone whatever, but upon the Reports of the Schools Inquiry Commission, to which the noble Marquess had not once referred, and the recommendations of which they maintained that they were endeavouring to carry into effect in their schemes. They stood also upon the terms of the Act of Parliament, in which not a word was said about bringing abuse and mismanagement home to the

  875
  present managers of the schools, nor about the will of the founders, except in the few words of the Preamble so often quoted, and in which the whole purpose held before the Commission was to make use of those endowments in the best way in which, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, they could be rendered conducive to the education—of whom? Not of the poor—not of any one class—but of boys and girls generally. The whole purpose laid before them was how to make use of the endowments in the best way for the diffusion of education. And with regard to the will of the founder, that was interpreted to them as being that a liberal education was to be put within the reach of all classes. Now, with reference to certain casual expressions used by himself and some of his colleagues before the Act was in operation, and before they were appointed, he was prepared to justify those expressions, in substance, at least, though, perhaps, not every exact word of them. He had no doubt he had said that if the best, or anything like the best, application that could now be made was to be made of school endowments, it was absolutely inevitable that the will of the founders should be disregarded. He did not hesitate to say that he thought it an unsound and untenable principle that the will of the founder of what were called charitable purposes ought necessarily to be maintained to all time, according to his own original intentions; as a fact the will of the founder had in innumerable instances been departed from, and in Middlesex in hardly one case had it been found practicable to adhere to the will of the founder. They should be guided by what the founders would be likely to think by the altered state of the circumstances in which they lived. But he would not stand on that general ground. He was perfectly content with the interpretation given in the Act which they had to administer, and would say that they had, in any particular matter, to give effect to the founder's main design. In innumerable instances it was of the very necessity of the case that the will of the founder should be departed from. In the 7th vol. of the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission it was set forth at great length that in the county of Middlesex in hardly one case was it found practicable or consistent with public policy not
  876
  to depart, and depart widely, from the founder's intention; and where great benefit would be derived from such departure, they might fairly consider that what he would himself have done under an altered state of circumstances might be more safely made their guide now than the mere actual terms of his bequest. The words of the Act required them to give effect to the main designs of the founder—which were interpreted to be to put a liberal education "within the reach of all classes." He begged attention to those last words, which implied that the actual and direct benefits of those foundations were to be given to those who exerted themselves—those who made an effort to obtain them. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other day said that to give rewards to merit was part of the jargon of the present day, and that it must mean competitive examination. That was a doctrine which he (Lord Lyttelton) was not prepared to admit. But, assuming that the exhibitions and scholarships were to be given by competitive examination, he said there was nothing in the scheme which was propounded to prevent the Governors from fixing a limit as to the age of the children who should be subjected to it. If he understood the word rightly, merit meant industry, good character, steadiness, and other qualities besides cleverness. Now, a paper signed by the head masters and many assistant masters of endowed schools had been largely circulated, commending the principle that there should be no gratuitous education, except as the reward of merit; and the authors of the document expressed an opinion to the effect that the opening of the privileges of a foundation to general competition would, so far from thwarting the intention of the founders, be really the only method of fulfilling their desire and promoting education. So much for the wills and intentions of the founders. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had done him the honour to allude to a remark of his, but with peculiar ignorance of the meaning of one of the most common expressions; the noble Marquess did not seem to know the meaning of the phrase "the lion's share." He (Lord Lyttelton) certainly did use that phrase on the occasion referred, to as descriptive of the inevitable result following upon the

  877
  course recently pursued—he did say that "the lion's share" of certain endowments would go to the middle class, construed in a large sense—not that those endowments would go to the poor. He would, perhaps, have expressed the same idea more guardedly and accurately, if he had said that the funds would go to the promotion of secondary education—in other words, to obtain for the children those advantages in the shape of superior education and physical training which neither the funds subscribed by charitable persons, nor public funds at present provided. Elementary schools could be largely benefited, by giving out of these endowments means for higher education. A strong case could certainly be made out in favour of the principle that a greater portion by far of the ancient endowments ought to go for the benefit of those just above the very poorest. Endowments were not intended as a rule by the founders for any particular class, but were rather intended to draw forth the best children, and to extend their benefits as much as possible, so as to make them grow up the best citizens of the State. All founders intended that the benefits to be conferred by their endowments should be as widely diffused as possible—should fall upon all classes, and be applied to educate those children who would be likely to make the best use of their bounty, and become by means of it the most useful citizens of the State. It so happened that the lower grades of the middle class, the class which would make most of the means at its disposal, benefited least of all by these endowments. If the old state of things existed, he would still be prepared to contend that the greater portion of those endowments would be for the humbler classes, rather than for the upper classes, who had, however, benefited by them to a very material and important degree. Even if the Elementary Education Act of last year had not been passed, the children of the very poor would have been in a better condition comparatively than the middle class. If, however, a vacuum had existed in the educational means of the poorest classes, that vacuum had been filled up by the Act of last year; unquestionably, a vacuum existed in the educational means at the disposal of the middle classes, and that the law in no way provided for. In dealing
  878
  with those schools the Endowed Schools Commissioners did not go upon the ground of poverty alone; but, at the same time, they maintained that they would benefit the poor a great deal more than the Corporation of London did. They did not allege that an abuse, in the technical sense of the word, existed:—they merely found the broad fact that 143 children were educated, while under the scheme they proposed from 750 to 900 children would be educated far more completely, and with a power of considerably increasing the number, at a small charge which, from time to time, would be further reduced or entirely remitted. They likewise proposed to admit children from the class who left at about the age of 14; and of the exhibitions and prizes they would give one-third — more than equalling the total number of children now in the schools—to the class who attended the elementary schools, and one-third to the orphans of the same class, whose poverty and distress gave them strong claims to consideration. He said, therefore, that whether with regard to the day schools, the boarding schools, or the girls' schools, the scheme of the Commissioners would give to the more praiseworthy and industrious children of the poor very much more than was done under the existing system, or than was promised. Now, he would not be tempted to go through the numerous papers with which he dared say most of their Lordships had been furnished every morning almost by the Corporation of the City of London; but he did assert before their Lordships, that he could with the utmost possible ease show that almost every single statement in those papers was incorrect. He would give an illustration of the misrepresentation made in an official letter, to which the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners were exposed. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) who had brought the subject of Morgan's School, Bridgewater, under their Lordships' consideration the other night, with all his acumen and accuracy of mind allowed himself to be misguided by the representations made to him, and was under the impression that there was an expressed intention with regard to that school to set aside the teaching of the doctrine of the Church of England.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he stated that the Endowed Schools Com-

  879
  missioners recited in the Preamble of their scheme, that it was their intention to preserve the teaching of the Church of England; but that was valueless, because it was practically unapplied before they got to the end of the scheme.
  LORD LYTTELTON: There was no recital at all, but the Governors were enjoined to give instructions according to the provisions of the scheme. As he had stated, it would not be pretended that the foundation of Emanuel Hospital was one of a denominational character; but in this, as in every one of their schemes, the Commissioners specially required that the Governors and masters should carefully provide for the religious instruction of the scholars. Yet, in the face of that clause, the authorities of the City of London had stated in an official letter, that the scheme of the Commissioners was to be a purely secular one. He repeated that the Endowed Schools Commissioners made no allegation of abuse or mismanagement; but the Act told them to provide in the best way they could for the interests of education, and they conceived that the question of the Governing Body was, perhaps, the most material of all the questions affecting that education. Moreover, what they had to provide for was not the present day alone. They had, as far as they could, to meet the wants of posterity. They, therefore, did not propose to continue to vest the government of schools in the hands of a single Corporation, but proposed a threefold constitution of the Governing Body, including the element of election. It had been said that the Commissioners had no right to construe the Act, except with reference to abuses or mismanagement in the Governing Body. The question was raised in the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and a proposal to limit the power of the Commissioners to interfere with the constitution of Governing Bodies only in cases where abuse or mismanagement had been proved, was rejected by a majority of some 15 to 2. So that in the House of Commons, in the Select Committee to whom that Bill was referred, that very point was brought forward, under the distinct Motion made that no Governing Body should be heard, except upon proved cases of mismanagement against them; and on the division upon that proposition there were 15 against it and
  880
  2 in favour of it; and the question was again brought forward by one of those 2—his own son-in-law (Mr. J. G. Talbot)—he brought it forward again, and did not divide upon it. No one had alleged mismanagement against those venerable and distinguished Bodies who, under the presidency of his Grace the Archbishop of York, had the management of those seven favoured schools in the country which the Commissioners sought to reform. He thought he had now gone through and answered without exception all the points raised by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had complained of the late period at which a Paper issued by the Commissioners had been laid before Parliament; but that being so, he (Lord Lyttelton) would remind the House that the Commissioners had nothing to do with the documents after they left the office. As far as the Commissioners were personally concerned they desired publicity for their proceedings; but no doubt Her Majesty's Government had excellent reasons for withholding the Paper until the period at which it was submitted to Parliament. He had only one word to add to what he had already said. Let their Lordships look at what the effect would be of a decision against that scheme—what other scheme had they got? If it were possible to amend those schemes after they once left the Commissoners' office, much delay must necessarily be incurred. He did trust that if Parliament saw anything to object to in the scheme, they would take steps for its amendment, instead of carrying the proposal to reject the scheme in its entirety; for to take such a course would be to throw doubts upon the operations of the Commissioners. The whole plan, with its cumbrous machinery, must be again gone through, and the whole scheme would be thrown back for at least a year.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, there were certain admissions which ought to be made with reference to the Endowed Schools Commissioners by everyone who approached the subject. In the first place, the task which the Commissioners had to discharge was one of very great difficulty and delicacy; and in the second place, he admitted that two of the Commissioners had approached the task with the most pure and single-minded intention to discharge the trust reposed in

  881
  them by Parliament. He further admitted that it was unfair to both the Gentlemen he had just named to bring against them, in a discussion of that kind, any expressions of opinion which might have fallen from them before they were Commissioners, and at a time when they were not pointing out what would be their course of action as Commissioners, but were simply giving utterance to their private and individual views as to the course which legislation on the subject ought to take. But of this he was perfectly certain, that when those eminent persons came to administer the trusts of that Commission, they would not allow their own private opinions to affect them at all—that they would rather think it their duty to place in abeyance their own private opinions, and endeavour to adhere to what they considered the very letter of the statute which they had to carry out. He did not mean to enter fully into the details of the various papers which had been circulated by the advocates on both sides of that question. There had probably been exaggeration on both sides; but he thought the palm of victory on that head rested entirety with the pamphlet which had emanated from the Commissioners, or had at any rate been circulated with their consent. His first objection to the scheme was this—a good deal had been said about the will of the foundress, and one noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) had said it was a mockery to suppose that the charity of Lady Dacre was intended to provide for the poor, because the word "poor" never occurred in the will. That was true, but as a Royal charter was granted at the time, in order to carry out the provisions of the will, he contended that the two documents should be construed together, and the charter expressly stated that the charity was intended "for the education of the children of the poor according to the charitable and good meaning of the said Lady Dacre." That being the case, he was alarmed to find the Commissioners claiming the right to rule that property left for the education of a particular class would be better appropriated for the education of another class, and to so appropriate it if they thought fit. He contended that that proposition was contrary to the principles of English law, and earnestly protested against the doctrine of the noble Lord opposite (Lord
  882
  Lyttelton) that charitable grants were merely as such, public property. There was nothing in the Act of 1869, according to his reading of it, which gave the Commissioners power to divert the endowments in the manner proposed. The Preamble of the Act of Parliament stated that—
  "The Commissioners have made their Report, and thereby recommended various changes with the object of carrying into effect the main designs of the founders, by puting a liberal education within the reach of the children of all classes,"
  and so on. Taking even the words on which the noble Lord intended to rely, he (Lord Cairns) maintained that "a liberal education" was not placed within the reach of all classes, by taking away a fund intended for the education of one class and applying it to the education of another class. Yet that was the very thing the Commissioners were doing. The whole tenor of the noble Lord's speech was to the effect that in respect to education, it was better to assist the middle classes than to assist the poor. The noble Lord had pointed out that the Commissioners had, after all, provided free exhibitions for children educated in primary schools in Westminster; but he forgot to mention the alternative. What the Commissioners proposed was that there should be free exhibitions for children educated in the primary schools of Westminster, or whose parents resided in Westminster. Thus, parents who would never have dreamt of sending their child to a primary school in Westminster might, if they could cram him sufficiently for the purpose, send him to compete for one of these free exhibitions which, according to the noble Lord, were intended for the poor. His (Lord Cairns') next objection had reference to the Governing Body. He did not for a moment recognize any right of the Corporation of the City of Loudon to be the trustees of the endowment. They were selected by Queen Elizabeth to manage the trust; but, although he believed they had discharged that duty very well, they had no vested right in the charity, and the Commissioners were empowered to appoint other trustees. As a matter of discretion and good sense, however, he thought the Commissioners might have proceeded more judiciously. Having regard to the long connection of the Corporation of the City of London with the school, he could not help thinking that

  883
  the sensible thing would have been to ask the Corporation to take upon themselves the responsibility of selecting or electing the trustees who were to be the Governing Body. A great deal of difficulty would have been removed, if the Corporation had acceded to such a proposal, and a better Governing Body would have been appointed than could be obtained by resorting to the principle of self-election. Then, he wholly objected to the use which the Endowed Schools Commissioners were making of the Primary Education Act of last year. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had most tersely and neatly remarked that the Act of 1870 found a certain vacuum in primary education, and threw upon the people of the country at large the duty of filling it up. He (Lord Cairns) objected, however, to the Commissioners making that vacuum larger than it was last year, by taking away sources of primary education which then existed. The proposed scheme would, in his opinion, introduce the principle of competitive examination for the free exhibitions in the schools, without any limit as to age, so that any child who, by the process of cramming, could show its superiority to other children of the same age would be entitled to be elected. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had, indeed, expressed a doubt whether that was the real meaning of the scheme; but in his (Lord Cairns') judgment there could be no doubt on the subject. Though he would speak with great possible respect of competitive examination, he feared that in that country they were drifting much too rapidly into a perpetual and chronic system of competitive examination. At all events, it was most unsuitable as a means of introduction to an elementary school. Imagine a consumptive hospital established on the principle that those applicants should be most eligible for admission whose lungs were in the most healthy state. Well, a school was, after all, an establishment for curing ignorance; and yet, in the present instance, the pupils who were to be admitted were those who were the least ignorant. It might be urged that many schoolmasters were in favour of competitive examination; but, speaking with all due respect for schoolmasters, he maintained they were the very worst judges on that point. If he were a schoolmaster he would say—"By all
  884
  means let every boy who enters my school come in by competitive examination. That will secure to me all the clever boys, while all the dunces will be kept out." He said again, therefore, that schoolmasters, instead of being the best persons to form an opinion on that subject, were the very worst. These were the objections which he took to that scheme. He thought that their Lordships' attention ought to be called to the words in that Act: That the House of Lords and the House of Commons should have the opportunity before they assented to a scheme of that kind to pass under review objections to it. He had now stated the objections that would prevent his voting for the scheme, and he declined to trust to the scheme being ratified by any authority short of their Lordships' House.
  LORD LAWRENCE, as one who took the deepest interest in the education of the lower classes in London, sincerely hoped and trusted that the Motion now under their Lordships' consideration would not be successful. He believed that a large majority of the gentlemen who formed the present London School Board would unhesitatingly declare that the proposal of the Commissioners would give a great impulse, and would prove a great incentive, to the primary education of the poorer classes generally. He was sure that the majority of the parents of those children who attended primary schools would highly approve the propositions of the Commissioners, on the ground that they offered a great opening for their children. These poor people themselves would say that the scheme of the Commissioners would be a great benefit to their children, and that under that scheme the children of parents who lived in Westminster had a distinct advantage over those of other parishes; but the most important point of all for consideration was that encouragement would be given to the industrious, farsighted, and frugal parents, who had made some sacrifice in order to educate their families, over the lazy and drunken parents who had neglected theirs. Then, again, the large number of the exhibitions that were offered would produce a greater interest in the subject. Much had been said about the evil effects of competition; but his experience led him to believe that all the advantages were not always secured by the children of

  885
  the richer classes. The money that would procure a first-rate education was doubtless a great help; but very often it was expended on children who had the least aptitude and energy, and were beaten by poorer but cleverer and more zealous ones. Competition might be truly said to be a leaven which would leaven the whole Mass of society. The results of competition were not limited to those who directly gained by it, for all the children were influenced, though only five or ten gained the prizes; and he was convinced that in the long run competition would be of the greatest benefit to the whole system of education.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, the issue that has been raised by the Motion of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) is so important that it is impossible for me, holding the office which I do, not to state my views upon the question now under the consideration of your Lordships. The issue that has been placed before you does not relate solely to Emanuel Hospital; because the noble Marquess opposite, with that courage for which he is so remarkable, placed the issue on the right ground, when he asked your Lordships to assert in the Address a principle which went to the foundation of the Act of 1869, it is one and which if your Lordships were to agree to it, would have the effect of practically repealing by the vote of one House of Parliament the legislation of two years ago. Your Lordships, I am sure, will not fail to observe that the Motion does not simply disapprove the scheme for Emanuel Hospital, but objects altogether to the principle that gratuitous education shall be given for merit, and alleges that the present Governing Body ought not to be interfered with, unless neglect in some shape or other can be proved on their part. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess in his speech endeavoured to convince your Lordships that there was something in the scheme of the Commissioners which was radically inconsistent with the understanding on which the Act of 1869 was passed; whereas, I venture to say, in contradiction to the noble Marquess's argument, that the fact is, that during the passage of the Act through Parliament, it was most distinctly advocated that the principle of indiscriminate gratuitous education was a thoroughly unsound one; and it was stated that the
  886
  Government intended to remodel the Governing Bodies of schools without requiring that misconduct should be proved against them. I have to-day looked through the speech I had the honour to address to your Lordships on that occasion, and I say that it was then laid down beyond all dispute that that was the principle laid down by the Government. The intentions of those who introduced and supported the Bill were unequivocally placed before both Houses of Parliament, and I assert that nothing can be clearer than the opinions stated in the Report on which the measure was founded. There is no doubt, my Lords, that disingenuous efforts have been made to misrepresent the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and I am sure it is from mere inadvertence that many names have been attached to the statement that has been issued by the Corporation of the City of London. I am not here, my Lords, to criticize the conduct of the Corporation of the City of London in the management of this charity, Emanuel Hospital; but I have at least a right to say—and the document has certainly been drawn up by a most ingenious gentleman—that no one can possibly read that document without being aware of the misrepresentations it contains in reference to two important questions that came before the Commission. It has been said that that Commission thought that Corporations were the best bodies to be entrusted with the administration and the management of schools, and that this scheme as to Emanuel Hospital has been prepared in the teeth of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission; but, my Lords, the fact is that those Commissioners have distinctly said that they thought it very objectionable that such bodies should be intrusted with such duties, and their opinion is in favour of special bodies being chosen for the distinct purpose. Therefore, what I would desire to impress upon your Lordships is this—you are invited by the noble Marquess opposite to lay down principles which are, as I believe, inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1869, and which most certainly are equally inconsistent with the intentions with which that Act was passed. Precisely the same proposition as that which is contained in the latter portion of the

  887
  Address of the noble Marquess has been laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat to inquire into this subject, and it was rejected by a majority of 18 to 2—the majority including several well-known Members of the Conservative party. That, therefore, is the view of the matter taken by at least some eminent. Members of that party. So that, my Lords, my noble Friend can hardly say that in the course which the Commissioners have pursued, they have not been going upon the understanding which existed in Parliament when that Act was passed. I am, therefore, prepared to maintain that the Address of the noble Marquess is inconsistent with the Resolution of the House of Commons' Committee and with the understanding that prevailed when the Act of 1869 passed. I observed that the noble Marquess, although he quoted from a speech of my noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton), abstained from quoting anything which fell from me, and I must therefore conclude that he was unable to find anything that was uttered by me at that time which made for his case; but he did say that in the course of the debate I had said that this and that had been settled in Select Committee, and that it was undesirable to alter it; I did say so, and I say so now. I say to my noble Friend that the speech which he has made to-night is inconsistent with the Resolutions of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and with the understanding that existed when the Act of 1869 passed. I have shown it, I have proved it, and I have referred to the well-known Members of the Conservative party who voted on the occasion in question. Now, my Lords, I can very well understand the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) voting for the bare Resolution against this scheme; but I must own that it is difficult to understand how he can vote for the principles that are contained in this Address. I confess that I am utterly unable to understand it. The present scheme appears to me to be the complement of the Act, and if your Lordships are pleased to reject it on the grounds put forward by the noble Marquess in his Address, a complete stop will be put to the work of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. My Lords, that appears to me to be a very grave
  888
  and serious thing to do. The noble Marquess has on his side on this question of giving gratuitous education to the poor, his own very authority, besides that of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) and that of the Corporation of the City of London. But then, my Lords, we have to set against this system of patronage and gratuitous education the authority of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners—we have the authority of 300 gentlemen connected with the best schools in England—we have the authority of the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) who has just spoken not only as one who has given considerable attention to educational questions, but as the mouthpiece of the School Board of London, and who has laid before your Lordships the views of that great representative council as to the mode in which a scheme such as that now proposed would benefit primary education, and would consequently benefit the poor in the Metropolis. I say, my Lords, that if you want anything in support of the argument which I venture to address to your Lordships, and in answer to the speech of my noble Friend opposite, you will find it in the remarks which have fallen from my noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) who has just sat down. I, for my part, certainly do not think there could be found in this country a set of men of greater weight in reference to education than those gentlemen to whom I have referred. What the Corporation of the City of London ask your Lordships to do is this—to affirm the principle that it would be robbing the poor to take away from irresponsible trustees the power of giving the 64 nominees positions in the school, in favour of the scheme that would give a great impetus to education. A school managed under a system of patronage must, I contend, from its very nature, possess less energy than if a spirit of competition were infused into the pupils, and its efforts must of necessity become stagnant and cold. Under the proposed scheme, instead of the poor merely deriving such benefit from these foundations as is represented by 64 nominations, the large primary schools at Westminster will have the advantage of being connected with a system which would give education to 900 children. What is the benefit of educating 64 children compared with that of a scheme which will educate 900 children, and will

  889
  also place them in direct communication with the primary schools? In my humble opinion, the stimulus that would be thus given to primary education would be of more advantage than any amount of patronage to the children of the poor. My Lords, I will not trespass on your Lordships' attention at greater length; I will only say, in conclusion, that this is in no sense a party question, and I appeal confidently to noble Lords on both sides of the House not to reject the scheme now under discussion. The present Motion cuts directly at the root of the Act of 1869, and if it were passed it would be impossible to apply the Act in accordance with the Report of the School Commissioners, which is the avowed basis of the Act of 1869. In that Act there is a provision enabling either House of Parliament to interpose and stop the progress of any scheme framed under it. But it seems to me that your Lordships are now invited by this Motion to take upon yourselves a very grave responsibility, and to go in the teeth of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners, to go in the teeth of the first teachers in this country, to go in the teeth of the London School Board, and of all the authorities who have made this question almost the study of their lives. My Lords, it is my conviction that the Motion of the noble Marquess would strike a serious and disastrous blow at the progress of education in this country, and I do most earnestly trust that your Lordships will refuse to sanction it.
  EARL NELSON: My Lords, it is impossible for me to give a silent vote upon the Motion which has been brought before your Lordships by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) without stating my reasons for supporting it. It is my intention to vote for the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Marquess, upon the ground that these endowments have been left for the benefit of the poor; and I object to the scheme which has been propounded by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, because it diverts a large portion of the endowments of Emanuel Hospital from the education of the poor, and I do not think that the scheme deals with them in such a fair and liberal spirit as it should do. Now, my Lords, I entirely admit that to use such endowments as these with a view of saving the rates is a wrong mode of employing endowments
  890
  which have been left by their founders for the benefit of education; but, then, my Lords, I venture to maintain that these endowments were meant for the benefit of the poorer class, and I must say that I do not think that the scheme which is now before your Lordships deals with that class of the population of this country in as full and liberal a manner as it ought to do. According to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners there will not be entirely free scholarships for more than 10 in every 100 scholars. It is not contemplated or intended that the new schools should have a larger number than 900 scholars, and under the proposed scheme there will be more than 90 scholarships for the benefit of those children who have been educated in their elementary schools. It is at the present time a reproach to some of our great schools that the poorer classes do not derive the benefit that was originally intended for them. And, my Lords, I do not think it at all proper that examples of that kind should be increased. In my humble opinion a better education than that which is given at the present time in elementary schools ought to be put within the reach of the poorer classes, who ought also to have the means of acquiring a technical education, and of thus preparing themselves for admission to the higher schools of the country. I think that that should be secured to them in order that they might have a chance afforded them of rising in the social scale. Well, now, my Lords, it certainly does occur to me, as I stated just now, that this proposed scheme of the Endowed School Commissioners, however well it may sound at first, will really in a very short time do for these few schools which are to be started in Westminster the very same thing that has happened in our great schools of Eton and Westminster and Winchester. It is a reproach against those schools that, although the education to be bestowed there was originally intended for the poorer people, yet that the expenses connected with those schools have been raised in such a manner that the poorer classes never can derive any benefit from them. My Lords, I have the sincerest desire to improve the education of that class of the people by competitive examinations, and by giving them a higher education than they can by any means

  891
  get from the proposed schools. That is my earnest desire, and I really do believe that under this scheme yon will injure and impair these endowments, and take the benefit of them away from that very class that ought to be the first to receive benefit from them. For what, my Lords, is the case at the present time? Is it not this lower class of our people that are at present doing their utmost to rise in the social scale? And are we not bound to assist them in that object, and is it not wise of us that they should be so assisted? I really do think, my Lords, that the poor deserve the chance of a better education—an education which a scheme of this sort, if properly managed, might give them.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 56: Majority 8.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Blayney, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Boston, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Buckhurst, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Cairns, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Churston, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Colonsay, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Bantry, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Grantley, L.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Eldon, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Feversham, E.

  Home, E.

  Headley, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Melville, V.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Hereford, Bp.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  892

  Sondes, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Wynford, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

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

  Cleveland, D.

  Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Crewe, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Dinevor, L.

  Westminster, M.

  Gwydir, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Cowper, E.

  Devon, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Grey, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Halifax, V.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Seaton, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Suffield, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Belper, L.

  Truro, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

SAINT MARGARET'S HOSPITAL AND THE GREY COAT HOSPITAL.
Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will with-hold Her assent from the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners relating to Saint Margaret's Hospital and the Grey Coat Hospital.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have some remarks to offer to your Lordships in reference to this Motion, and I intend to be heard. I know every school in this parish; I have lived in this parish 40 years, during the whole of which time I have been connected with, and deeply interested in them all, and I cannot help at once declaring that I think you have done a disastrous thing for education in Westminster by the vote which your Lordships have just given. We who have interested ourselves in the matter, the inhabitants of West-

893
minster have been doing our best; we have laboured hard to bring up education to anything like a right tone—to bring up education to something like what it ought to be. When I first knew the parishes of St. John's and St. Martin's they had only about 200 or 300 children in the poor schools, and there are now between 4,000 and 5,000, and I am happy in being able to say it. But, my Lords, instead of enabling us, instead of encouraging us to go on and continue our labours, as we had hoped to do, instead of increasing the number of schools and instead of increasing the number of children who attended them, your Lordships' vote to-night will have the effect of a wet blanket on our energies, a wet blanket has been cast over all the hopes to which the success of past exertions had given birth; and thus for the sake of preserving this comparatively small and unimportant institution of Lady Dacre in the fashion in which it has been going on, you have stopped at once a grand, a great, and a useful scheme of education in Westminster. Now, my Lords, my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) has spoken, as I expected he would do, with honesty and candour of the objects and motives of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. I observed that with much pleasure. I heard nothing from my noble and learned Friend, nor did I expect to hear anything from him in the course of his speech. My noble and learned Friend has abstained altogether from any reference to what has been called the "robbery about to be perpetrated on the poor" and so forth by the proposed scheme of the Commissioners; and I should myself have almost scorned to take any notice of the foolish imputation had it not been for the fact of the noble Marquess having made some remarks upon a public meeting which was recently held in Westminster, at which resolutions favourable to his Motion were unanimously carried.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Almost unanimously carried.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Almost unanimously carried. Now, then, let me tell your Lordships a little about how that meeting was got together, and then I do not think anybody will wonder at the decision that was come to at that public meeting. I must tell the noble Marquess that bills were posted up in
894
all the publichouses in the neighbourhood as at a General Election. There was also a general notice stating that the meeting was to be held to protest against and to prevent the robbery of the poor, and I really was ashamed at that representation having been supported by some of those individuals who were at the meeting. Well, my Lords, we have an old—a very old instance of the effect of the plea of robbery of the poor—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise to Order. The noble and learned Lord is speaking in reply to speeches that have been made in reference to a matter that has been already decided. Your Lordships have already debated and decided on the question, and I apprehend that we cannot now revive the debate. I would suggest the withdrawal of the Motion in order that it may be discussed at a future period.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to that course being pursued. I have not the least objection to the noble Marquess's withdrawing the Motion; but depend upon it, I mean to be heard, and I mean to notice and to answer all the arguments that have been advanced to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I beg to withdraw the Motion.
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess cannot withdraw the Motion without the Leave of the House.
LORD CAIRNS: I beg to suggest that the debate be adjourned, inasmuch as the attention of your Lordships was not directed in the debate on the previous Motion to the subject now before the House.
Moved, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(The Lord Cairns.)
After short interruption—
Motion for the adjournment of the debate withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthen proceeded to say: My Lords, I am perfectly in Order, I believe, in saying this, that the Motion of the noble Marquess refers to the Greycoat School. I am a Governor of the St. Margaret's Hospital; I am a Governor of the Greycoat Hospital; and having some little interest in those institutions, I beg to tell your Lordships that I most approve of the scheme which is

895
proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. I will remind your Lordships that within recent years the Legislature has dealt successively with all the branches of our education, and has formed them as it were into a hierarchy, rising in due proportions from the elementary schools to the Universities. Parliament having dealt with the Universities—having dealt with the public schools and the endowed schools by enacting laws under which they might be reformed, Parliament, I say, has by the Elementary Education Act, completed what I may call the groundwork of the system of education for all classes, by which it is hoped that, in time, the children of the elementary schools can pass from one grade to the other, and thus to the Universities. The Endowed Schools Commissioners have acted in accordance with the spirit of that legislation; and notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding the very great amount of good that has resulted from their exertions, they are charged with robbing the poor. Now, my Lords, the description "poor" does not necessarily mean the children of the ragged schools. I may mention this matter to your Lordships—that there is an instance of the Court of Chancery having many years ago included a Duchess having an income of £2,000 a-year among the "poor relatives" of a deceased nobleman. I contend that by the term "poor children" is meant those who desire and who deserve a better education—a superior education to that which the circumstances of their parents can afford. It is perfectly well known that the children of well-to-do labouring men attend these schools. And, my Lords, what I do most earnestly desire is, that such children in all elementary schools shall have placed before them the hope of obtaining gratuitously a better and higher education than their parents can afford to give them; such hope to act as a stimulus to exertion on the part of the scholars, and as an inducement to the parents to allow their children to remain longer at school than is the case at the present time with that grade in society to which they belong. My Lords, to revert to that point once more, I assert that the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners would give that very stimulus to the elementary schools which is now so much needed, and it assuredly would enable them to
896
cope more successfully than they have hitherto been able to do with the great difficulty of education in London, which difficulty is to keep the children at school after they are 12 years old; and this parents would be induced and encouraged to do when once they became convinced that diligence and attention on the part of the children might be rewarded by their obtaining an exhibition for a higher school, and that all the prizes of the higher order might be placed within their reach. Now, my Lords, all these bright prospects will be fatally injured unless some such scheme as that which is now under discussion can be carried out. I need hardly assure your Lordships that if, for a single moment, I believed that the effect of the scheme of the Commissioners would be unfavourable to the cause of education for the poor, I would rather cut off my hand than assent to it; but, my Lords, my belief, my firm conviction is that it will have a tendency of an exactly contrary description. Now, my Lords, I do not feel justified in detaining your Lordships longer upon this subject, and in concluding my observations I am sure I need hardly assure you that this with me is no party question—that I have not taken part in the consideration of this question in any, the slightest, degree on any ground of party, but that I have approached the subject with nothing less than an earnest and sincere desire to assist in the good work of education. And, my Lords, let me add that as an inhabitant of Westminster for many years, and as a Governor of the two schools which are now proposed to be dealt with by the Motion of the noble Marquess, I do most earnestly implore the House not to give your sanction or approval of any step which may in any way be calculated to arrest the progress of the most useful reforms which have been inaugurated by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and which I look upon as a boon and a blessing conferred upon the poorer classes of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Allow me to remind your Lordships that I ventured to interrupt the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he commenced his remarks, only because it appeared to me that this Motion was a simple corollary to the previous one which your Lordships had already accepted

897
and agreed to, and that being so a fresh debate was not expected to take place. But, my Lords, I must now be allowed to state that I object to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in reference to these two schools — namely, St. Margaret's Hospital and the Greycoat Hospital, upon exactly the same grounds as those on which I object to their scheme in reference to Emanuel Hospital; and it was under these circumstances that it appeared to me to be unnecessary to trespass upon your Lordships' time by a repetition or reiteration of the arguments which I had already advanced in support of my Motion.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I do not wish to travel over the ground that has been so ably and eloquently gone over by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I assure your Lordships that I will trespass upon your indulgence for a very short time indeed. And, my Lords, permit me to say in the outset that as a schoolmaster and school manager of extended experience, I desire briefly to oppose the Motion of the noble Marquess, and to give my humble but hearty support to the scheme that has been propounded by the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the future management and government of these hospitals. Of course, I do not for one moment venture to offer any opinion upon the point of law involved in these schemes; but I do desire to express my hearty approval of them so far as the education of the poor is concerned, and my firm belief that they will afford it precisely the stimulus that is wanted at the present time. What I desire, my Lords, more than anything else in connection with this question is the good of the poor, and if anybody could show me any scheme which, in my judgment, would be more advantageous to that class of the community than the scheme which is proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, I am sure I need not tell your Lordships that it would receive my support. My Lords, when the Schools Inquiry Commission of which I had the honour to be a member was sitting, several gentlemen who had visited the Exhibition in Paris urged the Commission to recommend the establishment of schools for the technical education of British workmen who were being distanced by the more technically
898
educated workmen of the Continent; it was said that our mechanics and artizans were more deficient in technical education than their brethren in France. The question was discussed, and fully discussed, but the conclusion that the Schools Inquiry Commissioners arrived at was that it was not advisable to waste energy upon technical and art instruction as long as the general education of the people continued so deficient as it then was—the Commissioners felt that before technical education could be promoted and extended it was absolutely necessary that the means of general elementary education for the people should be more amply provided, and that it could only be done and stimulated by some such scheme as that which is now proposed. It is for that reason that I support the scheme. There have been, as your Lordships well know, instances of men rising to high positions in the State, although they have been born in humble circumstances; and we all know that such men have, for the most part, received the foundation of their education in grammar schools where instruction in the higher branches of learning was gratuitously afforded. I entertain the opinion that in any now system of education similar means ought to be provided; but inasmuch as schools of the description that I have named have no longer any existence, I believe that the only way by which this object can be gained will be by providing the schools, and also the exhibitions by means of which the more promising boys in the elementary schools can proceed to the higher branches of learning. A school between that for the working classes and that for the middle classes was found to be wanting, and it seemed to the Commissioners that no better use could be made of the endowments for the poor than by establishing such schools. In my opinion, my Lords, there is no better way of benefiting the poor and the middle class immediately above them by setting up schools of the third grade. That has been objected to, and it has been said that by doing it you are diverting the funds of the donors—that you are taking those foundations away from the poor. That I take leave to deny, and to assert that what is done is done with the intention of giving the poor the greatest gift that can be bestowed upon them — the best blessing which they can receive. It is true that

899
others than the poor are admitted to these schools. It is perfectly manifest that you cannot have good schools for the poor unless they are of a size to attract efficient masters as well as a good staff, and then by admitting children of a different class upon payment you raise the character of the school above the level of one which is merely devoted to elementary education. The advantages which are conferred by the school are not thereby taken away; but, on the contrary, are positively increased for the benefit of the poor. My Lords, as I said a moment ago, other classes than the poor are admitted to these schools, but then they are admitted on payment. Why should they be admitted at all? Because schools cannot be made efficient unless they are sufficiently large to attract teachers, and sufficiently large to attract pupils. The admission of the middle classes into the schools for the poor enables the requisite and thoroughly efficient masters to be obtained. How, then, I ask, can it be said that that is taking away from the poor? Now, my Lords, upon the question of competitive examinations, in my opinion they are good or bad in proportion as they are adapted to the schools in which the children are taught. It is good of the children to govern the examination, but it is bad if the examination govern the children. Upon that very question of competitive examination, I maintain that it is possible to devise a system, even in the case of children below 13 years of age, which would benefit not only the school to which they might come, but also the schools from which they came. The thing has been tried, it has been done in the town of Doncaster under the wise supervision of the present Master of the Temple, and there cannot be the least question of its success. Nor would such a system give a premium to the well-to-do. Everybody knows that boys that come from public schools always beat at competitive examinations those who have received private tuition, and so it will be possible to take the children from the elementary schools and give them, without the slightest unfairness, a distinct advantage in all the competitions. Now, my Lords, notwithstanding the adverse vote which has been come to this night in respect to Emanuel Hospital, I do most earnestly entreat your Lordships not to allow the opportunity
900
to pass by of conferring a vast public benefit on the very class of the community for whom this charity was originally designed, and who will necessarily derive a greater amount of benefit under the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners than under any other system of government.
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that notwithstanding all he had heard urged against the Motion, he felt much regret in saying that he was compelled on that occasion to separate himself from the party with which he was generally associated, and to vote in favour of the Motion. As far as he was himself concerned, he could not help thinking that very great harm had resulted from applying the principle of competitive examination to all public offices in this country.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that the question now under consideration was precisely the same as that of which the House had already disposed, any Member was in Order in addressing to the House any arguments adduced in the former discussion in reference to the question now before them. His noble Friend behind him (Lord Houghton) had stated as his reason for voting against the Government his strong dislike to competitive examination. He himself (the Duke of Argyll) had no fanatical enthusiasm in favour of it, but he believed his noble Friend had been misled by a phrase on this occasion. The scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners was simply that in selecting the poor to be admitted to the benefits of the charity, the best and cleverest child should have the preference. It was not open competition which they proposed, but competition between children who were poor and who had received an elementary education. A great deal of the debate had turned on the question of what was really for the benefit of the poor. In the documents circulated among their Lordships on behalf of the Corporation of London it was stated that all education of a higher kind was really unfit for the poor; but surely the cleverest of the poor were fully entitled to the benefit of a high secondary training? There had been circulated among their Lordships that morning, in the name of the Corporation of London, a document, dated Guildhall, June 28

901
or 29, which contained the following passage:—
"We are charged with having made no attempt to make the school the means of eliciting superior qualities and promoting the possessors of them. We freely admit the charge, and we should hold it to be a breach of our trust to divert the bounty intended for the poor and destitute for purposes of higher education."
["Hear, hear!] He must say that any body or Corporation that repudiated that argument and actually laid down, as a dogma and a doctrine on which they intended to act, that education of a higher class ought not to be given to the poor—such a body ought no longer to be intrusted with the management of schools. The Motion which had been carried that evening by a small and insignificant majority would carry no weight in the country; but, at the same time, it would stop the operations of the Commissioners, as it laid down a principle opposed to the whole system recommended in the Report of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The principle on which the Motion was based was that no change ought to be made in schools unless positive abuses could be proved to exist in them. That, he maintained, was not a principle that ought to guide them in a matter that concerned the education, and therefore, necessarily, the future welfare of the poorer classes; and it was not the principle of the Act of Parliament, the Preamble of which stated in distinct terms that an inquiry had been held by certain Commissioners, who had made recommendations for the purpose of improving education in that country, keeping as far as possible to the main intentions of the testators; and it distinctly stated that it was the object and intention of the Act that the Commissioners should carry into effect the main recommendations of that Report. What were those main recommendations? One was, that the management of schools should no longer be in the hands of bodies who were not elected for that purpose, and should not be in the hands of bodies who were not ashamed to own that they would refuse to the poor and destitute—even to the best and cleverest among them—the advantages of a better and higher education. Another principle was, that gratuitous education should not be indiscriminately given. These were the two principles—the two main principles
902
—contained in that Report, and the Report was embodied in the Act of Parliament; and he maintained that the noble Marquess had persuaded a small majority of their Lordships, by appeals to their feelings and prejudices, to adopt an Address the main object and effect of which would be to neutralize a solemn Act of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that after the decision of their Lordships in respect of the previous Motion, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
On Question, Whether to agree to the said Address? Resolved in the Affirmative.
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.