said, the House was no doubt aware that by the Bill which was passed, during the Government of Lord Derby, to embody the militia, the then existing provisions on that subject remained unaltered; the militia were to be embodied only in case of invasion, or imminent danger thereof. On the breaking out of the war, it was thought expedient to obtain the services of the militia; and a Bill was passed on the 12th of May last Session, and since the passing of that Bill a great part, indeed the great majority of the militia regiments had been embodied. In the course of last week some observations were made in another place which had cast some doubt on the legality of that proceeding. Now, it was highly important that that question should immediately be set at rest, as the minds of the militiamen had been very much excited about it, and an impression prevailed amongst them that they had not been fairly dealt with its reference to this matter. He wished, therefore, to put this question to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department—whether, in his opinion, the Act of the 12th May, 1854, had not deprived any militiaman, whether enrolled before or since, of any right to claim his discharge, by reason of the embodiment of the militia without the existing danger of invasion?

Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to state that by the Act of last Session, 17 Vict. c. 13, after reciting that by the former Militia Acts the militia could only be embodied in cases of actual or apprehended invasion, or rebellion, or insurrection, it was enacted that whenever a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign power, it should be lawful to call out and embody the militia. A doubt has recently been suggested, though I do not know upon what grounds, whether the provisions of the Act of last Session apply to militiamen enrolled before the passing of that Act. Upon that point the Secretary for War has taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and Her Majesty's Government are advised that the Act of last Session, authorising the embodiment of the militia in times of war, applies as well to militiamen enrolled before, as to those enrolled after, the passing of the Act.

said, he begged to inquire of the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the notification from the Board of Trade of the 12th instant, published in the London Gazette of the 13th, on the subject of the coasting trade in China, whether the coasting trade in China by British ships is thereby extended beyond the five ports named in the Treaty of 1842; if so, whether British ships might proceed at once under the local authority from Amoy, without waiting for the sanction of the Imperial Government at Pekin; and, whether goods sent coastwise in British ships would be admitted at the same duty as goods imported in Chinese vessels?

said, that the information which the Government had received on the subject was vague and imperfect. It appeared that the local government at Amoy had granted certain privileges to British vessels engaged in the coasting trade; but Her Majesty's Government did not know whether the privilege extended beyond the five ports, or was confined to them. It did not appear to be granted by Imperial authority, but simply by the local authority of Amoy. The Government had received no information as to whether goods conveyed by British shipping would be liable to a higher rate of duty than goods carried in Chinese ships.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance whether any trenching tools of a superior description to those originally sent out have been forwarded to the army of the Crimea, or whether the Board of Ordnance is still prepared to maintain that the tools originally sent out were of the best description that could be obtained in this country?

said, that in order to give a satisfactory answer to that question he must first call attention to the fact that a large proportion of the tools supplied to regiments were supplied, in the main, by the colonels of the regiments, not by the Board of Ordnance. A certain portion of the regular troops were supplied by the Board of Ordnance, and the whole of the engineering troops were supplied by them. In May last, circumstances arose which gave occasion to the statement which he (Mr. Monsell) made at that time. A complaint was made by a board of officers of the Guards, who were then stationed at Scutari, of the quality of the tools. At that time the patterns of the tools in the Tower and at Woolwich were inspected, in his presence, by Sir John Burgoyne and several persons who were presumed capable of forming a sound opinion on the subject, and they declared them to be excellent. He found that the tools had been supplied almost altogether from the stores at Woolwich, and that, so far from their being of an old or obsolete pattern, they were obtained, part of them in the year 1845, but mainly in subsequent years; and that the patterns, according to which they were procured, were those which had been arranged by the board of officers which sat at the Tower in 1827, to revise the engineers' tools. On the 2nd of last August he received a letter from Sir John Burgoyne, stating that he found, in a letter from Varna, that there were no complaints of the Ordnance tools, but that, on the contrary, they were considered to be very good; but he stated that the tools supplied to the pioneers of some of the regiments, which were not supplied by the Ordnance, were very bad, and had caused a great outcry. He (Mr. Monsell) never heard any more about it until certain statements recently appeared in the newspapers, on the authority of Captain Shakspear, and of a gallant General, and he found, then, that there had been three or four reports sent from Varna and Sebastopol, complaining of the tools. He immediately sent for one of the largest railway contractors in England, who kindly placed at his disposal a most intelligent man, his foreman, to whom he (Mr. Monsell) submitted the patterns of tools taken from the store at Woolwich, and requested him to examine the quality and character of them. That gentleman had made some very valuable suggestions as to the improvement of their pattern; but he said the quality of the tools was excellent. On the other hand, he (Mr. Monsell) should be dealing unfairly With the House if he did not mention that, only one hour before, Major Lovell, of the Royal Engineers, who had been in the trenches before Sebastopol, and had returned home from ill-health, informed him that the tools he had seen used by the sappers before Sebastopol were extremely bad; that he had not only witnessed how they broke in the men's hands—which might have occurred from the men not understanding how to use them properly—but that he had actually broken up some of those tools, and had found that in one pickaxe there was hardly any steel, and that it was extremely bad. He (Mr. Monsell) immediately requested Major Lovell to proceed to Woolwich and to collect some of the tools, to test them, and to report upon them, whether he considered them to be of that same bad quality, or whether he considered them good. When Major Lovell should have made his report the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) might renew his question; but at present, with such conflicting statements, although he (Mr. Monsell) could not doubt there were a great many bad tools among them, he had not yet been able to ascertain who was in fault for their badness.

said, that while the camp was at Chobham, he believed a Commission was appointed to sit upon the quality of the tools; and the question which he wished now to put was, whether such a Commission did sit, and whether they did not decide against the tools, and whether the tools on which they so decided had been sent to the Crimea?

said, in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he never heard of the Commission; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so good as to renew his question on Monday, he would, in the mean time, inform himself upon the subject.

said, he had to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether any and what progress had been made towards a settlement of the rival claims of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Woods and Forests to minerals below high-water mark; also, if any arrangement has been proposed by which leases or licences can be granted pending the settlement of these claims to parties desirous of working mines in the disputed localities, or what prevents such an arrangement being entered into?

said, that some progress was making towards the settlement of the question. It had been proposed by the law officers of the Crown that a Bill should be brought into Parliament to make an arrangement for granting leases while this dispute was pending. That proposition was, however, at the suggestion of the officers of the Duchy, postponed, in the hope that the negotiations which had been commenced would dispense with the necessity of it.

said, he begged leave to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government intend, previous to bringing before Parliament the Supplemental Treaty, by which Her Majesty engages to lend 2,000,000l. to Sardinia, to lay before the House papers show- ing the condition of the finances of that country.

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no doubt of the competency of Sardinia to make the arrangement which she has entered into for paying the interest of time amount so to be advanced; and I have no particular information to lay before the House touching the condition or finances of that country, which are matters of general notoriety, and of which the hon. and learned Gentleman may readily obtain information.

had to ask the Secretary for War, whether the remainder of the 6l. bounty promised to all militia recruits (on their enrolment) will be paid to those men who have lately been discharged, as married men with large families.

replied, that the bounty of 6l. given to militiamen was given in consideration of a service of five years, and was paid in instalments, spread over five years; of course, when they were discharged before that time, they would not receive any balance or bounty which might otherwise accrue from the time of their discharge.

acquainted the House, That he had a Message from HER MAJESTY to this House signed by Her Majesty: And he presented the same to the House, and it was read by Mr. SPEAKER (all the Members of the House being uncovered), and is as followeth:—

"VICTORIA R.

"HER MAJESTY thinks it right to acquaint the House of Commons that She has concluded, in concert with His Majesty the Emperor of the French, a Military Convention with His Majesty the King of Sardinia, whereby His Majesty the King of Sardinia engages to furnish and keep up, for the requirements of the present War, a body of Fifteen Thousand Men, organised as is therein stipulated; and, with a view to facilitate the execution of the said Military Convention, Her Majesty has, by a Supplementary Convention concluded with His Majesty the King of Sardinia, undertaken to recommend to Her Parliament to enable Her to advance, by way of loan, to His Majesty the King of Sardinia, the sum of One Million Pounds sterling, of which sum, Five Hundred Thousand Pounds sterling shall be paid by Her Majesty as soon as possible after the assent of Her Parliament shall have been given thereto, and the remaining Five Hundred Thousand Pounds at the expiration of Six Months after payment of the first sum.

"HER MAJESTY has further engaged to recommend to Her Parliament, to enable Her, if the War should not have been brought to a close at the expiration of Twelve Months after payment of the first instalment of the above-mentioned Loan, to advance to His Majesty the King of Sardinia, in the same proportions, a like sum of One Million of Pounds sterling.

"The Government of His Majesty the King of Sardinia undertakes to pay interest on such Loan or Loans, at the rate of Four per cent per annum, of which one per cent per annum shall be for a Sinking Fund, the said interest to be calculated and payable in the manner in the said Convention stipulated.

"HER MAJESTY has directed a Copy of these Conventions to be laid before the House of Commons, and She relies on the zeal and public spirit of the House of Commons to concur in enabling Her to make good the engagements which She has contracted with Her Ally."

Ordered—That Her Majesty's said most gracious Message be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

said, he rose to make a proposition, which he was sure would be assented to by all who had enjoyed the advantage of hearing on Wednesday that most eloquent and sensible discourse which was preached before the House of Commons at St. Margaret's, Westminster, by the Rev. Henry Melvin. That sermon must have so impressed itself on the minds of those who heard it as to make any further record of it unnecessary than that which remained in their memory; but considering the admirable nature of the topics selected, and the excellent manner in which they were handled by the rev. preacher, the House would think it desirable that not merely should their thanks be given to him, but that it should be printed for the benefit of those who had not the advantage (which most of them had enjoyed who were now present) of hearing the sermon. He therefore moved that the thanks of the House be offered to the rev. gentleman, and that he be requested to print the sermon.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the noble Viscount, and at the same time to express the thanks of Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House, and who were present on the occasion to which the noble Lord had adverted—to the rev. gentleman for the animated and impressive discourse which he had delivered before the House on Wednesday, on a most important occasion, in their parish church.

said, he begged to ask whether it was true that a gentleman, Mr. A'Court, had been appointed Special Income Tax Commissioner for Ireland? There were on the Irish redundant list three gentlemen under forty-eight years of age, who were fully qualified to fill the situation vacant by the removal of Mr. O'Flaherty, and who were receiving, one, Mr. Norman Savage, 400l. a year; another, Mr. Hutchins, 585l. a year; and a third, Mr. Mulvany, 400l. a year. He thought that when such vacancies were to be filled up that gentlemen fully competent, and who were experienced as public servants, would be preferred to those who were inexperienced and who were not before in the public service.

said, that the number of Commissioners had been reduced, and there having been a vacancy, this gentleman seemed to him a very proper person to be appointed.

said, he must complain of the system of placing Englishmen in every office of importance in Ireland. He had looked over some of the appointments, and he found that the Lord Lieutenant was an Englishman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an Englishman, the Under Secretary, Colonel Larcom, was an Englishman, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland was an Englishman, the Archbishop of Dublin was an Englishman, the Inspector General was a Scotchman, the Second Inspector was an Englishman, the Chief Commissioner of Poor Laws was an Englishman, and the Second Commissioner of Poor Laws was an Englishman; the Architect, the Paymaster of Civil Services, and the Keeper of the Records were Englishmen, and one of the Commissioners of Incumbered Estates was an Englishman. He found, too, that to the office of gaoler to a debtors' prison, lately vacant, the brother-in-law of an English minister was appointed. There were two vacancies for Inspectors of Prisons, and he found that a friend of the Lord Lieutenant had been sent over to fill one of them. It was true that the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for Ireland were Irishmen, but that was because there were no Englishmen at the Irish bar. He did not think the way in which Englishmen administered the relief to Ireland at the time of the famine, and the affairs in the Crimea lately, proved that they were superior to Irishmen as administrators.

said, that the hon. Gentleman mistook in supposing that the Special Commissionership which had been just filled up was an Irish one. It had nothing to do with Ireland. When the income tax was extended to Ireland, there were two Special Commissioners appointed, but after a year it was found that they were not required, and one was appointed to an office in England, and the other's office was abolished. Sometime ago, a Commissionership of Inland Revenue became vacant, the salary of which was 1,200l. a year, and that was not filled up. But it was found necessary, in consequence of the extension of the income tax to all incomes above 100l., to appoint a fourth Commissioner, and hence the appointment in question; but the duties were discharged in this country, and had nothing whatever to do with Ireland.

said, he considered the question as to the burial of the dead of so important a nature, that he thought it right to take this opportunity to ask the Government how they intended to deal with the 60,000 deaths that annually occurred in London. There were but eight cemeteries in the neighbourhood of London, which could not take more than 20,000 annually. There had been 500 burial grounds closed in the country and 150 within the bills of mortality. He considered that the Dissenters were unjustly dealt with, with regard to consecrated ground. In one case that had come under his knowledge a charge was made of 5l. for interment in consecrated ground, out of which 2l. was paid to the clergyman; and the same charge was made to the Dissenters, though they had not the services of the clergyman. He thought that the burial boards were sowing the seeds of dissension. In France and Germany there was no distinction whatever in the national cemeteries. Not so in England, for the law said expressly that a Dissenter should not be buried in consecrated ground, and therefore they were excommunicated in Protestant England. Ireland had an Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of George III., by which the cemeteries were common to all. If the rector refused to bury, he must state his grounds of refusal to the bishop and the Lord Lieutenant. Practically there was no exclusion whatever. Dissenters had no objection to consecrated ground; they thought that consecration did neither good nor evil, but they thought it right that they should have the liberty of burying their friends in consecrated ground, though they did happen to be Dissenters. In many parts of the country great inconvenience had been caused by the closing of burial grounds, and in some cases the bodies had to be conveyed many miles. Then there was another question—the question of compensation to the owners of burial grounds. There was a person named Jones, whose father left him a freehold (New Bunhill Fields) which was used as a burial ground, and brought him in 500l. a year; and now, the ground being closed, he was in a state of penury. There was another case at Manchester. Dr. Burton erected a church at considerable expense, and he had a burial ground which brought him in from 400l. to 500l. a year in fees. All at once it was closed, because it was within the limits of the borough of Manchester. But was that a reason for robbing a man of his rights? In such cases he considered that there ought to be compensation. With regard to consecration, he thought it ought to be taken altogether out of the hands of the bishops.

said, he did not rise to answer the speech of the hon. Member, but merely to answer one part of it which resembled a question—namely, as to where the dead of large towns were to be buried? His answer was that no burial grounds had been shut up in the metropolis or any other large towns, unless on its being shown that it was dangerous to health. In the greater number of parishes new burial-grounds had (to their honour) been provided, while others chose to make arrangements with the cemetery companies, as at Woking Common and other places. He had no reason to suppose that either in London or in the country any difficulty would be found in procuring sufficient space for burials, if only the different parishes did their duty.

said, he had had some experience in the working of the new Act, and he was in possession of some facts that would have controverted the statements of his hon. Friend; but as his hon. Friend had taken the House by surprise in bringing the subject forward to-night, he was not at that moment prepared with the documents. He was prepared yesterday, if the hon. Member could have persuaded the House to make a House to hear him. Of course it was impossible to carry these matters accurately in one's head, but he would state some facts from memory. Now with regard to the provision for the interment of the dead. In the first place, cemeteries had been provided by the City, for the whole of the parishes in the city of London, comprising a population of 120,000. The large parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, St. George's (Hanover-square), Lambeth, St. Margaret's, and St. Anne's, which contained an aggregate population amounting to 550,000 persons, had also provided new cemeteries. In the country the measure had also been very extensively accepted, and though he could not then repeat the list which he had prepared for use on the former evening, he might say that there were no fewer than from seventy to eighty places which had already obtained ground for cemeteries under the Act. With respect to the Act passed last year, to enable town councils to take measures on the subject, he could only say that the provisions of the Act had been very generally entertained. From the towns of New Windsor, Salisbury, Chichester, and several other towns, applications had been received for the purposes of proceeding under the provisions of the Act. He was surprised to hear from the hon. Member that the parochial system introduced by the Act inflicted any injury or hardship upon the dissenting body. The provision for the ground was made out of the poor rate, and consequently, Dissenters and Churchmen contributed in equal proportions. The question of compensation was a difficult but not a new one; it had been fully dis- cussed in the year 1852, upon the motion of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, who proposed to provide compensation out of the Consolidated Fund. So averse was the House, however, to the scheme, that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to find so much as a teller for his motion. Besides, was it fair to compensate persons for having so long kept up a dangerous nuisance? Nothing could be more unwise than to unsettle people's minds by inducing them to believe that fresh legislation was intended: and as no complaints had been made by parties who had carried the Act into execution, he hoped that no further steps would be taken on the subject.

said, he by no means thought that the subject was closed, and he considered that the House ought to be much obliged to his hon. Friend (Mr. Pellatt) for having taken so much trouble to bring the subject before them. His hon. Friend had in effect been counted out twice upon this motion.

said, he thought the question referred to by the hon. Member was an important one, and deserving the attention of the House.

said, he had had many applications made to him by clergymen who had accepted benefices within the metropolis on the understanding that they were to receive certain emoluments for the support of their families, and whose income had been seriously diminished by the operation of the Act in question. For instance, one reverend gentleman had been appointed to a living of 700l. a year; and had insured his life and made provision for his family on the supposition that that income would be secured to him. The effect of the Act, however, had been to cut down his stipend to 300l. a year, and he was thus reduced almost to a state of penury. The clergy were anxious to know whether it was intended to make them any compensation; and certainly it seemed right that, as the measure was passed for the public benefit, the public should bear the loss.

said, that by the first Bill it was proposed to make provision for giving compensation; but the proposition was not agreed to by the House, and the other Bill was brought in without any provision for compensation at all. It might be hard upon some persons, but he thought it was the duty of the parishes, if of anybody, to compensate the clergy for the loss of income they had sustained.

said, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the Education of the People of Scotland, he would beg to remark in the first place that the Bill was the same in substance as the measure he had had the honour of bringing before the House last year. He did not mean to say that some qualifications had not been introduced in the present Bill, but he should deceive the House if he did not state that the measure was substantially the same as the former one. He did not think, however, it was necessary for him to make any apology for again laying on the table of the House a Bill that had been last year rejected. No doubt that rejection was a matter of considerable disappointment, both to himself and all the lovers of education in Scotland; but the disappointment was qualified by the consideration that, at all events, it had not arisen from any fault or indisposition on the part of the Scotch Members. The proposition for its rejection of the Bill was carried by the votes of English Members, and mainly by the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite; for the Scotch Members divided in the proportion of thirty-six to fourteen in favour of the Bill. It was made to a great extent a party question, and the ground on which the rejection took place was this, and this alone—that, in proposing a measure for the education of the people of Scotland, they did not continue the exclusive superintendence of the Established Church in Scotland, and the exclusive privilege of members of that denomination to teach in the schools. He now brought forward the measure with the expectation, which was not unreasonable, that on this occasion he might perhaps be more successful. Since the commencement of the Session a Bill for the education of the people of England and Wales had been introduced by a right hon. Baronet on the other side (Sir J. Pakington), for which he was entitled to receive the thanks and gratitude of every philanthropic man in the country, and the right hon. Baronet had made it impossible for any man to stand up and maintain that the education of the people was a thing dangerous to the institutions of the country, and that they could not educate the people safely, except through the intervention of an Established Church. He had read with the greatest admiration and respect the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and he rejoiced to find in it the same earnest conviction which he (the Lord Advocate) felt of the absolute necessity there was for Parliament to address itself to this great work. Last year he had endeavoured to bring the House to the same mind, and he had sought to persuade it that this was no question for sectarian controversy. The right hon. Baronet had taken the same course, and he had powerfully shown the dangers which lay at the very base of society, and which, if left unchecked, might peril its very safety. For

"Incedimus per ignes Suppositos cineri doloso."

They must go down to the very root of the mischief, where the evil commenced, was nurtured, and gathered strength. No mere improvement of existing machinery would suffice. In the Bill which he now sought to bring in, he proposed to do what formed no part of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet. They had lately had a discussion upon the scale on which the ordnance survey of Scotland should be published, and he now proposed that there should be an educational survey. He proposed that inspectors should be appointed, who should survey the whole of Scotland as regarded its educational condition; and that they should report to the House within a limited time upon the whole statistics of the education of the country. The surveyors would be directed to state how many schools were in existence, how many schools were wanting; where they were wanting—what families sent their children to school and what families did not, so that they should have on the table a statement which would enable them, without the slightest difficulty, to put their fingers on the districts where the greatest darkness and ignorance prevailed, and to apply a remedy at once. If that were done at once, and kept up from year to year, would they not make a very great stride in advance? They would thus be able to show the country and Europe to what an extent they were fulfilling the duty incumbent upon them of educating the people, and bringing up the rising generation in the way they ought to be reared. The next provision of the Bill related to the details of the educational system proposed by him to be established. It was necessary for hon. Members to bear in mind that there was a considerable difference between the positions of England and Scotland with regard to education. In England there was no educational system that was compulsory at all; in Scotland they had ever since the Reformation a system of education which was compulsory. The first question they had to deal with was this—would hon. Gentlemen opposite this year, as they did last year, refuse to allow this measure to pass even a second reading, unless on the condition that the superintendence of the Established Church should continue and remain over the parochial schools in Scotland? According to the system proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), it was not necessary to have the schools under the superintendence of the Established Church. The right hon. Baronet proposed that the school was to be in connection with the denomination that formed the majority in the district; but if that plan were adopted in Scotland, what did they think would be the result. In sixteen counties in Scotland the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet would place the whole education of those counties in the hands of the Free Church alone, and there were only two counties in which the Established Church was in an absolute majority. In Scotland nine-tenths, or, at all events, seven-eighths of the population were agreed in creed, and he asked the right Gentleman whether, as he had proposed such a scheme for England, it was possible to maintain that with seven-eighths of the people of Scotland agreed in creed, they could put the control of the national schools in the hands of a body that formed so small a proportion of the population? As Scotland was agreed upon this matter, and had voted in the proportion of three to one upon it, and as every borough Member in Scotland had supported it, he asked the House now, in common consistency, if they did not think it desirable in England to give a preponderance to a majority, not to saddle the people of Scotland with the preponderance of a minority. It was altogether absurd to go on arguing this question year after year, while the people were starving for lack of education; and he proposed, therefore, to settle it by doing away with the superintendence of the Established Church, and by giving no sectarian advantage to any class. de conceived, however, that it would be found that the heritors would have a very considerable voice in the matter. Then he came to the ques- tion of religious education, and he need scarcely say that he had never been an advocate for secular education, and the last thing he should wish to propose would be the exclusion of religion from their schools. He knew the people of Scotland to be a religious people, and that the thing they had most deeply at heart was the religious education of their children. He fully agreed in the opinion that secular education was a false theory, and was one that could not be applied to Scotland, though, at the same time, he must say that he should rather have secular education than none at all. But it was needless to talk of that, because Scotland would not have secular education; it would only have education with religious instruction at the same time. He proposed to state in the preamble the attachment of the people of Scotland to the use of the Holy Scriptures in the schools, and then to have a provision that certain hours should be set apart for religious instruction in the schools, and that no one should be bound to attend at those hours against his will. He considered that the clause which was known as the denominational clause, which gave power to the Privy Council to contribute towards the maintenance of schools, was very much misunderstood, but he proposed to introduce a provision, that after a particular day the grants from the Privy Council should be altogether discontinued with regard to schools belonging to the classes that ought to join generally in education. As the Roman Catholic schools and the Episcopalian schools formed but a small proportion, he proposed to leave those schools in their present position. By the Bill the salaries of the existing schools would be raised, and the masters would be much raised in position. There would be a power given to the heritors to throw the school upon the assessment if they chose; and until they did so the management would remain in their hands—in other words, in the hands of the ministers and the heritors, but not in those of the presbytery. All experience had shown that the presbyteries, meeting as they did only once a month, did not form an efficient machinery for the management of schools. He would be guilty of an injustice if he did not say that the schools of the Established Church were in a state of great efficiency. The competition which had occurred during the last fifteen years had created a great deal of energy in that quarter, but that did not convince him that a body of clergy that could only visit the schools at intervals was an efficient body for the superintendence of schools of this description. Then, what were they to do with the towns? It was proposed not to leave it at the option of towns to have schools or not as they thought proper, I but to make it compulsory upon them to have schools where schools were required. And in regard to country districts where parochial schools were inefficient, it was proposed to make an assessment for the purpose of supplying such schools. In the public schools the Government and the assessment would each contribute half. In the others, the heritors would pay 34l., and the Government 66l. It appeared that another Bill had been introduced by an hon. Member, but how would that Bill work? It would certainly extend greatly the parochial schools, but would leave the denominational schools just as they were. It would continue an erroneous denominational system, whereby persons professing substantially the same opinion, brought up their children with the belief that those who went to school at one side of the street differed entirely from those who went to school at the other side of it. He wanted to put that down. He wanted to put down sectarianism. Men agreeing substantially in the same doctrines had by unfortunate events been separated, and it was desirable that the next generation should be taught to abate the animosities that prevailed. It was by no means essential, he thought, to keep up these tests in the towns, and as long as they required to have tests which would prevent any persons but members of the Established Church from being masters in the schools, it was utterly vain to pass a measure. They might, perhaps, set an example, showing that, notwithstanding religious differences might arise, still a system of education might be established which should restore Scotland to her good name, and perhaps be an advantage to the sister kingdom.

seconded the Motion.

said, he should, in the first instance, wish to comment upon the concluding observations of his right hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. and learned Lord said that in dealing with this question he had not been influenced by any peculiar leaning towards the Church to which he belonged. Now, he (Mr. Stirling) desired to enter upon the new struggle which he saw impending in reference to education in Scotland by frankly acknowledging that the conduct of the right hon. and learned Lord had fully borne out his professions. He knew the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had been accused of leaning too much towards the Church to which he belonged, but he must say he did not think that was the case. He believed his right hon. and learned Friend, who belonged to the Free Church, desired to legislate for Presbyterian Scotland generally; and that the subject had been treated by him fairly and equitably. His right hon. and learned Friend had alluded to the large number of Scotch Members who last Session supported the Government Bill, and to the small number of Scotch Members who would support the Bill which he (Mr. Stirling) had introduced. He could not deny that such was the case; but he might, perhaps, be permitted to give a short explanation to them how that circumstance arose. He was sorry to say that it was the habit of a large majority of the Members for Scotland to sit on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House. Nobody regretted that more than he did, and he deplored that natural bent which induced Scotch Members to do so. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the fact that there were some Scotch Members who abstained from giving a party vote. Besides this, there was another reason. The House could not be too soon informed of the fact that in Scotland there was a parochial system, which he, for one, would always defend, and that parochial system did not extend to the towns. It was very natural, therefore, that those hon. Gentlemen who represented Scotch burghs should be anxious to give their support to any system of education which would supply the want which they alleged existed. All the Scotch burgh Members voted therefore for the Lord Advocate's Bill, and also the Liberal portion of the Scotch county Members. He, and those who took the same view as he did, were consequently obliged last year to appeal to their English friends, in order to get rid of a Bill which they conscientiously believed would be injurious to Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman next alluded to the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), who had introduced an educational measure for England. He (Mr. Stirling) concurred with the right hon. and learned Lord Ad- vocate in admiring the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but he must be pardoned for entirely dissenting from the inference which his right hon. and learned Friend drew from that speech. The right hon. and learned Lord had asked them how they, approving of the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and of the principle of the measure which he had propounded, now opposed a Bill which went to deal in a similar manner with Scotland. Now, his reply to that taunt was to be found in the difference existing between the educational position of Scotland and the educational position of England; but still more in the different ground taken up by the Church in Scotland and the Church in England. As a member of the Church of England, it might, perhaps, be admitted that he spoke with no undue bias against her; but he would yet assert that the position in which the Church of England stood as regarded the question of education was greatly inferior to that enjoyed by the Church of Scotland. As a state institution he did not believe that the Church of England possessed any educational establishment or apparatus whatever. There was no parochial educational system; but in Scotland the Church, from the very beginning of her history, took a lively interest in the education of the people. Indeed, long before the Church of Scotland was settled, it began to inquire into the education of the people, and did all that in it lay to promote that education. For more than two centuries and a half had the Church of Scotland struggled in the cause of education, and she no more considered a parish furnished or complete without a school, than without a church. Therefore, he repeated, when the two Churches presented in their history so marked a contrast, it might be reasonably inferred that that which was fit and proper for one country was not fit and proper for the other. Upon this ground the Church of Scotland deserved much more consideration at the hands of the House of Commons than the Church of England. Those parochial schools had been under the authority of the Church since their establishment, and the right hon. and learned Lord omitted to state, though he did not attempt to controvert the fact, that those schools were in a most flourishing condition. His right hon. and learned Friend had attributed the excellent state of the parochial schools to the competition which had arisen during the last fifteen years, and five mi- nutes after the right hon. and learned Lord said the object of the Bill was to put down that very competition. The right hon. and learned Lord said we do not want to go on disputing on doctrines, but we want something to do the work of education well. But he (Mr. Stirling) must reply that Scotland had that already which did the work admirably. Make that better, if possible, but do not rashly meddle with it in the manner proposed by this Bill. With respect to what his right hon. and learned Friend had said about sectarian differences, everybody who knew anything about the parochial schools in Scotland knew they were not sectarian. The children of all sects, Roman Catholics and others, went to those schools, and no instance had been brought under the notice of that House of any hardship or injustice arising under the parochial system. But, said the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, the measure which he (Mr. Stirling) proposed might improve education in the country, but it would not affect education in the towns. Well, but the answer to that was, that the measure did not propose to deal with the towns, and it would be quite as reasonable to find fault with this measure because it would not improve the state of the army before Sebastopol. He did not attempt to grapple with the question of education in the towns, because he considered that, under existing circumstances, the subject could only adequately be handled by the Government, and it would therefore be presumptuous on his part to attempt it. He would now say no more on his own Bill than this, that its object was to amend those defects in the existing parochial system which, in the last debate on Scotch education, had been so unanimously admitted and deplored, and to avoid all disputed points. His measure had, upon the whole, received that amount of approval which had induced him to hope for its ultimate success. The right bon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) said, why not give up sectarian differences, and let them meet on some common ground. He quite approved of that sentiment. There was a common ground, and that was, the education of the Scotch towns. They, on that side of the House, would be happy to go hand in hand with his right hon. and learned Friend in any scheme which he might propose for the better education of the towns. He would like to mention the negotiations which took place between Scotch Members and the Government last year. What was the first thing done by the Scotch Members who sat on that side of the House, and who were opposed to the Government Bill? They held a meeting, and after much anxious deliberation, they waited on the noble Lord then at the head of the Government (the Earl of Aberdeen), and also on the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, now our Envoy at Vienna, and both noble Lords were assured by those Scotch Members that the Government would have their support if they confined the measure to the towns, and they declared that they did not expect the supervision exercised by clergymen over the parochial schools to be extended to the new schools to be erected in the towns. Such had been the language held on both these occasions. As regarded the towns, although there might be a want of education to a considerable extent, he believed that want was grossly exaggerated. Nor did he believe that, in most cases, this arose from the want of schools so much as from the indisposition of parents to avail themselves of them. In Edinburgh there was Heriot's Hospital—a great educational establishment, with a vast revenue, that was every year increasing, and which was under the wise superintendence of the town council of Edinburgh. Those revenues were devoted to educational purposes, without any reference to sect. Now, that was an advantage which, he believed, was possessed by very few of the towns of England. In Glasgow, too, there were abundance of schools, and eminent clergymen of that city declared the great difficulty in the way of education there was, not the want of schools so much as the inability to procure the attendance of the children. Dundee was in the same position. Was there not, he asked—must there not be something to be got at which could not be reached by an Act of Parliament? There had been very great exaggerations in the statements made on this subject. He did not say there did not exist a great necessity fur something to be done, but that that something was something other than the measure now proposed. He would, in concluding these remarks, venture to appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend to meet them on more common ground, which he seemed so much to desiderate. He entreated him to be guided by the opinion expressed by a noble Lord in another place last year—a veteran in the cause of education, and who was its advocate before his right hon. and learned Friend had yet penetrated the mysteries of the alphabet, Lord Brougham last year said, that the question of Scotch education naturally divided itself into two heads—town and country—and that it ought to be treated in two Bills, and not in one. Let the Government meet them on the point on which there was general agreement—let them deal with the question where there would be no chance of defeat; but if they declined so fair an offer, let them not throw on the Scotch Members, who were willing, up to a certain point, to give the Government their conscientious support the blame of failure, or of creating those dissensions with which the discussion of this question had been embittered. The Scotch Members who agreed with him had advanced two-thirds of the way to meet the proposal of the Government, whilst the right him. and learned Lord Advocate had not advanced one inch. The liberality of the right hon. and learned Lord reminded him of the Welsh juryman, who having alone stood out against the verdict which the remainder were willing to pronounce, declared he had never been in all his life shut up with eleven more obstinate Men. If his right hon. and learned Friend persevered in his measure, in its present shape, he (Mr. Stirling) trusted that the verdict of the House might be given, this year as it was last, against him.

said, as the most recently elected Scotch Member, he must beg to claim the indulgence usually extended by the House to new Members. He would shortly state the reason why he troubled the House on the present occasion, which was, that he had always taken a very deep interest in the question now under consideration. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate needed not to make any apology for calling attention to this subject, for if there was one question more than another—apart from the war—in which the people of Scotland took an interest, which almost engrossed their attention, it was this most important one of education for the people. They looked upon it as of the greatest and most vital importance. He believed that throughout Scotland there was an universal wish to have it settled, and he should be greatly disappointed if the proposal which had just been submitted for their consideration would not be hailed with the greatest satisfaction there—a proposal which, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he (Mr. Baxter) would characterise as being framed in an enlightened and liberal spirit, and, he would add also, drawn up by no unskilful hand. He did not wish to say a single word disparaging to the present parochial schools, which did so much to promote the greatness and the glory of his native land. But the House must remember that, since those parochial schools were established, the circumstances of Scotland had undergone a mighty change. The majority, the decided majority, of the people of that country no longer attended the Established Church, and it could not, therefore, be reasonably expected that they would give their sympathy and support to such a measure as that introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), which was a mere extension and perpetuation of the existing system. That hon. Gentleman had stated that those schools were not of a sectarian character. It was certainly true that the teaching might not be sectarian; but as those schools were under the surveillance of the presbytery, was it not reasonable to expect they would be looked upon as sectarian in a country where the odium theologicum prevailed to such an extent as in Scotland? The points of difference between the principal religious denominations in Scotland were comparatively of slight importance; but there was a strong conviction in his mind that if they were to devise a more popular plan they must get rid of sectarian tests and exclusive control. He was not a member of the Free Church, but as a Dissenter he strongly deprecated the course taken by hon. Gentlemen of the same polemics as himself, who united with gentlemen opposite holding opinions diametrically opposed to their own, and, by their opposition to the former Bill of the Government, disappointed the strongest hopes of those who understood the feelings and the wants of Scotland. He earnestly and firmly hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would receive this measure in the same liberal and candid spirit which gentlemen sitting at his side of the House had received the proposition of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), and that they would allow this just and necessary measure to pass into law.

said, that as a Scotch Member, he could not help expressing his feelings of gratification at being associated in the representation of Scotland with a gentleman who had evinced so much capacity for usefully attending to the business of their country as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. However, he was compelled to differ from the views of the hon. Member with regard to the merits of the measure now for the second time introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. He could not but deeply regret that the right hon. and learned Lord had re-introduced the very same Bill as that which had last year given rise to so much difference of opinion, thereby creating an antagonism where no antagonism need exist. With respect to its effect upon the towns, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House did not pretend to offer any opinion adverse to the proposition of the Government. But they maintained that in Scotland they were possessed of a parochial system established for nearly 200 years, which had worked most beneficial effects for the country; and he would therefore say, before you risk the destruction of that system, give them one which would prove a better. Let them introduce their new system in the towns, and if it proved a more efficient means of extending the blessings of education, then by all means let them adopt it for the whole of Scotland. He entirely repudiated the notion that their opposition of last year was grounded upon party or factious considerations. That opposition proceeded upon the principle that the measure of the Government went to separate religious from secular education. His right hon. and learned Friend had admitted that the present schools were justly undeserving of the opprobrious epithet of sectarian schools; on the contrary, they were open to the whole country, and the children of all denominations willingly attended and received instruction at those schools, and he had never heard of a complaint emanating from a single parent. If they thought it their duty as statesmen to maintain an Established Church as an institution of the country, upon what principle could they deal so heavy a blow against the Church of Scotland as to remove from under its control the schools which formed so essential an element of that institution? With regard to the statistical map to which his right hon. and learned Friend had referred, he gave that proposal his most cordial approval, while he believed that the counties with which he was connected would not come out of the suggested inquiry with discredit. It had been reported that in the three northern counties of Scotland the blessings of education had been extended to more than one-sixth of the population; and it had been proved in the same Report that the number of scholars attending them had gone on rapidly increasing, while the improvement in the system of education was still more remarkable. It had been alleged that the salaries of the schoolmasters were inadequate. Now that remark could scarcely have been applied to the northern counties. He could take upon himself to state that in the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, and Moray the salaries of some schoolmasters ranged to 100l. a year, while others reached 120l. At the same time, he was by no means disposed to maintain that these salaries might not be reasonably augmented. Unless a measure could be introduced that would give greater satisfaction than the present, do not attempt to deprive the people of Scotland of that admirable system of education which had conferred such great and unquestionable advantages upon the people of Scotland.

said, he had not anticipated that the introduction of this Bill by his right hon. and learned Friend would have led to any discussion. He did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate by entering at all into the merits of the Bill or of the question of education in general, but, as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Bruce) had expressed regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have brought in a Bill similar to that which was introduced last year, he (Lord Elcho), as the representative of a Scotch county which was supposed to feel an interest in the question, felt called upon to express the satisfaction he felt that the Lord Advocate had brought in a Bill which, though it might differ in detail from that introduced last year, was in principle the same. He apprehended that the principle of the Bill was this—that it endeavoured to establish, as far as possible, in Scotland a system of universal education. In saying this he did not wish to be misunderstood. He was not at all prepared to deny the great benefits which Scotland had derived from the established schools of that country. His hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) told them that the difference between the Established Church in England and Scotland was this—that, whereas in Scotland there had been a system of schools under the establishment, in England there had been none. He was not prepared to deny that the Presbyterian body, established upon the ruins of the Roman Catholic Church in that country, had founded schools, but, unfortunately, owing to the odium theologicum which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baxter) who had spoken with so much ability, Scotland became split up into sects and fragments of sects, and that which was at the time of the establishment of these schools the Church of the whole Presbyterian people of Scotland could not at present, he was afraid, claim the support of more than one-third of the people of Scotland, and the consequence was that the keenest sectarian feeling existed. He felt himself called upon to support the Bill of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in preference to that of the hon. Member for Perthshire, because the latter would in his opinion have a tendency to perpetuate sectarian differences, which it was most desirable to set at rest. The present measure would establish united education on the ancient Presbyterian basis of the parish schools. It was incorrect to say that the Bill of last year obtained the support only of the representatives of the large towns of Scotland. The fact was, that two-thirds of the Scottish Members voted for the measure proposed by the Lord Advocate, and one-third only for that of his hon. Friend opposite, and that amongst the county Members the latter had but a majority of one in its favour. So that but for the absence of the late lamented Member for Forfarshire (Colonel Mettle), who was detained by his duties in a distant region, the number of county Members on both sides would have been equal. Last year, the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unfortunately defeated, owing to a large number of English Members having come down to vote rather than to hear any discussion upon it. He trusted, however, that upon this occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite would follow the liberal example which had been set them by hon. Gentlemen upon that side of the House in regard to the Bill recently laid upon the table by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington), and that they would not come down to the House prepared to vote upon the measure until they had heard all the arguments which could be brought to bear upon the subject. Last year almost two-thirds of the Scotch Members voted in favour of the Bill of the Lord Advocate, and that proved that the people of Scotland, unless representative government was a farce, were in favour of the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the question came to be discussed and a division taken upon it, he hoped the English Members would bear this fact in mind, and endeavour to pay some respect to the wishes and feelings of the people of Scotland. He wished to guard himself against the supposition that he was in any way hostile to the Established Church in Scotland, but he believed that, by supporting the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate), he would be promoting the welfare of the country at large.

said, he had no hesitation in saying he believed that the great majority of the people of Scotland deplored the loss of the Bill of last Session. He had great confidence in that love of justice which characterised Englishmen, and he was confident that, if they would only attend to the arguments that would be used in reference to the present measure, they would vote in favour of it. The existing system of parochial education was utterly inadequate to the wants of the people of Scotland, and he hoped that the English Members would not again be found to vote against an improved measure of education.

said, he laboured under the disadvantage of not having been a Member of the House when the measure of last year was discussed. If he had been he certainly would have given his cordial support to it. He stood there now in the position of a Member of the Government connected with Scotland, and he knew that every word he said would have its weight with the people of Scotland. He had heard nothing during the discussion to show that an educational measure was not wanted for Scotland; on the contrary, everything combined to point out that such a measure was absolutely required and would confer the most material benefits. He found, according to a carefully-prepared Report of the statistics of crime in Scotland, that in the year 1854, of the prisoners committed there were 9,259 who could not write their names, and 4,474 who could not read. When the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) drew a contrast between the Established Church in Scotland and the Established Church in England, he seemed to forget that the Established Church in England was the Church of the majority, whereas the Established Church in Scotland was not the Church of the majority. As a member of the Episcopal Church, and strongly attached to his religion, he was always willing to give credit to others for that sincerity of belief which he claimed for himself. The Church of Scotland now no longer represented the feelings of the people, as it did when those parochial schools were established. The measure under consideration proposed a comprehensive and truly national system of education which extended its advantages to the rural districts. The Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Perthshire did not extend to the large towns, because the hon. Gentleman was fully aware of the difficulty of doing so, and he shrank from it. The hon. Member knew that if he extended the operation of his measure to large towns he would have been shipwrecked upon the subject of the test. If they were to have any system of education it ought to be uniform. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate being anxious, as far as possible, to meet the objections of hon. Members opposite, had endeavoured to alter and amend some of the details of the Bill of last Session, in order to conciliate support. It was impossible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could desert the principles upon which the Bill was founded, because he knew that they were popular in Scotland. The hon. Member for Perthshire had asked the reason why so many Scotch Members eternally sat upon the ministerial side of the House. He (Lord Duncan) would tell him the reason. They sat there because they represented the opinions of the people of Scotland, which were in opposition to those entertained by the hon. Member opposite. He must confess that he admired the principles which animated the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) and the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), when they so ably addressed the House the other night on the subject of English education. They very properly urged the importance of extending the blessings of education amongst all classes in the country, and argued that in proportion as they were advanced, in the same proportion would crime be diminished. Scotland had taken the lead upon this subject of education, and her example was followed by many other countries—Germany and France had imitated them; and tile great continent of America had not only imitated them, but had outstripped them in their course. For about 150 years Parliament had almost slumbered upon the subject. It gave him great satisfaction to add his humble voice in support of the Bill, and he congratulated his right hon. and learned Friend upon the success of his efforts upon the subject.

said, he objected to the measure, because it was one which proposed to establish a system of education in Scotland the very opposite to that which had prevailed up to the present time—namely, a system without any guarantee for religious instruction. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, in his eloquent speech, seemed to convey a belief that the party with whom he (Mr. Scott) had the honour of acting were adverse to the wider extension of education, but this imputation he utterly repudiated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the measure of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) as one that was not calculated to do service in the cause of education; and, like a skilful debater, attempted to show that those on the opposite side of the House were the assailants, and that he was the defendant. But the very opposite was the fact; for the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the assailant in endeavouring to upset that good system of education which at present existed in Scotland, instead of trying to perpetuate and improve it. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said he deprecated all things partaking of a sectarian spirit, and asked them to take common ground. But why did he not take common ground? Those Members on the opposite side of the House were willing to go into a common field with him. Having disclaimed opposition in an apparent spirit of fairness, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, however, indisposed to go one inch towards meeting them upon common ground, when they were willing to go hand in hand with him. Why, he asked, needlessly abolish the guarantee for the orthodoxy of religious opinions? When the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) speaks of the amount of crime which existed, they granted it; but he would ask the noble Lord whether he really meant to say that it was in the agricultural districts that the crime was so excessive? He would venture to say that the noble Lord would not assert anything of the kind. What the noble Lord meant, no doubt, to say was, that in those parts where the Bill did not apply there was a large amount of ignorance and crime; and into those parts they were all willing to enter, with the view of doing all that was possible towards the diminution of such crime. They were willing to carry on a system of education at their own expense; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was desirous, by his measure, of casting a considerable expense upon the Consolidated Fund. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman go to that, fund, in order to relieve the heritors of the burden which they were at all times willing to take upon their own shoulders? The heritors were willing to support the parochial schools, a system that would be adverse to none, and beneficial to all. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was willing to do away with that animosity which they all regretted, why did he not come forward and propose some test as a guarantee of the religious doctrines and opinions of the schoolmasters, which would be acceptable to all? Instead of doing so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman accused those who opposed him of being actuated with a feeling in favour of the domination of the Established Church in Scotland, and, with singular inconsistency, said that there was no diversity of creed amongst the great mass of the people of Scotland. If, then, 95 per cent of the people entertained the same belief, and were attached to their religious opinions, in the name of all that was sacred why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman require from the instructors those guarantees that they entertained the same pure belief as that which had been entertained by their forefathers? There was no nation in the world that had borne so high a character for religious feelings and moral conduct, in the different services of the country, as Scotland had done. Let them take for example the gardeners throughout England, who were raised from the labouring classes. Why, he asked, was it that the gardeners were chiefly selected from Scotland? Simply because they were blessed with a better education. That fact alone was sufficient to show that in the rural districts of Scotland there was an efficient system of education. If the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were really anxious that the Presbyterians in Scotland should be well instructed in religious doctrine, let him not propose that religious instruction should be optional, and that no guarantee for the Christian creed should be required in the instructors of youth. He regretted that the measure contained nothing relating to reformatory schools and he consequently feared that it would not be acceptable in its present shape to the people of Scotland. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would so modify his measure as to make it acceptable to both sides of the House.

said, that there existed in Edinburgh schools which had been established by funds taken some ten or twelve years ago from Heriot's and other hospitals, in which a most excellent education was given, which he was most anxious to see extended through the length and breadth of Scotland. There no test was required, and the schoolmaster was selected not only for the information he possessed, but for his capacity to impart it. He heard with great pleasure that it was intended to raise the salary of the teachers, because it was, in his opinion, a disgrace to a nation that its instructors should receive barely the remuneration which its common labourers received. Even the rooms of their dwelling-houses had been restricted to two, whilst the maximum salary of the shoolmaster was fixed at 34l. His right hon. and learned Friend's Bill proposed to replace this state of things by a thoroughly equipped and efficient system holding out premiums to individuals to devote themselves to the acquisition of knowledge, and the best methods of communicating it. It was deplorable to see different sects contending for the education of the young in a sectarian spirit. He trusted the Bill would be received with the favour which its great importance in regard to the most vital interests of the country demanded. His right hon. and learned Friend had stated that he was a member of the Free Church, and so was he (Mr. Cowan), and having heard it stated that this Bill was brought in to advocate the educational system of the Free Church, he would state that he firmly believed that in a pecuniary point of view it would have the contrary effect. The Free Church had done a vast deal for education, having built 500 or 600 schools, but if this Bill became law a vast number of those school-houses would become of no use, for they had in many cases been built from the opposition of proprietors in remote districts, and would not be available under the new system. He believed on the whole that the Bill would promote greatly the national good, and he begged to express his most cordial thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for what he had done.

said, he cordially congratulated his right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, on having had the courage to grapple with this important and difficult subject, and he entertained a confident hope that the Bill now brought forward by the right hon. and learned Lord would meet with a more favourable reception than the measure he had introduced on the same subject last year. There was a clause in the Bill of last year which provided for the arbitrary dismissal of schoolmasters by the Education Board, and as that provision was considered very objectionable he hoped it had been modified in the present measure. There was no doubt the system of education which had hitherto existed in Scotland could not be extended, and it was therefore desirable to establish a plan upon a new basis, instead of endeavouring to force upon the people a system to which they entertained the strongest objection.

said, that the clause to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had been considerably modified.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of saying anything against the introduction of the Bill, but merely to suggest whether, with the view of avoiding those hostile collisions, especially with regard to religious questions, which had been referred to by Scotch Members, it would not be worth while to draw a distinction that had been recommended by a noble Lord in "another place," who was perfectly well acquainted with the state of Scotland, and was one of the greatest advocates of popular education in either House of Parliament—a distinction between the education required for the more rural parts of Scotland, and the education required for the large towns of that country. Had such a distinction been drawn, instead of meeting with any opposition on the part of his (Mr. Walpole's) Scotch friends, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have received their cordial support. But if by bringing in this Bill they introduced the discussion of those very religious differences which they desired to see abolished, surely the blame must rest rather with those who caused the discussion upon such religious differences than with hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who were as anxious as hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches to reconcile those differences as far as they possibly could, and still carry into effect the general object of extending education wherever education was required. He entirely agreed with the observation of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), that the salaries to Scotch schoolmasters were miserable pittances; and the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) provided for the increase of those salaries, to from 50l. to 60l., with the concurrence of those heritors of Scotland who were to be charged with that increase, in all cases where the stipend was less than 35l. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had described the principle of the Bill now proposed as establishing a united system of education and doing away with sectarianism. But he (Mr. Walpole) understood that united education went on at this moment in the parochial schools, and he was utterly at a loss to know why it should not continue to go on when they had improved it. Looking, therefore, at the points of difference between the two sides of the House, he thought they might almost all of them be got over by making a distinction between the education to be provided in the rural districts, and that to be provided in the populous towns. Considering that the existing system had prevailed in Scotland for nearly two centuries—that that system had sent into the world many of the best educated men, and men who had risen to the highest station in consequence of that education, and that that education was probably better than any system that had hitherto been established elsewhere—considering these things, was it wise—he asked, to offend a large portion of the people of Scotland upon one point respecting which they were not agreed, and would it not be more advantageous to say,—"Instead of superseding, we will extend the system, where it is deficient we will supply the deficiency, but we will not outrage the feelings of a large portion of the inhabitants of Scotland. We still think there ought to be a religious test applied, that their parochial schools ought to be preserved, and that the control of the presbytery ought to be still maintained in those schools?" Before concluding, he could not help making one or two other remarks with regard to what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had urged for the foundation of this Bill—namely, the introduction of another Education Bill by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington), which was to apply to England. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate thought that the principle of that Bill would entirely justify him in pressing upon the House the measure he proposed that evening. But the distinction between the two was plain and obvious. For whilst in Scotland they had this system of education, which had prevailed for so long a period as he had named—a system which had succeeded admirably throughout that country, and which only required extension and improvement—in England they had no such system at all. There, then, was ground for drawing a plain and broad distinction between the measures which should be introduced for the two countries. Further, the discussions which were likely to take place both upon the measure of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) and that of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) would naturally lead to a full consideration of all the principles which ought hereafter to be adopted upon the great question of education. One point upon which there would be a very general, if not unanimous concurrence in that House was, the wish to diffuse education to the fullest possible extent for the benefit of the people, alike of England and Scotland. But there were other points than that to be considered with reference to those Bills. The question which might be asked, whether these measures would not lead to greater evils than those they were designed to remedy; whether they would not increase the evils of our church-rate system by imposing a rate for educational purposes; and whether, if collision now took place in consequence of the levy of compulsory rates for the repairs of the church, they would not have to resort to the only other alternative before them, that of adopting a purely secular system of education. These matters must be discussed before they could say that the principle of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington's) Bill, or of that of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), might be taken as a settled point upon which they could build a system of education for the people of Scotland, and he thought that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would hardly justify him in using the principle supposed to be contained in those Bills as applicable to the Bill now introduced for Scotland, particularly when the differences between the two countries were so great as they were known to be.

I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and the House, on the tone and temper which has pervaded the discussion that has ensued upon the Motion he has made. I think there ap- pears to be a unanimous agreement upon some particular points of this question, and I trust, when the Bill is laid upon the table, and its details are brought under examination, that there may be a nearer approximation of opinion on this subject than, on the first statement of the objects of the measure, the House might have been disposed to anticipate. Indeed, on some general principles there already seems to be a ready acquiescence. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last has very candidly admitted—what I am sure he would be the last person to deny—the great importance of extending to the whole of Scotland an effective system of education. Scotland has long taken the lead in this movement. She stood pre-eminent ages ago for her excellent general system of national education, adapted as it was to the circumstances in which it originated. Those circumstances have, however, changed—events have occurred which were not anticipated by the founders of the system, and which have so completely altered the condition of things, that what at the outset admirably met the requirements of the nation was now by common consent admitted to be very inadequate to the present exigency. All parties concurred in thinking that some modification, some improvement must be made. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), who has introduced the rival Bill, proceeded on that assumption. When we are told what is the niggardly and scanty salary given to those men to whom you intrust the education of the people, when we hear that schoolmasters—men possessed of certain intellectual attainments, natural capacity, and acquired knowledge—are receiving such paltry pittances as those now given to them, and of which, when last year the matter was brought officially before me, I felt quite ashamed of taking cognisance, it is perfectly clear that an addition ought to be made to their present remuneration. In looking at the present state of Scotland, we cannot help observing the manner in which the people are split up into different religious sects. I respect highly that deep sense of religious obligation which has led to this severance of the religious community; but it is surely very desirable that those differences which divide the people into so many sects should not be studiously inculcated into the minds of children in public schools—that they should not be brought up in religious antagonism to each other. If in after life they should be led by individual conviction, or by deference to the opinions of their parents, to adopt the principles now instilled into them, let them by all means take their places among the different religious denominations of their country; but, at all events, their convictions should result from reflection, thought, and persuasion, and should not be prejudices implanted in their minds at a period of youth when they are incapable of comprehending the grounds of conflicting theological opinions. Well, then, I do say it is important to abolish the sectarian character of the existing schools. These, then, are the points in which my right hon. and learned Friend's plan has the superiority over that proposed on the other side of the House. It is very easy to say that you may extend the present system, and thereby meet the wants of the great towns; but if anybody looks at the manner in which these Scotch schools are distributed, he will see that, in consequence of the religious distinctions among the people, schools are not wanted in some parts of the country, and that, on the other hand, where they are really needed, none exist. My right hon. and learned Friend's plan further proposes to lay the foundation for a better distribution of the schools. It not only seeks to improve the character and constitution of the schools, but to efface those religious divisions which the existing system is calculated to perpetuate, while it will also supply the country more equally and in better proportion with the means of instruction than is the case at present. Therefore, from what has passed to-night, whatever differences may still exist as to the details of my right hon. Friend's measure, I hope that when the second reading is proposed the House will approach the discussion in the same tone and temper which has marked the proceedings on this stage; that both Englishmen and Scotch-men will feel that this is really a subject of great national importance; that we shall lay aside any prejudices that may not be founded upon essential differences and distinctions; and that this House will give to the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the best possible consideration, and be disposed to reconcile it, if possible, with their opinions, to support it, and to pass it into law.

said, it had been proposed by the right hen. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) that the Bill of the Lord Advocate should apply to towns and to thickly populated parts of the country only; but while the religious sects extended all over Scotland, in the highlands the Free Church was predominant. In the whole of the south of Scotland the Free Church and the Dissenters were in a majority over the Established Church, and if they admitted the principle that in the towns the system of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate could be properly applied, the same reasons would lead to the application of it in the country. The parishes were in precisely the same situation as the towns, for there were parochial schools, to which only one-third of the people would go. [Mr. WALPOLE dissented.] His right hon. Friend opposite shook his head, and seemed to say that anybody might go there; but then they would not go there; the members of the Free Church would not, as a general rule, send their children to the parochial schools, and there was scarcely a parochial school which had not got a Free Church school close by it.

said, he understood the present Bill was substantially the same as that which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had brought in last year. If so, there were two omissions from that Bill to which he desired the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. In the first place, whilst it made efficient provision for the education of boys, it seemed to leave out of account altogether the girls, for whose education, however, it was surely important that some special provision should be made; and in the next place, it made no provision for the education of the masters. Now, there could be no doubt that a normal school for the education and training of masters was a most essential thing; and he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take into consideration this as well as the other point to which he had directed his attention.

said, he hoped that the Bill would be treated with the consideration befitting its importance, and that a more convenient time would be fixed for its discussion than had been the case with regard to the Bill of last year.

said, he was cordially in favour of the Bill, but would suggest that Members opposite might give up the point respecting the power of the presbytery in the management of the schools, and unite with him (Mr. Kinnaird) and his Friends in getting some security for religious teaching in the schools. The Bill might then, he thought, pass harmoniously through the House.

said, he thought that there could be little difficulty in framing a general measure of education for a country in which 95 per cent of the whole population were of one religion. He trusted, however, that the right hon. and learned Lord would so shape his Bill as to secure the support of the remainder—the Roman Catholics, who in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, and part of Morayshire, formed a numerous and important minority. The right hon. and learned Lord lost his Bill last year by nine votes, and it would be his own fault if he lost it this year, for he had only, in framing its provisions, to have regard for the 5 per cent, as well as the 95 per cent of the population of Scotland, and the measure would be perfectly safe.

said, besides the Established Church and Free Church there was another important body in Scotland, called the United Presbyterians. They were generally disposed to support the Bill of the right hon. and learned Lord last year, but there were one or two points on which they felt some objection. One was, the constitution of the Educational Board, which they considered to be too largely nominated by the Government, and he trusted the same error would not be imported into the present Bill. He was glad to learn that the denominational plan, which was likewise very much objected to by many religious persons, was not to be introduced into the Bill now proposed. He believed that the Bill would be received with favour by a large body in Scotland.

in reply, said, be thanked the House for their candid and temperate reception of his measure, and he was certain that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to adapt it, so as to obtain the support of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, so far as he consistently could. When the Bill was printed it would be seen in what way he proposed to deal with the difficulties which had been suggested, and he should be glad to receive any suggestions or communications on the matter. With regard to normal schools, his notion of the perfection of an educational measure was that it should include some provision for them; but upon consideration of the whole subject, the Government had thought it better to start this educational system by itself, and afterwards to engraft upon it a provision for normal schools. He was sorry the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) did not yet see his way to supporting the Bill. With regard to a suggestion made by that right hon. Gentleman, if he (the Lord Advocate) could have seen that there was less difficulty in the proposing a separate measure for the towns than one for the whole country, he might have taken that course.

said, he wished to call attention to some points of the Bill. The Lord Lieutenant had power to prohibit burials in all towns in Ireland, but the Bill gave no power to provide new burial-grounds. Great injustice might, therefore, be committed, as it might be difficult in such case to provide proper places, unless powers were given to boards of guardians or town councils.

said, the suggestion was a very proper one. In the English Act there was a provision which it would certainly be desirable also to have in the Act relating to Ireland, giving powers, whenever one burial-ground was shut up, to open another, the rate payers themselves paying the expenses, and electing a representative board, with power to make all necessary arrangements. He would communicate with the authorities in Ireland, and if there was a feeling that the noble Lord's suggestion should be carried out, he should be glad to introduce a clause to that effect.

said, he wished to move a clause for the purpose of compensating clerks, sextons, and beadles, for the loss of fees and sums now received in respect of interments. He was afraid there would be some difficulty in giving the power of compensation to vestries in Ireland in these cases, as those bodies were for the most part Roman Catholics.

said, the first Burial Bill that was passed by Parliament gave compensation to the clergymen, the sextons, and others who might be sufferers by the closing of burial-grounds, and that compensation was to be charged on the poor rates; but in subsequent Sessions Parliament altered their views on the subject, and in the Bill which was brought in by the noble lord belonging to Lord Derby's Government all compensation was deliberately, and upon due consideration, omitted. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that in England any compensation was given to clerks, and sextons, and others, who might lose fees in consequence of shutting up of burial-grounds. It was plain, in point of principle, that you could not maintain that anybody had a vested interest in that which was a public nuisance. The only reason for which a burial-ground was shut up was, that it was a public nuisance; that it was so full of decayed organic matter as to become dangerous to the health of the neighbourhood. Well, in that case it ought to be shut up, and out of regard for the public health it must be shut up. Then there could be no reason whatever why persons who had incidentally obtained profits from the use of that ground should be compensated for the loss of profits which, by the excessive use of the ground, must necessarily cease. In most cases the parish would provide a new burial-ground, and the same fees would attach to the new one that had been obtained from the old one, and, therefore, in ordinary cases, those persons would be no losers at all; but even if they were, there was no reason why the public should be called on to make compensation, or to pay for the loss of emoluments which had sunk under the magnitude of the nuisance it was sought to remove.

said, if there was any certainty that those persons would get employment under the new Act, he would withdraw his amendment.

said he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the administrative system of the transport service. In doing so, he would studiously avoid all irrelevant matter, and all points with which he knew the House to be familiar. He would make no reference to what had passed before the Committee now sitting upstairs, and still less would he attempt to anticipate any decision at which that Committee was likely to arrive. He would deal with the subject impartially—would avoid all personalities, and endeavour to be just, nay, generous, so far as the circumstances of the case would permit. The subject was a most important one, as was proved by the fact that in the past year there had been no less than 8,663,000l. voted for the transport service, and when it was considered that a well-arranged transport service was essential to the good conduct of the war, the House would perhaps be inclined to favour him with its attention while he shortly adverted to the subject. Before going further, however, he felt it his duty to refer to some remarks made by a noble Earl in another place, who had used very strong language in reference to the transport service, and whose remarks were all the more forcible because he was considered a great authority upon maritime questions. That noble Earl was reported to have said—

"He would venture to assert that in the whole service of the Crown there had hardly ever been evinced a greater degree of profligate extravagance in the expenditure of money, carelessness and ignorance in the making of contracts, slovenliness in their employment of vessels, and confusion and mismanagement as to their departures from and arrivals in the ports of this country. In the region where they were employed their utility had been marred by the utter want of arrangement in everything that concerned the business of embarking, carrying, and landing cargoes, so familiar to all persons engaged in mercantile concerns in this country. When first the war broke out, and it was thought necessary to have a large quantity of shipping in readiness, ships came forward so quickly that the whole trade of the country seemed to be laid for the moment at the feet of the Crown." [See 3 Hansard, cxxxvi. p. 1963–4.]

In part of that statement he (Mr. Lindsay) agreed; but with reference to that part which stated vessels of every description were placed at the service of the Government, and in such great abundance, he thought the noble Earl had made a great mistake; for when the war commenced, and the Admiralty issued notices for tenders, very few offers, he believed, were received of suitable vessels. The noble Earl went on to state—

"Government made engagements with the owners of the transports on terms that astonished the merchants, and showed them to be utterly ignorant of the manner in which business of this kind ought to be conducted. The tonnage was bargained and paid for on the builders' measurement, though every one was aware that that was merely nominal."—[Ibid. 1964.]

By that statement the noble Earl gave the public to understand that the owners of ships tendered them on the smaller and the Admiralty paid them on the larger tonnage. That was not the case, for the Admiralty went about tendering in a clear and distinct form, requiring owners to tender on the gross tonnage of the ships; and they were correct in doing so, because there was then less chance of fraud than if the tenders had been made upon the smaller tonnage; and, as the price was proportionate, the country in no way suffered from the course the Admiralty took. He thought, also, the noble Earl had, without mentioning his name, done great injustice to Captain Milne, who had the charge of taking up the transports, and than whom a more able servant the Crown did not possess. The noble Earl said—

"He would suggest that the surest and most economical plan to follow in hiring steamships was to make a contract with the owner, including the price of coal, but taking the power of deducting say 50s. for every ton of coal supplied to him."—[Ibid. 1968.]

He was surprised to hear the noble Earl make such a proposition as that, and the effect of it had been that an erroneous impression had gone abroad that the Admiralty had paid a higher price than they ought, whereas the cheapest course had been adopted of getting vessels by advertising for tenders; they had been equally wise in agreeing to provide the coal, because the owners could not have provided it upon such advantageous terms as the Admiralty. The noble Earl had also made a remark with regard to the engaging the service of the screw steamer the Telegraph, and had made it appear that she was engaged expressly for the purpose of conveying roasted coffee for the use of the troops in the Crimea. His words were—

"The Government being anxious to remedy this crying evil as speedily as possible, hired a ship to proceed to the Crimea with roasted coffee. For this purpose the Telegraph was engaged, a screw steamer of 500 tons register and 900 tons builders' measurement, which had cost its owners 28,000l., and the Government agreed to pay for its use 2,500l. a month, which would in ten months give the full value of the vessel. She was loaded with coffee, and about to start, when General Simpson, who was to have gone out in her, saw her and declared that he would not go in her. He did not—nor did the ship itself; for they loaded her so deeply with coffee that the water ran in through the water-closet tubes, and they were obliged to take her into dock."—[Ibid. 1969.]

Now, this vessel was not engaged for the purpose of carrying coffee. She was en- gaged for an entirely different purpose. And though the price was high—so high that the Admiralty refused her more than once—still the owners would not make any abatement, as the French Government were quite prepared to take her at the price they required, or even on higher terms. She was, however, much wanted by the British Government, and was expressly engaged to run with despatches between the Crimea and Constantinople, or any other place in the Black Sea, and not to carry stores. The Commander in chief was very desirous to have a vessel for that purpose, and Captain Milne, in his anxiety to save money to the country, rather than she should go out empty, sent out the coffee in her. It was not, therefore, fair that, while that gallant and indefatigable officer was studying economy, he should be censured and charged with waste and mismanagement. He (Mr. Lindsay) could not lay the case fairly before the House unless he was just to all parties. Having said this much in justice to the Board of Admiralty, he feared he could say little more in favour of their conduct. In order to place before the House what might be done for these transports, it would be necessary to state the amount of the tonnage engaged. From the returns issued up to the 2nd of January, it appeared that steamers of the aggregate tonnage of 123,350 tons were then engaged, and taking for the subsequent addition the low estimate of 26,650 tons, there were probably now engaged something like 150,000 tons. The return of sailing vessels showed a tonnage of 91,140, to which they might probably add 8,860, thus making 100,000, or altogether, including both descriptions of ships, sailing vessels and steamers, 250,000 tons, which must be admitted to be an enormous transport fleet. He had shown that the steamers could not have been obtained at lower prices, but he would now show the House where there had been enormous waste. He would allow a steam vessel ten days loading, twenty days for her passage to the Crimea, ten days landing, and twenty days passage home in ballast, or sixty days in all. A steamer, therefore, ought to make six voyages per annum; and allowing two tons measurement for each infantry soldier, steamers having a tonnage in the aggregate of 150,000 tons ought to carry to the Crimea 75,000 soldiers each trip, or 450,000 in twelve months. In addition to these, there were 100,000 tons of sailing vessels, and allowing to them forty-five days for their passage out, forty-five for their passage home, ten days loading and ten days landing, they would make three voyages each in the year; and as they would carry 50,000 per voyage, they would take in the whole 150,000 infantry. Of cavalry there might be carried out by the steamers 15,000 each trip, or 90,000 every year; and by the sailing vessels there might be conveyed 10,000 per trip, and supposing them to make only two voyages in the year, 20,000 per annum. It would appear, therefore, that there were regular transports engaged which would carry out 550,000 infantry, or 110,000 cavalry per annum, with all their provisions accoutrements, and a large quantity of stores besides. Upon a former occasion an hon. and gallant Member had contradicted some statements which he had made with reference to the conveyance of Turkish troops. He had now some facts to submit to that hon. and gallant Gentleman. Allowing ten days for the embarkation of Turkish troops at Constantinople, five days for the passage up from thence, ten days for disembarking at the Crimea, and five days for the passage back, or in all thirty days, these vessels, if employed in that service, would be able to make twelve voyages per annum, so that they could carry with ease in the course of the year 1,992,000 Turkish infantry, or 300,000 Turkish cavalry, He made these statements to show how little, comparatively, had been done with the enormous amount of shipping at their disposal, and how badly that little bad been done. He would now trace the progress of a ship, and for the purpose of illustration he would take the Golden Fleece, a steamer of 2,000 tons, which cost the country about 7,000l. a month; he thought that vessel would be a fair specimen of the rest. She left Leith Roads upon the 11th of March, 1854, with her Majesty's 4th regiment; in ten days she arrived at Malta, and disembarked them all well immediately after arrival. Shortly afterwards she embarked the 2nd battalion of the Rifle Brigade, about 200 Sappers and Miners, and twenty horses, also Lieutenant-General Sir George Brown and staff. On the 6th of April she arrived at Gallipoli, but did not land the troops for three days, no arrangements having been made for receiving them. She returned to Malta on the 12th of April, and, after waiting about a week, left with the Grenadier Guards, a company of the Cold-streams, and twenty horses. She called at Gallipoli, and received orders to proceed to Scutari; but no arrangements were made for receiving them there, which caused considerable delay before they were disembarked. After remaining there some time she took Sir Richard England and staff to Gallipoli, and returned with Sir George Brown and the Rifle Brigade. She remained at anchor off Scutari or the Golden Horn until the army was ordered to Varna—a period of about six weeks, during which period a large steam fleet was lying perfectly idle. She then took the Rifle Brigade on board for the third time, and landed them at Varna, and in succession afterwards the Grenadier Guards and several regiments of the line. She landed the first British troops both at Gallipoli and Varna. About the end of June she received orders from Admiral Boxer to return to England, and took nothing home but a large quantity of empty provision casks, which the captain could not get removed from the ship, and which had been accumulating from the time when the ship commenced to issue Government stores. Notwithstanding repeated applications, he could get no authority to land or destroy them, though perfectly worthless, and taking up valuable space on board. He had many other instances of a similar nature which he might adduce, but really the history of one ship was the history of them all. Another ship actually arrived off the Alma the day after the battle, but, although the captain reported that he had a number of surgeons on board, their assistance was not availed of at a time when surgeons were so much wanted, until twenty-four hours after her arrival. It had been said in another place, that there had been no detention of these transports. He was surprised that such a statement should have been made. There were now two large vessels lying at Deptford—the Germania and the Hermes—which cost the country 12,000l. a mouth. The Admiralty chartered them a month before they arrived at Deptford, but he believed that they received no pay until they arrived and were ready to embark troops. The very day that they arrived at Deptford they were ready to receive troops. They had been lying there now three weeks, and supposing that they should remain there another week, there would be 12,000l. totally lost to the country. All that time they had been lying there for the ostensible purpose of fitting up berths for the soldiers, which might have been easily done in two days. It was in such matters as these that the public money had been wasted, and he had no hesitation in saying that out of the 8,000,000l. which had been voted for this service 2,000,000l. at least had been totally lost through unnecessary delays. It was, therefore, the duty of the House of Commons to endeavour to ascertain the cause of all this sacrifice of the public funds. He did not say that the fault rested with the Admiralty solely; he attributed it to the whole system, which struck him as being decidedly wrong, and as requiring a thorough revision and a thorough reform. The War Office, or the Ordnance, or the Commissariat sent word to the Admiralty that they wanted a certain amount of goods or a certain number of troops sent out. The Admiralty took up ships, but when these ships went down to Deptford they found that the troops or the Ordnance stores were not ready. What he should like to see was this—that when these different departments sent word to the Admiralty that they required vessels, they should state the exact time when the troops or stores would be ready, and be kept to the time given. There was another cause of great delay. Each of these different departments sent some one to stow their goods, and the most ludicrous instances occurred of wrangling between the various officers as to where their stores should be stowed. These departments ought to have nothing to do with stowage; they should send the stores alongside the ship, but not he allowed to go on board. The Admiralty or the Transport Board should be responsible for stowing and carrying the goods from England to their destination in the Crimea, and for their delivery to the proper parties. They would then have much less delay; they would not have such constant complaints of goods being damaged and stowed in improper places, and they would have some responsible party to whom to look. He was aware that the Admiralty were making great exertions—feeling, as they must, that there was something wrong—to remedy the evil; but he could not approve the course they had adopted. In his opinion the great cause of the evil had been the want of some responsible head, of some one to whom to appeal, of some one whom they could blame when things went wrong. The Admiralty had appointed a Transport Board. Now, he had no faith whatever in boards. It was merely shifting responsibility from one shoulder to the other. It was only increasing the evils which all were now most anxious to avoid. What he would recommend would be, to have one person—the gentleman who filled the situation of Chairman of the Transport Board would be a very competent person—to direct, and make him, and him alone, responsible to the Minister of War. They would then know what they were about. Having said thus much with regard to the loading and sailing of these ships, he thought it might be interesting and possibly advantageous if he said a very few words as to the mode in which the Admiralty conducted their business with reference to accounts. On the 24th of October, 1854, an account was rendered for messing of officers and for a hawser supplied to the Government officers in the Mediterranean, all properly vouched. On the 4th of December another account for the same hawser, and also for messing other officers, was rendered, and after repeated applications a letter was received, dated the 9th of February, stating that, "on the 2nd instant the account was sent to the Accountant General's department for payment." The amount was called for on the 5th, 9th, and 12th of February, but had not then reached the Department. On the 17th and 27th of February, and on the 6th and 8th of March, it was again called for, when the persons applying were told it was detained at the storekeeper's department. On the 16th of March, upon again applying, they were referred to a deaf and dumb person, so that all communication had to be in writing. He did not complain of the Government employing a deaf and dumb person. He was sorry to say there were some high in office who had ears and would not hear, and eyes and would not see, who were just as bad as this unfortunate deaf and dumb man. But as this deaf and dumb person held a very responsible situation at the Admiralty for the passing of accounts, he so doubted the statement of a person thus afflicted being placed in that position that he asked for the original document of the deaf and dumb man's writing, and he now held it in his hand. In reply to the inquiry of the person calling for the account, the deaf and dumb man said—

"I have been sending the last three days to look for the claim and cannot find it. You ought not to have included the rope in the same claim; it obliged us to refer to the Storekeeper General, and the claim is most likely with him." "But"—

wrote the party calling for the accounts—

"the rope was sent up about three months before, and it could not be paid. Can we have the messing by sending another account, minus the rope?"

The answer from the Admiralty deaf and dumb clerk was—

"The messing requires the vouchers, which are with the claim. The office is being cleared out and got in order, and I hope your claims will be found and got forward, but it is too great a waste of time specially to go looking for them."

Another claim for messing was forwarded on the 9th of January, 1855, accompanied by the certificates all properly signed and in order. After repeated applications, the person applying was informed, on the 6th of March, that the account was lost. It was again applied for on the 8th, when it was stated to have been forwarded to the War Office, and on the 16th of March the deaf and dumb clerk gave the following reply—

"We cannot pay for officers we know nothing of, so we sent the voucher to the War Office, and have not yet got their reply."

In the first instance, an account, after being rendered nearly five months, was stated to be either with the Storekeeper General, or else, if in the office, would possibly be found shortly, as the office was being cleared and put into order (they might presume not before it was needed), and the applicants were politely informed it would be too great a waste of time specially to look for particular accounts which had been carelessly mislaid. That was a state of things to which the country ought not, and would not, submit—a state of things which, he was sorry to say, had entailed on us a very great amount of disgrace with other nations. He would endeavour to illustrate the administrative system generally in the same plain way. Three or four years before he had the honour of a seat in that House his firm had a claim of 3l. 5s. 6d. against the Admiralty for some freightage on stores. The account was rendered in the usual form, but in about six weeks' time it was returned for amendment because the 3l. 5s. 6d. was not written in words. The account was amended and returned, and in about ten days one of his clerks came to him and said he should have to go to Deptford and Woolwich, and Somerset House and the War Office, and he did not know where besides, before it would be paid. As he found it would take his clerk the greater part of each day for a week to collect the account, and that while he was so employed they might lose a great deal more by his absence—indeed, the 3l. 5s. 6d. would scarcely cover his salary, the account was left uncalled for, and he supposed to this day it was unpaid. About four years ago he had another account—he did not remember in which particular department, but he thought it was in the Admiralty—for upwards of 2,000l. The account was rendered, and for six weeks it was not passed. The loss of interest on 2,000l. for six weeks was a consideration, so he determined one morning instead or coming in early to business, to wait for Government hours, and to get to the Admiralty by half-past ten o'clock. It was a fine summer morning, and after a good deal of jostling, for no one knew him—and if they had, perhaps they would not have cared—he got into a room in which were three desks, and at one of the desks was a gentleman, seemingly very much at his ease, for he sat on an easy chair, with his leg cocked over the arm of another easy chair, whistling to himself the tune of "Peter Dick," keeping time to it on the desk with a ruler. He walked up to the gentleman and said, "Can you tell me anything of this account?" His reply was, "No; I can't say. I don't know anything about it. It has not come to me yet." While speaking to him, in walked another gentleman, who should have been the occupier of one of the empty desks, with his hat cocked on one side and a gold-headed cane in his hand. He did not object to gentlemen cocking their hats on one side or carrying gold-headed canes, if they would attend to their business. Addressing the gentleman who was whistling "Peter Dick," the new arrival said, "I'm off by the eleven o'clock boat to Gravesend. I don't suppose I shall be back before four. You'll keep me all right." The gentleman who had come in then departed, and his whistling friend then said that, perhaps, the account was in his charge. Upon that he (Mr. Lindsay) replied, "I hope, then, when it reaches you, you will not be going down to Gravesend;" and to that observation, having recieved rather an impertinent answer, with which it was not necessary to trouble the House, he made no reply, and left the office; but as he so, he could not help saying to himself, "I hope the time may come when I shall be able to assist in rooting out these Peter Dicks, who waste so much treasure, and who have aided in bringing so much disgrace upon the country." But what was the original source whence these evils had arisen? It was the existing system of patronage which created these Peter Dicks, and there were too many of them, both high and low. The time, however, had arrived when such men must be rooted out. The country wanted, and it would insist upon having, competent men employed in their places. He, as a man of business, felt no hesitation in saying that there were at the present moment many men engaged in Government offices in the receipt of salaries varying from 80l. to 500l. a-year, who not only did no real service to the country, but to pay whom their respective salaries without allowing them to go near the offices to which they were attached, would, he firmly believed, cause a great saving of the public money. But there was, happily for the country, though unhappily for themselves, another class of persons in the public service, consisting of very able, industrious, and energetic men, who were paid salaries far too small considering the duties they performed. In his opinion it was too often forgotten by the Government that talent and industry were as marketable as any commodity, and that if they required those qualities they must pay for them; and one step in advance would be to sweep away at once and at all hazards these Peter Dicks, and add the salaries they had received to that of those industrious men. No doubt could exist in the mind of any one that the time had arrived when administrative reform had become absolutely necessary. What he meant by that expression was, that it was necessary the Government should be made to keep pace with the progress made by those they governed. It was necessary that the mode of conducting business in Government offices should be assimilated to that which existed, and which succeeded so well, in the great banking and mercantile establishments throughout the country. If the Government did not institute a thorough administrative reform, people out of doors would not rest satisfied, because they felt that the present system was rotten at the core, and that the inefficiency of the men who carried out that system was the means of squandering, millions of the public money, and that much of that distress and misery which had befallen our noble army in the East had arisen from want of that reform which he now wished to urge upon the Government.

Sir, before my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty addresses any observations to the House in reply to what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, perhaps, as I have been referred to, I may be excused if I offer a few remarks to the House. I shall commence my observations by referring to one or two remarks made by my hon. Friend towards the close of his speech. My hon. Friend has stated that administrative reform is necessary, and in dealing with that observation I shall confine myself to the subject of the navy. I do not mean to say that administrative reforms in other departments might not be made, for I am disposed to think that they are necessary, and have been felt to be necessary, and that various Governments have endeavoured to apply remedies; but, not to enter into that subject, I think that, as regards the navy, I may say without vanity that the remarks of my hon. Friend would have been much more applicable twenty years ago than now. At that time I used my best endeavours, acting on the part of the Government of Lord Grey, and with his concurrence, to apply an efficient cure to what then appeared to me to be abuses in the administration of the naval department, and I think that the remedy then applied has served to maintain the efficiency of that department at the present day. My hon. Friend, in referring to our general system of administration, has said—and I hope he did not apply the observation to the naval departments—that it is rotten at the core. Well, Sir, that is a harsh expression. He has likewise dwelt particularly on the system of patronage as an indication of rottenness, and on that point I may say that it does so happen that the present accountant general of the navy, Mr. Bromley, one of the most able servants the country possesses, was only twenty years ago a humble clerk in a dockyard, with a salary under 200l. a year. I, at that time, observed the merits of that gentleman, and his character was also reported to me as being most exemplary, and before I left office in 1834, I had the pleasure of promoting him to a higher situation in the department than the one he then held, and by his talents and excellent conduct that gentleman has in the meantime risen from the humble position I have mentioned to be the accountant general to the navy, receiving pay and allowances amounting to 1,400l. a year; and he has attained that position wholly and solely by his own merit. That gentleman, I repeat, has risen to his present position, not by favour, but by merit exclusively, and I firmly believe that a more meritorious and able public servant than Mr. Bromley cannot be found. He is known to several Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I can appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) as to the manner in which he discharges not only the duties of his office, but in which he has contributed his assistance to the improved administration of several other branches of the Civil Service. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) has commented at some length upon the fact of there being a deaf and dumb clerk employed in the Admiralty. Well, Sir, the appointment of this gentleman was originally made from charitable considerations, and he has fully justified it by his services and attainments. His conduct was so meritorious, and his talents were of so high an order, that when, before I left the Admiralty on the formation of the Transport Board, I referred the question of appointment to those officers who were most capable of forming a correct judgment, that same deaf and dumb clerk was recommended to me as the most eligible person that could be employed, and he was accordingly promoted. The misfortune of being deaf and dumb is not in itself a disqualification, as the hon. Member appears to consider it; for one of the most distinguished civil servants, a son of Sir W. Napier, has the misfortune to labour under these natural defects, and is yet known to be most efficient and worthy of the highest praise. I am sure that my hon. Friend is the last person to speak with levity of so great a calamity, when, as in the present case, it is combined with talent.

said, he had not intended to cast any reflection upon that gentleman's abilities. All he wished to do was, to explain the Government system of dealing with accounts.

Very well; but I think that the two cases I have mentioned, that of the accountant general and his deaf and dumb clerk, show that the patronage of the Admiralty has not gone by favour. Now, I come to the subject of accounts. My hon. Friend has stated that the system of accounts is a disgrace to this country, and to the advanced science of the age in which we live. Now, Sir, I will challenge a comparison between the naval accounts and those kept in any merchant's office—even in that of my hon. Friend, and I have no hesitation in saying that it will be found that they are posted up as closely, and are kept upon a better system, than any accounts kept by any banker or merchant in London. At the same time, the House will bear in mind the extent of the transactions, and the various items involved, and also the system of auditing used as a security for the public money; and I say that, notwithstanding these impediments, the navy accounts are posted up more closely than those of any banking or mercantile firm. Then, as to the accounts being a disgrace to the country, I can only say that the system was originally copied from the admirable system which existed in France; that, since it has been adopted in this country, the accounts have been examined by the French Government; and Sir John Briggs, to whom the merit of that introduction is due, has told me that he had the proud satisfaction of hearing them express the opinion that the system of accounts adopted in this country was as perfect, if not more so, than their own. Well, then, I ask the House, can that system be fairly spoken of as a disgrace to the country I shall now, having dealt with that portion of the speech of my hon. Friend, apply myself to the other topics upon which he has touched. My hon. Friend has said, that the number of steamers employed was very great. I admit that, and I must say that he has been just as well as generous; for, although bringing charges himself, he has fully answered many which have proceeded from other quarters. My hon. Friend has said, and has truly said, that when the war broke out, and the urgency was extreme, the tenders were high; but he well knows that the price of a commodity is regulated by the supply. My hon. Friend has also complained that there was a want of a well-regulated system, and he has shown that, with the number of ships, steam vessels and sailing vessels, a greater number of voyages outwards and homewards might have been made, and an infinitely larger service might have been perforated, than has been perforated. But the House must remember what has been really done during the last twelve months. We have been conveying, a distance of 3,000 miles, from 58,000 to 60,000 troops of all arms, upwards of 6,000 horses, a large train of artillery, all the guns for large field and battering trains, all the forage and the rations necessary both for the fleet and the army. We have also been conveying more than 15,000 French troops from the south of France, with their horses. We have also conveyed from Varna to the Crimea 40,000 Turks and 6,000 horses, and we have undertaken the constant supply of what is necessary for that force by steamers from Constantinople to the Crimea. Last summer, also, we conveyed to the Baltic 15,000 men, making in all somewhere about 100,000 men conveyed, and somewhere about 8,000 or 9,000 horses, besides keeping up the supply of daily rations for somewhere near 100,000 men, conveyed a distance of 3,000 miles. The hon. Member asks, likewise, why we did not move the steamers backwards and forwards; but the necessity of the service renders it impossible. No doubt expenses are incurred and demurrage arises; but when was an army ever trusted upon a foreign shore without being furnished with the means of embarkation? When the Duke of Wellington with his brave army maintained that position of Torres Vedras which has covered his name with immortal glory to the latest time, he was never content without having always in the Tagus the whole amount of transport necessary for the re-embarkation of his army. So also in the China war and the Burmah war. If you invade a country and send your forces to a remote territory, ordinary prudence and caution will teach you the necessity of keeping the means at hand of re-embarking your troops. The naval commander in chief was pressed in the months of June, July, and August, to send back some of the steamers; but the British army was then in Bulgaria, and the resolution was taken to remove that army to the Crimea. So far from being sent back, the steamers were, in the exercise of the discretion vested in the admirals, detained, and they effected, with signal success, that great operation of removing the army from Bulgaria to Eupatoria without the loss of a man or a horse in that expedition. Then there was the advance of the army from Eupatoria to Balaklava, and the occupation of the Chersonesus in front of Sebastopol. Time was occupied in that movement, and it was not thought expedient while it was in progress, and while the issue was at all doubtful, to send the steamers back. The House will remember that the British army had only one port of communication with the sea. That was a very small port and harbour, and the ships were without the means of landing, or of placing in store, anything sent in the nature of supplies. There were no appliances in the way of cranes or wharfs, and this involved the necessity of keeping a large portion of the stores on board ship. Then, with the number of sick, were continually arising demands for removing them from the Crimea to Constantinople, and even more distant stations. Then other and serious demands were made upon the transport service. Our great allies, the French, having an abundance of troops, but not having such a command of steamers as we have, it fell upon us to furnish them with the means of transport, and nearly 20,000 men were sent from Marseilles on board British steamers to the Crimea. Much later, my noble Friend now at the head of the Government, in pursuance of a treaty with the Sardinian Government, has been obliged to furnish the means of transport for conveying 15,000 Genoese from Genoa or Spezzia to the Crimea. Then came the great operation of removing 40,000 Turks from Varna to Eupatoria, who were removed in a period so short, that nothing could exceed the admiration of Omer Pasha, except his gratitude. Upon the whole, regarding the hon. Member as a severe judge, I cannot but hope and think that the House will come to a different conclusion relative to our naval operations. So far from thinking they have been badly performed the greatest credit is due to the British fleet, and particularly to Sir Edmund Lyons, for the manner in which they have executed the arduous and various duties confided to them. My hon. Friend has spoken of a detention of ten days in the river of two steamers, and he speaks of the internal fittings of these steamers as being easily performed; but we have found the fitting out of steamers to be no easy matter, and to occupy much time. My hon. Friend has truly spoken of Captain Milne as a meritorious officer. I do not think that the service that has been performed could have been accomplished without the energy and ability of that officer, to whom the country is greatly indebted. If it were possible for any one man to have continued to manage the transport service, Captain Milne would have done it; but, not think- ing it possible for any one officer to manage so vast a service, I thought it prudent to recommend the appointment of a Transport Board. Upon principle I agree with my hon. Friend; I am not friendly to a division of responsibility in boards; but when the House remembers that the transport service involves contracts for 5,000,000l., I think they will agree with me that in such large transactions there is safety in multiplying the checks upon contracts of so large an amount. It therefore appeared expedient and salutary to combine a naval and military officer and an officer of the merchant service in the Transport Board. This board will only exist during the war; the term of office is so limited; and with the end of the war will terminate the existence of the board. When the magnitude of the service has been considered, and all that has been done has been duly weighed, I think that the dissatisfaction stated by my hon. Friend will not be shared generally by the House or by the country.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, "to draw the attention of the House to the state of the war in the Black Sea." We were now pretty much where we were when the war broke out, and had made little or no progress—a state of things which he attributed, in a great degree, to the absence of that extraneous assistance which this country ought to have had, and might have had, if the proper steps had been taken with reference to the Caucasus. That independent country, which had the power and the disposition to assist us, which was as large as England and Wales, and four times the size of the Crimea, was held in check by a line of fortresses along the whole frontier between the Caucasus and Russia. Now, if we had but taken Anapa, and thus acquired the command of the Straits of Kertch, we should have gained an important military station, and the Circassians would have been prepared to show their sympathy for their co-religionists the Turks, and for their compatriots, the Tartars of the Crimea. Anapa gave to Russia the entire command of the Caucasus, and, once in our possession, we should have been assisted by the irregular horsemen of that country, inferior to none in the world, and much more than a match for the Cossacks. What an important advantage it would have been to the allied forces in the East to have been aided by 50,000 of these horsemen! To the parts of Russia south of the Caucasus there were only three modes of approach—one by the sea, at present totally cut off; another by a central pass in the Caucasus; and the third by the Caspian Sea. Now, with the communication by water in the hands of the allies, Schamyl could have had no difficulty in closing the mountain pass; and if once we had possession of Anapa, an important diversion might have been created in that quarter. Why this had not been done he could not conceive; and if Lord Aberdeen had been a Minister of Russia, and had accomplished as little in this way as he had done for England, he would have been in Siberia long ago. Then, again, the House was asked to grant a loan of 1,000,000l. for the co-operation of 15,000 Piedmontese, but for a fourth part of the sum we were about to give to Sardinia the allies might have had the assistance of 40,000 Persians. He must repeat that it was the duty of the Government to have attempted the capture of Anapa, and our not having the command of this position was one of the reasons why we had made so little progress in the war.

said, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) had referred to the general state of the departments connected with the civil service of the country. It was impossible for anybody who had watched the course of events recently not to have seen that, upon the one hand, immense exertions had been made by Government and by the country to carry on the war in which we were engaged; and that, upon the other hand, in spite of the exertions which had been made, there had existed, and there still existed, in the country a great and growing dissatisfaction at the failures which had taken place. These two facts, though seemingly irreconcilable, might be easily reconciled by the consideration of one simple point. There was an old saying, that "A dead fly made the ointment of the apothecary stink," and in the same manner small failures brought continually under the notice of the people threw discredit upon great transactions. He was confident that many of the failures which had taken place would have been passed over more easily, would have excited much less attention, and would have been excused as the natural incidents of so great and novel an undertaking, if it had not been that circumstances attending other adventures in which the Government had been engaged had given the people an unfavourable impression of the state of the public service generally. He was, therefore, most anxious to impress upon the Government the importance of losing no time, for their own sakes and for the credit of the country, in introducing such improvements into the civil service as would secure for it a better name than it had hitherto possessed. He was not one of those who were disposed to join in a general outcry against the civil service. That service possessed many merits and had connected with it men capable and willing to perform any amount of work that might be thrown upon them. He was conscious, however, that there were many defects in the organisation of the civil service, which rendered the talent and industry employed in it much less valuable than they ought to be. There was one point, however, to which he was particularly desirous of calling the attention of the Government, with a view to obtaining better economy and efficiency. By regulating the admissions into the service, the promotions made in it, and, what was still more important, the distribution of the work connected with it, a considerable sum of money might be saved, and far greater efficiency obtained. There were a large number of men receiving salaries varying from 80l. to 300l. a year, who, to use the language of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, were hardly worth their salt; while, upon the other hand, there were other men employed whose assistance was most valuable and who did an immense amount of work. What he principally complained of was, that the young men employed in the civil service were set to copying merely, for the first four or five years, and that when they were called upon to write a simple letter, they found themselves incompetent to do so. There was a great difference between serving and experience. There were many who had taken University honours, or received a very excellent education, who went into Government offices, but were kept so long at mere copying that the powers which they possessed upon entering were soon lost. He thought that there ought to be such an arrangement of the offices, that the young men on entering should be able by practice to keep up their knowledge, and he believed that the result of such a change as this would be to attract to the Government service men of a much superior order than could be expected, when the only prospect held out was a miserable salary, and work much beneath the education they had received.

said, he wished to make a few remarks on the subject of the transport service. He did not, however, wish to speak harshly of the errors of the past; he preferred looking forward to the prospect of our learning from those errors wisdom for the future. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had mentioned a single instance in which he had advanced a man on the score of merit; but he (Captain Scobell) wished to see that ground of advancement universally adopted. During the last four years there had been at the Admiralty four First Lords, there had been several changes in the junior Lords, and there had been three or four Secretaries. How could a Board work well with such numerous and rapid changes? He confessed he felt surprised that the English transports in the Black Sea had not volunteered to carry out a greater number of French troops; and he believed that if those transports had been properly managed, they would have performed double the work they had done. The great source of the failures in the transport system was, that there had been no person to superintend the stowage of the different vessels. The consequence of that want of superintendence was, that no one knew where anything ought to be put, and of course no one could know where anything was to be had on the arrival of a ship at its destination. Most hon. Members would have heard the anecdote of the vessel loaded with boots being despatched from Balaklava to Constantinople for shoes—[Sir J. GRAHAM: That is altogether untrue.]—and in other instances, which were well authenticated, vessels had been sent for goods of which there was an abundance at the time at Balaklava. But the worst feature in the whole of the transport service was the miserable provision, or rather want of provision, for the conveyance of the sick and wounded. These poor men were huddled together in the vessels in a manner worse than cattle. With respect to the comparative advantages of employing a board or a single individual, he would observe, that although an individual could not himself do everything, there was no reason why he should not have the assistance of others, without the establishment of a board; and it appeared to him that greater efficiency would be secured by entrusting the supreme management to one person than by dividing it among several.

said, the denial by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, of the anecdote to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had referred, ought to have been made five months ago, when all such statements were said to be untrue; but there was no mismanagement to which the country would not now give credit. The right hon. Gentleman admitted mismanagement generally, but he always defended particulars—apparently acting in every special case upon the maxim of the demagogue Wilkes, never to defend himself against a charge upon the hustings, but to deny it in toto. He certainly placed confidence in the dispassionate statement of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject, notwithstanding the denial of everything by the right hon. Gentleman. Lord Derby's Government, which consisted of untried men, had been turned out to make room for the right hon. Gentleman, who was, par excellence, the great administrator of the country, and his friends, although they had no followers, solely on account of their supposed administrative abilities; and the public had now had an opportunity of judging of those abilities. He acknowledged the right hon. Gentleman's administrative power so far as method and order were concerned; but those were not the only qualities required for conducting a war successfully; and those very checks which the right hon. Gentleman so much admired had been the curse of all our operations. It was in consequence of them that our army had been starved to emaciation and death; and yet the right hon. Gentleman still defended them. A friend of his, who had gone out to the East from one of the public offices connected with the war, disbelieving before he went the statements made by The Times and the rest of the press with regard to the condition of the army, had written to say that he could not now but acknowledge the truth of most of those statements, while, at the same time, he added that the curse of the place was pen and ink. It was not very often that the House had practically the power of very minutely analysing the estimates, but when they saw so large a sum as was proposed asked for the transport service alone, it became the duty of the House to examine into the details. The amount of work done they could only judge from what they saw before them. When the Navy Estimates were moved, the first estimate had not been passed up to ten o'clock at night, and as he understood from one of the Lords of the Admiralty there was no likelihood of the transport service coming on that night, he had from indisposition quitted the House. The transport grant was, however, agreed to, and this was his excuse for troubling the House on the present occasion. The whole tonnage connected with the transport service by the papers before them was as follows: 42,000 tons for the navy, 18,000 for the army, 19,000 for the ordnance, 7,000 for Malta, and 8,000 tons for the French—in all, about 94,000 tons, exclusive of 158,754 tons of coals. The charge for this was no less than 2,600,000l., or 25l. per ton, and this year to be doubled, the ordinary charge just now for freightage to Australia, 17,000 miles instead of 3,000 miles, being only 45s. per ton. He did not pretend that this was an accurate estimate, but the only approximation that could be made from the figures before them. Now, who was responsible for all this? In his opinion it was the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) then First Lord of the Admiralty. He considered that one of the gravest charges brought against the conduct of the transport service was the mode in which the coaling of the vessels had been conducted. Look at the cases of the Emperor and the Arabia, as showing the great want of system that had prevailed at Constantinople in coaling the vessels, and the enormous expense that the country had in consequence been put to. In some cases the coaling of the vessels cost 10l. or 11l. per ton, although coals were only 4l. per ton at Constantinople. One would have imagined from the profuse expenditure of public money, from the number of ships employed and lying idle in port, that there would have been abundance of land transport in the hands of the commander of the forces, to import forage for horses, but this was one of the most terrible privations to which the army in the Crimea was exposed. The horses died for want of forage, which was lying in the ships in Balaklava harbour; and the soldiers wanted food, clothes, and ammunition, and could not get them for want of land transport, and the gross and scandalous mismanagement and confusion its Balaklava harbour. When the horses were ill there was no medicine to be found, though it was lying there or being bandied about from port to port, from the month of June. One would have thought there would have been economy in the use of the fodder when it was scarce; but instead of that, one-half of it was wasted from the want of nose-bags. Lord Lucan asked Lord Raglan's permission to send to Constantinople for provisions for men and horses, but all sorts of obstacles were thrown in the way, when all facilities should have been afforded. With regard to the want of horses and mules for land transport, the propriety of purchasing mules in Spain was suggested to the Government in March. This suggestion was not adopted until three months afterwards; the first batch of 300 mules was sent off in August, and the second batch was not sent till the middle of December, for want of sea transports; while a great number of ships, according to the evidence of the Earl of Cardigan, at that time remained unemployed at Balaklava. Then, again, the horses had been conveyed under an ill-digested system, and great numbers had died; whereas, under the Hull system of conveyance, it was well known that but few casualties happened, and that the horses were landed in good condition. There had also been a great want of horse medicine; large quantities were taken out and had arrived in June, but these were not discovered until January. What security had they, that the new transport board would prove more efficient than had the Board of Admiralty? Captain Drew had been mentioned as a practical man, connected with the board, but he believed he was between sixty and seventy years of age; and, indeed, it appeared to be one of the conditions of this war that it should be conducted by old men. He thought that, since the appointment of the new transport board, circumstances had occurred which were not very creditable to their arrangements, especially with regard to stowage of transports. In the case of the Telegraph it was clear that great negligence had existed, and he considered that experienced stevadores should be always present at Deptford and Portsmouth to superintend the stowage of transports. It was well known that the troops had not been properly supplied with ammunition. Even four or five days after fire was first opened upon Sebastopol the supply of ammunition fell short, and Captain Shakespeare stated that during the affair of the 25th of October, at Balaklava, he was for an hour without ammunition for his guns, and yet the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) defended the system of retaining the ammunition on board the ships in the harbour of Balaklava. A near and dear relative of his (Mr. Cayley's) had been a month before Sebastopol in October, he had fraternised with all classes of the armies, officers, soldiers, Jack Tars, Zouaves, and Turks, and from him he had received most lamentable accounts of the condition of the troops, showing that, even at the end of October, the soldiers were wasting away, that the officers were dispirited, and that there was a want of confidence in head-quarters. Those accounts were of so melancholy a nature, and appeared to him so important, that he hesitated as to whether he ought not to communicate them to the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), who was then the leader of the Government in that House. He decided otherwise, however, and he offered the information to The Times newspaper, stating to the conductors of that journal, in general terms, the contents of the letters he had received. The Times newspaper had afforded such full information on the subject of the war that he felt it right to offer his information to that journal, if its conductors required additional evidence as to the state of the army. A great deal had been said about The Times newspaper; and, although the press generally had afforded very valuable information with respect to the conduct of the war, he would refer to The Times in particular. For a considerable period The Times had been held up to odium as misrepresenting the state of things in the Crimea; but he would like to know who now thought The Times had made such misrepresentations? Was there any one who did not now believe that the Commissioner of The Times, and the other newspaper Commissioners, had been the means, under Providence, of saving our army from actually perishing? He believed that, had it not been for the representations made by the press, the whole of our army must have perished, for they would not have received the succours which had been sent out from this country in consequence of those representations. The Times had not only been accused of misrepresentations, but it had been accused of making those misrepresentations from improper motives. He did not think he was committing any breach of confidence in stating that the answer he received to his offer to communicate to The Times the information contained in the letter of his correspondent was this—

"We don't require any additional evidence. We have the evidence of every person who writes from the Crimea, and of every person who arrives in this country from the Crimea. We have ample evidence of all which your letters appear to contain."

This, be it remembered, was at the end of November. But the editor of The Times went on to say—

"The task is so odious, of inculpating persons at head-quarters, although the evidence appears to us complete, and if the facts can be substantiated, it is at this juncture so doubtful whether, upon the whole, the public service would not rather be disserved than served by the exposure, that we refrain from availing ourselves of the communication."

This occurrence took place at least a month before The Times began what were called its attacks upon Lord Raglan. He thought it only just to make this statement with respect to The Times newspaper. The Times had never been civil to him. When he had brought forward questions in that House, The Times had generally given him "the cold shoulder," and had treated him rather cavalierly, but he had considered himself bound in justice to make this statement. He believed, from information he had been enabled to gather, that there had been a great waste of money in the transport service, and that, if practical men had been employed in its superintendence, at least one-third of the amount which had been expended might have been saved. He regretted on this occasion the absence of some hon. Gentlemen who usually assume to exercise a very vigilant supervision with respect to the public expenditure. He believed that if the expenditure of this country for the war was compared with that of our Allies, it would be found that our expenditure far exceeded, in proportion, that of the French Government. But why should it do so? Every material of war was as cheap here as there, many much cheaper. The people of this country did not grudge any expenditure which was necessary for carrying on the war, for they were desirous to prosecute it vigorously, and to bring it to a successful issue, but they wanted their money's worth for their money. For his own part, he did not think the people did get their money's worth, for the shortcomings and neglect of the late Government, at the commencement of the war, had led to attempts to atone for their procrastination by a profuse, he might almost say, a profligate expenditure subsequently. The cost of feeding our army was of course considerable—but it was stated that, on average, it had amounted to as much as 1l. per day; yet the firm of Baines and Co., of Liverpool, had offered to furnish the army with provisions by contract at the rate of 3s. 6d. per head. In this proposed contract it was offered to supply daily to each soldier a pound of bread, a pound of beef or pork, a pound of preserved potatoes, a pint of ale, and half a gill of spirits, and they calculated that to enable them to do this four steamers of 1,200 tons burden each, besides four more for conveying fresh meat from the shores of the Black Sea, would be amply sufficient. Surely, then, the necessity for that amazing amount of tonnage which the Government had engaged might be seriously doubted. It might have been perfectly competent for the Government to require from contractors a month's supplies for the army to be furnished in advance, and still private enterprise might have provided a cheaper and safer mode of feeding our troops and preserving them from starvation. Mr. Green, of Blackwall, stated that while the Resolute was in the Government service she was about three months in port, and two months at sea; and yet the House was told by the right hon. Member for Carlisle that there had been no waste of tonnage. In all the operations of the war nothing seemed to have been done in time. The Government ought to have known that rapidity of action so indispensable in war—which was an affair of a word and a blow—was utterly incompatible with that cumbrous system of checks of which the right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured. They seemed to have imagined that the mechanical law might be true in war, that what you gained in velocity you lost in power. If there had been any exception to the rule of "too late" in the policy of the Government, it was that they had made Lord Raglan a field marshal when they received the telegraphic news of the battle of Inkerman, without waiting for the details, when it turned out, after all, to be the soldiers' and not the general's battle; and they had also made Mr. Samuel Morton Peto a Baronet because he proposed to construct a railway from Balaklava to the camp, instead of waiting till he had first executed his task, and then conferring this honour upon him. Her Majesty's ships went out without any preparations having been made for the rapid embarkation of guns and of cavalry; and in that state of things Mr. Roberts, the commander of Her Majesty's Ship Cyclops, invented a most ingenious and simple plan of pontoons, which was greatly approved, but not adopted until at his own expense he had provided some; when they were adopted, and enabled that rapid embarkation to take place at Varna, which had been so much admired. In fact, no service of greater importance bad been rendered by any individual during the war than that which was thus performed by Mr. Roberts, and it had been presumed that he would be promoted. Whether he had received his promotion or not he (Mr. Cayley) was not aware, but certainly a better officer than Mr. Roberts could not, he (Mr. Caley) understood, be found in Her Majesty's service. On the whole, then, the responsibility for the management of the transport service must be brought home to the Admiralty; and to the inefficiency of that service must be ascribed the most serious calamities which had befallen the army in the Crimea. It was not our business to criticise or condemn the conduct of either Captain Christie or Admiral Boxer, who were both servants of the Admiralty. It was their masters, the Board of Admiralty, that this House should visit with its severe reprobation. War was as distasteful and repugnant to him (Mr. Cayley) as it could be to the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and yet, by some inscrutable design of Providence, it seemed to sub-serve in the political world ends analogous to those effected by storms it, the natural world—by clearing the atmosphere from accumulating impurity. If war, then, must be waged, it ought, at all events, to be conducted with energy and vigour. For after all it was nothing—appeals to justice failing—but a struggle to know which was the strongest. It was a trial of strength; and it had better be tried out, than by any indecision in the matter, give rise to frequent repetitions of the same struggle. This, however, had not hitherto been the case; and it was to be hoped that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), taking warning from the errors of those who had preceded him, would insist upon every department being carried on with efficiency. It would be some compensation for the calamities of the war if, out of the chaos resulting from of- cial incompetency, from obsolete pedantries and drivelling formalism, there should arise a system of order, efficiency, and vigour—a system that would stand the test of practical experience, and prove something more than a solemn sham and a gigantic imposture.

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) stated that he had sanctioned the formation of a Transport Board, because the superintendence of the business of the transport service was too arduous a duty for one man to discharge, he had—unconsciously, no doubt—laid bare the real secret of the errors and inefficiency of that board. A division of labour involved a division of responsibility—the one could not be obtained without the other. So long as they continued this system of divided responsibility, so long would they have the duties of the service inefficiently performed. He was glad to have heard it stated in the course of the debate that administrative reforms were contemplated; he trusted that amongst those reforms they would have to reckon the discontinuance of that system which had existed in this country from time immemorial—namely, that of placing civilians at the head of the naval and military departments. They might rely on it, so long as that system was maintained, that the duties of neither the one nor the other would be efficiently conducted. He cared not how great might be the administrative ability of any individual, if he was not thoroughly conversant with all the details of the profession over which he was appointed to preside—whether it was from his habits, his education, or his pursuits—all his efforts on behalf of the service must prove abortive. The present system was to place men at the head of the army who were not capable of managing a corporal's guard, and at the head of the navy persons incapable of taking charge of a coaster. He could mention the following cases as illustrative of the position which he had assumed; and he would do so the more readily as he saw the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle in his place. It would be in the recollection of the House that upon a former occasion, when the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty having replied to a question which had been put to him—and he (Mr. Bentinck) would direct particular attention to the fact, that the statement was volunteered, and showed that the right hon. Baronet considered the fact of im- portance—well, having so replied to the question put to him, the right hon. Baronet proceeded to say that he would take that opportunity of adverting to certain rumours that were in circulation relative to the loss of the Prince transport, outside the harbour of Balaklava. The right hon. Baronet then referred to certain reports in the newspapers, to the effect that the Prince had been lost in consequence of her chain cables not having been properly clinched; whereupon he informed the House that the chain cables of the Prince had been properly clinched, and that the loss of that vessel could be attributed, therefore, to no such cause. Having taken a great deal of interest in the matter, he confessed at the time he was not a little surprised at such a statement coming from the right hon. Baronet; still he hesitated, not feeling himself fully informed, to take notice of it. However, only a very few days ago, he happened to obtain possession of a document which confirmed in the fullest manner the impression which he entertained at that time. It would appear that so far from the facts being as stated by the right hon. Baronet, he was himself completely misinformed upon the subject. He held in his hand a description, a sketch of the manner in which the chain cables of the Prince were clinched, which he would be most happy to place in the hands of the right hon. Baronet or any other Member, and it would convince them that the chain cables were clinched in so imperfect a manner as to account for the loss of the vessel. In corroboration of that fact it was stated that the Perseverance—a vessel which had been performing lately certain rather curious gyrations in Woolwich Dockyard—had her chain cables clinched in a similar manner to the Prince; but on the news of the disaster relative to that transport reaching this country, the attention of the authorities was directed to that fact, and the chain cables of the Perseverance were clinched in an efficient manner. Now, he need not remind the House that the right hon. Baronet had had the most ample means of obtaining information upon this subject; however, naturally taking the report drawn up for him as correct, he made no further inquiries. But if the right hon. Gentleman had been a professional man he would have asked one more question, and which would have relieved him from the necessity of making such a statement to the House of Commons—he would have said, "Show me how these chain cables were clinched." Now, that, perhaps, might be a trifling instance of the consequences of their system; still, trifling as it was, it showed that even if a man were as distinguished for his talents as the right hon. Baronet it was impossible for him to conduct the affairs of a service with which he could not, by any possibility, be conversant. As he had said, therefore, he hoped that when this millennium was come about, the first of these administrative reforms would be made in this direction. But he also understood the right hon. Baronet to have dissented from some statements with respect to a cargo of boots and shoes that had been alluded to. Now, although he was unable to contradict the right hon. Baronet, he might mention another case of mismanagement, which did go to prove that such an occurrence was by no means impossible. The Kangaroo transport had started from Varna for Eupatoria with the rest of the fleet, a portion of the Coldstream Guards being on board. When the troops landed at Eupatoria the Kangaroo was ordered round to Balaklava with the knapsacks of the regiment. She proceeded to Balaklava, but from thence she was despatched upon some other duty, without the knapsacks having been landed, and she returned to Balaklava in about a month, the knapsacks still on board, but the whole or nearly the whole of them were broken open, and their contents removed or destroyed. Now, though the story of the boots and shoes might be denied, there could be no doubt whatever as to the accuracy of the statement he had just made.

said, the hon. Gentleman had chosen a very unfortunate case in illustration of his argument against entrusting the administration of the army and navy to civilians, because it so happened that the right hon. Baronet who lately presided over the Admiralty, did make every inquiry into the point whether or not the cables of the unfortunate Prince were clinched. They were not clinched, but the former owners of the ship, and the men who lashed the cables round the masts, put in their affidavits to show that they were well lashed and properly secured. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, knew as much of the circumstances as the hon. Gentleman. Again, the hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) complained of the Admiralty, because Mr. Roberts, the late master of the Cyclops, had not been promoted. He had the satisfaction of assuring the hon. Gentleman that that excellent officer had obtained—and entirely through the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham)—one of the best situations which could be held by a master in the navy.

said, nothing was easier than to find fault with the heads of departments, but it was very difficult for the heads of departments to prevent mistakes on the part of their subordinates. What was wanted was a reorganisation of the departments in such a way as to put an end to the blunders which Ministers of State could not possibly prevent. Several irregularities in the mode of conducting business had taken place, and the manner in which the various supplies were put on board ship for the East never could be justified. Articles which ought to have been shipped in one vessel had been stowed in several. He was convinced that any contractor would have managed matters very differently, and would have taken care that necessary articles never should be missing. He did not blame the Minister at the head of any department for the mismanagement, but he maintained that there should be a different organisation of the departments. He thought the country would be grateful to the hon. Gentleman who had brought this matter forward; and he hoped they would all join in helping any Government—not the present one especially—that would exert themselves properly, and oppose those who would not endeavour to bring about an honourable peace.

said, he had some experience in the transport service, and had not heard a single fact adduced, in the course of the present discussion, on which the House could arrive at a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman who had brought the measure forward had not pointed out a single remedy for the evil of which he complained. He believed the great fault of the system pursued by the Government was, that they paid for time, instead of for services performed. The French Government made the essence of the contract the service, and therefore the work was done well and quickly. He had now several vessels in the service of the French Government, and he could speak to the superiority of their system. The French Government gave a premium of 1l. a ton if the passage was made in a given time; and the result of this arrange- ment was, that the captain and all parties concerned were directly interested in the speedy accomplishment of the voyage. Look at the emigration service. There the Government adopted the service system, and not the time occupied, and the difference was shown by the fact that, while the cost of transporting emigrants 16,000 miles to Australia was only 10l. a head, exclusive of provisions, the cost of sending each soldier to the Crimea was 150l. In fact, the cost of transporting troops was five times that of transporting emigrants, while the accommodation was not as good by one-third. He knew the case of a vessel that lay in Dublin for thirty-five days to take in sixty men and thirty-two horses—the cost of the ship while lying at Dublin being at the rate of more than 22l. per man. Another vessel to which he would refer was chartered to sail from Liverpool for the Crimea. Great delay took place, but at length this vessel, which was of 841 tons, took twenty men and fifteen horses, at a cost of 125l. for each man, and 300l. for each horse. He could give hundreds of similar cases, of which we might well be ashamed. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) say that the transports lying at Balaklava were there in case they should be wanted for the re-embarkation of the troops, for in the House of Lords some nights ago the War Minister stated the very opposite. Everything connected with the transport service had been conducted in the most shameful and disgraceful manner, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the question had at all overstated the case.

said, he had not intended to address the House, but, after the "bumptious" speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty on a previous occasion, he could not help saying a few words, though he observed that the hon. Gentleman was not now present. The hon. Gentleman had challenged any one to deny that the Admiralty had not been the best managed of all the departments. Now, he believed that it was to the mismanagement of the transport service all the miseries of the campaign in the Crimea were owing. He wished to make a few observations as to the transport service, and more particularly with reference to one vessel which had been mentioned—the Kangaroo. As the discussion was on, he wished to put it to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether the officers were to be compensated for the loss of their effects. There was one officer in particular who lost to the value of 200l., and was compelled to go to the same expense over again. He did not think it fair that those Gentlemen should be permitted to lose the value of those things, and that the culprits, whoever they might be, should go scot free. He was one of those who attributed the whole mischief and misery of that army to the transport service, and he charged the whole of the evil at the door of Admiral Boxer. Would it be believed that instead of removing that officer altogether, the Government merely changed him to another station, where he would have every opportunity of making things worse? The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) could have easily learned that a number of transports were lying idle at the Bosphorus doing nothing. At a time when their services were so much required there were sixty at least lying idle there. When a man at the head of a department had acted so improperly, the Government, instead of removing him, placed him in a situation where he would be capable of doing more mischief.

I am sorry, Sir, to say that the absence of my hon. friend the Secretary of the Admiralty is owing to the death of a near relative, and therefore I do think that before hon. Members indulge in such observations as we have just heard they should take a little trouble to ascertain whether there is any just ground for them. The hon. and gallant Member has made an unjust attack upon Admiral Boxer, for every report which the Government have received shows a considerable improvement in the state of the harbour at Balaklava since the appointment of Admiral Boxer to that post. I will not detain the House at any length, or wander into those points which have occupied the attention of hon. Members, but which have little or no connexion with the transport service; but, on the whole, I must express my thanks to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) for the testimony he has given with respect to the efficiency of the management of the transport service, and especially of the officer under whose charge the transports were taken up; and I will say, that a better public servant than that officer the Government or the country does not possess. Some observations have been made with respect to the high rate at which the troops have been conveyed, but the House will recollect that shipowners taking a cargo for their own benefit are able to convey passengers at a much lower rate than a vessel conveying troops, and which takes nothing else. So, in the like manner, if a vessel is employed to go backwards and forwards, conveying troops between particular places without delay or stoppage it might be done at much less trouble and cost. If men could be moved like pieces on a chessboard, then there might be some ground for complaint. But what was the fact here? The officers in command in the Black Sea wished to retain the transports in case their services were required for moving troops from one port to another; and, although complaints are made of vessels of large size being kept idle, the practical effect was, that they were rendered available for the purpose of conveying the troops from Varna to the Crimea. Then, again, with respect to the vessels detained there, they were detained not at the wish of the Admiralty or any other authority at home, but because it was the desire of the generals that they should be available for any service the necessity of which might arise. Whatever complaints may be made with respect to the ships which are now lying in Balaklava harbour, all I can say is that the best judges are those who were present upon the scene of operations, and they may deem it necessary that they should have the power of moving the troops at all times at their command. It is very easy to bring forward general accusations. Such accusations are very difficult to answer until they are brought to the test; but I boldly assert that not one single specific charge which has been brought forward has turned out to be correct. What was the case with respect to the assertion regarding the boots and shoes? It was utterly false. Then, again, there was an equally erroneous assertion with respect to the stowage of the medical stores in the Prince. It was alleged that the medical stores were placed below the Ordnance stores, whereas the assertion turns out to be utterly untrue, for the Ordnance stores were placed at the bottom of the hold, and the medical stores above them. They were, therefore, perfectly accessible, and there was no reason why they should not have been landed at Scutari, except the anxiety of the captain to proceed to the Crimea. Whenever there has been a specific charge it has been contradicted, and I do think that a little more inquiry would have prevented much misapprehension upon the Subject.

said he must apologise for having referred to the Secretary of the Admiralty, but was quite unaware of the cause of his absence.

said, he could give the First Lord of the Admiralty an instance of stores being improperly stowed. The Tynemouth was engaged to take out some heavy guns to Malta and shot to the Crimea. The shot was stowed on the top of the guns, and the guns were in the Tynemouth at the present moment.

said, he would inquire into the case.