begged to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether, a Treaty of Peace having been signed at Paris, the Bonds required to be given at the Custom-houses on the exportation of iron and of certain other manufactured articles might not now be dispensed with? He also wished to know whether all bonds already given could not be cancelled?

said, that though, as the hon. Gentleman and the House were aware, the signature of a treaty of peace did not, strictly speaking, put an end to a state of war, that proceeding being merely an undertaking that the war should be concluded conditionally on the ratification of the treaty, still the Government could not perceive that any useful object could be attained by continuing to require bonds on certain articles of exportation, including particularly machinery and certain descriptions of manufactured ironwork. To-morrow, therefore, it was intended to issue an order to the Commissioners of Customs not to require bonds on the shipment of these articles any longer. With regard to gunpowder, arms, and munitions of war, bonds would continue to be taken for the present, but he hoped it would only be for a few days longer. With regard to the cancelling of bonds which had been already given, it was obvious that that would be a most imprudent course to pursue, because it could not be known whether many persons might not have been shipping goods professedly for one part of the world, but which were in fact to have gone to the enemy in other parts of the world, and the Government would insist on all bonds already entered into being continued until they should lapse in the usual manner.

begged to ask the Under Secretary for War whether it was true that an order had been given to suspend the issue of clothing to the Militia Regiments of Ireland; and, in the event of such being the case, whether that step had reference to the force being disbanded or in any way reduced, upon the ratification of peace.

said, a circular had been sent to the commanding officers of militia generally, and not merely in Ireland, to suspend the issue of clothing to the militia for a time. But, upon consideration, a different decision had been come to, and the issue of clothing was authorised in the usual manner. As the embodiment of the militia had taken place in consequence of the breaking out of the war, now that peace had been restored, early measures would be taken to disembody them.

asked if the hon. Gentleman was aware whether the clothing had ever been sent to the regiments?

Yes; it has.

begged to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the attention of the War Office had been called to the fact of there having been large reviews of the British Army in the Crimea on Sundays, by which the troops had been prevented from attending divine worship and enjoying a day's rest?

said, that reviews of troops in the Crimea appeared to have been held on two Sundays this year, once in February and once in March; but he was not aware of the reasons which induced General Codrington to order them on the Sundays. Of course the holding of parades on Sundays generally would not meet with encouragement from the Government.

begged to ask the Under Secretary for War what was the number of the foreign troops at present in the pay of this country, and also what were the future intentions of the Government with regard to those troops? He wished to know whether it was intended to disband the Turkish Contingent, or to transfer it to the service of the Sultan. As regarded the German Legion, would they be encamped in this country or be sent to any colony; and if to any colony, what colony would it be?

said, the number of foreign troops in the English service was about 40,000. With regard to the Turkish Contingent, he thought it probable they would be retransferred to the Turkish service; as to the German or other Foreign Legion, no decision had been come to as to their future destination, but of course it was not intended to keep them on foot for any considerable time.

, in seconding the Amendment, mentioned a glaring instance which had occurred in the small town of Newtonstewart, in Wigtoushire, a place of 3,000 inhabitants, where the militia of two counties, ever since its embodiment, for a period of nearly fourteen months, had been continually billeted. He thought some compensation was due to the inhabitants of that place, especially since the Government had expressed an intention to expend a considerable sum in building suitable barracks there, which had not been done. A very small part of the sum which Government had been willing to devote to that purpose would be a great boon to the inhabitants divided amongst them.

said, that one of the burghs which he represented was now paying at the rate of £600 a year for the quartering of only the depot of the Forfar and Kincardineshire Artillery. Before the removal of the principal portion of the regiment to Fort George, the inhabitants paid a tax much greater in amount. Since peace had been concluded the Government might not feel disposed to continue the embodiment of the militia; but, if they should, some other plan must be devised for housing the men. The present system was utterly destructive of all military discipline, and inflicted a burden too grievous to be borne upon a small section of the community, for purposes which were national. He did not think that the rural population of Scotland would longer submit to have the sanctity of their homes violated by men who were often chosen from the dregs of society, when no necessity could be shown for it, and when a remedy might easily he adopted.

said, that the termination of the war, it was evident, would put an end to all that could be considered as of real consequence in this matter. Undoubtedly the system of billeting had been felt to be attended with pressure, but this was owing to the militia being embodied, and the Government being under the necessity of placing them in the principal towns of their respective counties, whilst arrangements were making for the formation of those large encampments in different parts of the country, to which they were to be removed. Now, if the pressure of the system of billeting had been entirely owing to the embodiment of the militia, it must follow that on the conclusion of peace the grievance would practically cease to exist; because, although it did not necessarily result that by the war coming to an end the militia would be ipso facto disembodied, and although the Crown was competent to maintain the militia still in an embodied condition, notwithstanding the termination of the war, there could be no doubt that the militia would not be kept up in an embodied state when the circumstances of the country should have rendered its maintenance no longer necessary. Therefore the grievance, whatever it might have been in the last two years, had ceased to have any practical existence at the present moment. But he must say that the Government had not omitted to make exertions to reduce the amount of this grievance. He believed the quota of the embodied militia, whom the Government might billet in Scotland, was upwards of 10,000 men; yet at the present time there were certainly not 2,000 men of the militia in billet throughout the whole of Scotland. It was impossible, therefore, that the billeting of so small a number should bear very oppressively on the people of Scotland. But the hon. Gentleman's Motion was not limited to the militia, but applied to the regular forces as well. It was true that the barracks were generally sufficient to accommodate the regular forces; but in Great Britain they were to be found only in particular points along the coast, or in the centre of military districts, and not as in Ireland, scattered over the whole country; and when the Government had occasion to move the troops from one part of the country to another, then, unless they could be taken in one day direct from one barrack to another, they must be accommodated with quarters at the place where they might be obliged to stop at nightfall on their journey; and on such occasions, if the Government were not to be allowed to make use of any buildings which were not their own property, they would be deprived of any resources or means of accommodating the troops. It was impossible, therefore, for the Government to dispense with billets in moving the regular forces throughout the country. The recruiting parties also must necessarily be dispersed throughout the country, and not confined to barracks; and the recruits, when they came in, billeted until they could be brought to headquarters. Again, it should be remembered that the militia was a county force, which the Government had the power to call together in the event of war impending, or of any disturbances in the country; but that force would be of no value whatever if the Government had no power to place it in billets. It could not be recommended that the Government should provide, in every county, permanent barracks merely to meet the contingency of its being necessary, upon some particular occasion, to call the county force together; and it was therefore indispensable that the Government should retain the power of placing them in billets when necessary. No doubt there was a distinction between the system which prevailed in this country and the system in Scotland. In this country the troops were quartered exclusively on the innkeepers and stable-keepers, but in Scotland they were quartered on private families generally, excepting certain specified classes. But this difference was owing to a provision of the Act of Union, which prescribed that the system of billeting then in force in Scotland should continue, and by which therefore the Government was prevented from assimilating the law of Scotland to that of England. But he (Mr. F. Peel) must say that if he were asked whether, in the abstract, the system of this country or that of Scotland were the juster one, he should be rather inclined to give the preference to the system of Scotland; because it did appear to be somewhat unjust that a national burden should be placed on a particular class of Her Majesty's subjects, when there was no reason why it should not bear equally on all. Perhaps, therefore, in the abstract, the law of Scotland would appear to be more just; but he admitted that in practice the system in Scotland was attended with grievances which it would be desirable to get rid of, if Government had the means of doing so. But when the hon. Gentleman recommended that the liability should in Scotland be transferred from the community generally to one particular class, he ought to be prepared to show that if such a change took place, the Government would still have the means of accommodating the troops; whereas he (Mr. F. Peel) imagined that it would be found, if any particular class were marked out in Scotland for the liability to have troops billeted on them, that such a class was, in that country, not sufficiently numerous to accommodate the required number of soldiers. He could not, therefore, agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

observed, that petitions against this grievance had been repeatedly presented, and that the complaints of it had been silenced during the war by appeals to the patriotism of the Scotch people; but now the war was over, they were told that the militia was about to be disbanded, and that the nuisance, therefore, would no longer exist. Scotch Members were, therefore, right to press the subject now, although the war was at an end, in order to prevent Scotland, if the war should unfortunately again occur, from being placed in the same unfortunate position in which she was at present. The hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, had urged, also, that the number of the militia billeted in Scotland was only 2,000. The fact was that the militia regiments in Scotland were not up to half their strength, and, consequently, the grievance was only one-half what it might be. The circumstances in which the Act of Union was passed were very different from the present. Scotland was then in a very disturbed state, a great part of the inhabitants of the country being hostile to the existing Government, and therefore it was absolutely necessary at that period for the Government to have power to quarter troops in private houses, so as to have the means of suppressing any riot or insurrection anywhere. But there was no reason why such a system, which was established a hundred and fifty years ago, should continue to exist now. Although, as the hon. Under Secretary stated, the militia would be disembodied at present, it was probable they would be called out for twenty-eight days' training every year, when the families of the humbler class would be subjected to having those men quartered upon them. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh would not withdraw his Motion, unless a distinct pledge were given by the Government to provide barracks in Scotland, when the public finances should admit of it, so that this grievance might no longer be inflicted on the people.

said, he was aware that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had received many memorials on the subject now under consideration, and that the grievance had been strongly represented to him by the Scotch Members, and he therefore had hoped to have heard him both acknowledge the existence of that grievance, and propose the remedy for it. But in the course of a rather long speech the hon. Gentleman had evaded the entire question, and it was not until he came to the close of that speech that he had at all touched upon it. Now, what was complained of was, that there should be one law to regulate billeting in England and Ireland, and another in Scotland. The poorest person in Scotland was liable to have soldiers forced upon him and his family, contrary to all notions of morality, while in England and Ireland no such thing existed. As it seemed that no hope of a remedy for such a state of things was to be expected from the hon. Gentleman, he would turn to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that his appeal would not be in vain, as the grievance complained of was one contrary to the principles of morality and justice. Sheriff Barclay, who had written a digest of the laws of Scotland, expressly laid it down that the present law required alteration, and should not be allowed to exist; and he hoped to hear the Lord Advocate similarly express himself, for it was not only a grievance to private families, but also a grievance to the army itself, which could not well be prepared for war while lodged in private houses, instead of being quartered in barracks and encampments.

regretted that any allusion should have been made to the Treaty of Union of Scotland with England. Since that period two rebellions had occurred in Scotland, but the memory of which the loyalty of the people had subsequently effaced. During, however, such a period it became necessary to adopt a different system in Scotland from that which prevailed in England and Ireland. But at the present time nothing was more obnoxious to the people of Scotland than the billeting system in that country. Although he could not expect the system to be immediately altered, yet he did hope that it would be ultimately changed, and assimilated to that which was pursued in England and Ireland.

said, he was quite aware of the pressure of this grievance on Scotland; but the House should consider how any attempt to remedy it would affect England, and how it would affect the public purse of the United Kingdom. In this country, if barracks were built for the militia, the expense would fall upon the counties; but it would be no such easy matter to provide barracks, so far as the militia were concerned, unless Scotland were prepared to take the matter upon herself. But the grievance, such as it was, was, as the Under Secretary for War had justly stated, at present nearly at an end. There had been a great pressure during the last year, from the sudden emergency which had come upon the country. That emergency had now ceased to exist, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowan) might therefore wait with patience until the Government should come forward and state the general principles on which they designed to maintain the military force in time of peace. The House had voted enormous sums of money during the last year for barracks in England or Ireland, and no account of that expenditure had yet been laid before them, nor any definite plan for the accommodation of the military force. In Ireland, most extensive buildings were being erected on the Curragh, including, as he was informed, two churches; and the same thing was going on at Aldershot. The House should be careful, then, how they encouraged any proposition to incur large expenditure to remedy every little grievance of this kind, until they were informed by the Government, as no doubt they would be as soon as the ratifications of the peace were exchanged, of the principles of the system to be established permanently for lodging the military forces of the country. This very Session, in the anticipation of the war continuing, large sums of money for such purposes had already been voted. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would be in no hurry to give assurances that they would build more barracks in particular situations throughout the country, in order to relieve the inconvenience that might still be felt from billeting soldiers while on their march from one place to another. There could no longer be any necessity for the permanent billeting of the militia, as he supposed it would be soon disembodied and put on the peace establishment. He had thought it necessary to put the House upon its guard with reference to this Motion.

said, that the question which had been brought under the consideration of the House was one of large application, and that it was not only a question of policy, but one involving a consideration of the feelings and of the morality of a large portion of the community. He was quite ready to admit that it was undesirable, both in consideration of the effect on the troops themselves and in reference to the feelings and morality of the public, that the system of billeting should be maintained, or that soldiers should at any time be quartered otherwise than in barracks. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) had just stated, barracks could not be constructed on a scale commensurate with the requirements of the service otherwise than at a great expense. The work would have to be done gradually, and great consideration should be bestowed on the selection of the localities in which such buildings should be erected. There was no denying that it was most essential, with a view to the efficiency of the service both in war and peace, that the barrack accommodation should be considerably extended in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The particular liability to which householders in Scotland were exposed of receiving troops on billet, dated, he believed, from before the Union. At all events it was not a new arrangement. Let the grievance be what it might, it was not a novelty; it was one of long standing, and, as it could only be removed by an alteration in the Mutiny Bill of next year, no good result could follow from pressing the present Motion to a Division. No doubt the operation of the billeting system was felt with peculiar severity in time of war; but, as peace had happily been now concluded, the militia would of course be disembodied, and the number of soldiers, of whatever description, quartered in Scotland, considerably diminished. Nor was he without hope that, as regarded that portion of the troops which would be permanently maintained in that country, some effective means would be devised to quarter them in a manner that would not occasion annoyance to the householders. It would be for the Government to determine how the militia might be disposed of during the twenty-eight days of their training so as to cause the least inconvenience to the householders. It would, perhaps, be advantageous to their discipline that they should be encamped. At all events, there were barracks and forts in Scotland, and it was important to consider whether it might not be possible by means of them to make such arrangements as would materially diminish the inconvenience and annoyance of the billeting system. He would suggest that the question should be left in the hands of the Government, who had an earnest desire to mitigate the grievance to as great an extent as might be consistent with the interests of the public service. It would be the duty of the Government, now that there was a prospect of peace, to consider what change could be made in the matter; and of course, when any arrangement had been determined on, it would be communicated to the House. He did not deny the existence of the grievance—on the contrary, he was sorry to be obliged to admit it. He regretted that the special service of the war had rendered it necessary, but it had been endured with patriotic equanimity by the householders of Scotland. With the reduction of our military establishments it would gradually disappear, and he hoped that means would ere long be discovered to effect its complete abolition.

said, he had expected that some hopes of an alteration of the system would have been held out by the Under Secretary for war. The grievance was one of forty years' standing; and even in Dundee, where there was ample barrack accommodation, and while there was a barrack master whom they paid for doing nothing, the militia were billeted through the town. He thought it was a great and spreading evil, not only disgraceful to the Government, but hurtful to the morals of the people. He hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would take the sense of the House on the question.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) that the English counties did not bear the expense of erecting the barracks required by the militia, and had only to provide barrack stores, a burden which was equally shared by Scotland; Scotland had, in addition, the billeting system in its most odious and intolerable form. He hoped that the hon. Member for Edinburgh would divide the House on his Motion, and show thereby the unanimity of the Scotch Members on this question; for, although the noble Lord had given them some slight hopes of an alteration, yet the language of the War Department was to the contrary, insomuch as the Under Secretary for War had argued that the billeting on private families was no grievance at all, but worked well, thereby leaving the House to infer that it might be advantageously extended to England. He therefore warned the English Members to make common cause with the Scotch Members—if they did not, they might, at no distant day, be united to them in a community of injustice.

said, he was far from denying that the practice of billeting on private families was destructive of the comfort of these families, and he believed it was injurious to the discipline of the troops—nay, more, he would admit that it was prejudicial to public morality and the peace of the neighbourhood; but still it was a totally different matter to say, as this Resolution said, "that it was the duty of Government to take means permanently to abolish the grievance" unless those means were pointed out. It did not appear to him that the House would make much progress in the matter by an abstract Resolution of this kind. They were all agreed that the practice of billeting on private houses was an evil, and the question was, what was the proper remedy. He did not think that an assimilation of the law of Scotland regarding billets to that of England would meet the case. No doubt in England the burden was borne by a class, and that in Scotland the evil was borne by the community in general; but if they removed tins burden from the community to a class they would make it neither just nor sufficient. He thought the class might fairly complain, and he doubted whether in a country like Scotland they would find that the English system would work. If the war had continued, he had every reason to think that by providing, he would not say permanent, but temporary quarters, this evil might, to a certain extent, have been remedied. He believed that accommodation might be found for 3,000 of these men, if unfortunately another war should take place. He thought, therefore, the better course would be to withdraw the present Motion, and rest satisfied with the assurance of the Government, that they were sincerely desirous to make such an adjustment of the billeting system as would prevent real grievance to any class. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would be satisfied with having given expression to their feelings, and that they would now allow the House to go into Committee.

said, he should support the Motion, and hoped the hon. Member would press the House to a division upon it. The grievance to which licensed victuallers in England were subject might be a very oppressive one, but it had this extenuating quality, that they were a class whose occupation it was to receive strangers, and, therefore, it was a wrong that could be measured by pecuniary considerations. and remedied accordingly; whereas morality, comfort, domestic enjoyment were all alike prejudiced by the practice that prevailed in Scotland of billeting soldiers upon private families. These were outrages which no money could compensate.

said, he hoped the House would not be led away by the statements that had been made that, as the pressure of the war had been removed, the grievance complained of was remedied. All admitted that this was a grievance, and, now that the pressure of war had ceased, it was the proper time to turn their attention towards its remedy. He hoped the mover of the Resolution would not be led away by the statements of the Members of the Government, but that he would divide the House on it.

said, that if he had had any doubts before on this question, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War would have removed them, and have induced him to vote for the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had not endeavoured to palliate or excuse the working of that system, which all appeared to condemn, but said that of the two systems, that adopted in England and that followed in Scotland, the latter was to be preferred. All the other Members of the Government had admitted that the Scotch billeting system was injurious to the discipline of the army, and infringed the comfort and happiness of private families, and, had they promised the House that the question should shortly be considered with a view to a remedy, he should have suggested the withdrawal of the Resolution; but as that had not been done, ho hoped the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Resolution would divide the House on it.

said, that believing that the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government justified a hope that this grievance would be practically put an end to, he could not vote for the Motion before the House. He also strongly urged the necessity of providing adequate barrack accommodation, with proper sanitary arrangements, to secure the health of the troops.

said, that this question was one that required serious, and calm, and careful consideration, and he asked the House if they were ready, without any consideration of the question, to pledge themselves to a foregone conclusion? This had been admitted to be a great grievance in Scotland which did not exist in England, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that he would consider it between that time and next Session when the Mutiny Bill came under the consideration of the House, and by an alteration in which alone could the system be abolished. He submitted whether, after the strong expression of opinion that had fallen from the Scotch Members, it would not be better for the House to wait, and give the Government an opportunity of considering the question, and of providing the necessary accommodation for troops, which would involve a large outlay of money; and not support this Resolution, which would prevent the House from going into a Committee of Supply. He thought this should have been brought forward as a substantive Resolution, rather than as an abstract one, which, if adopted, would pledge the House to no particular course.

wished to know the distinct issue on which the division was to be taken. No man in his senses would call for the total abolition of the billeting system; but the peculiar mode in which it was carried out in Scotland undoubtedly required alteration.

said, that the chief object of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) was to pledge the House that the grievance should be remedied. If the noble Lord had given a promise that it would be remedied no division would have been called for; but, unless he gave such an assurance, he recommended the hon. Member for Edinburgh to take the sense of the House on the Resolution. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) was in office, he (Mr. Hastie) had placed notices on the paper to abolish the present grievance; but the right hon. Gentleman said that the business of the Government was not to be stopped by matters of that kind, and so he was put down. He must say a more injudicious speech, or one more calculated to irritate the people of Scotland, than that of the Under Secretary for War, he had never heard. The Government ought to give assurance that this oppressive system should undergo revision.

thought the House would see that this resolved itself, to a great extent, into a question of finance. It had been admitted by all the Members of the Government who had spoken, that the system of billeting in Scotland was inconvenient to the persons upon whom soldiers were billeted, that it interfered with their comforts, and that it was, to some extent, injurious to morality; but the question was, whether the House was prepared to adopt the only means which would suffice to remove the grievance by granting additional Votes in Committee of Supply. No one had suggested any effectual remedy for the grievance without resorting to additional expenditure. The Lord Advocate had expressed his doubts whether, if the law of Scotland with respect to billeting were assimilated to the law of England, adequate accommodation could be provided for troops in the former country. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not able to express a very decided opinion on the subject; but he thought, looking at the number of inns and public houses in Scotland, that there was great doubt whether they would afford sufficient accommodation for troops. If that were the case, the only resource in the event of abandoning the present system of billeting would be to increase the barrack accommodation, or to provide temporary quarters. The subject, therefore, practically resolved itself into a question of finance. The hon. Member for Edinburgh asked the House to pledge itself irrevocably, and without any inquiry, to abolish the grievance; but he trusted, after the explanation which had been given, and after the assurance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the subject should receive full consideration, that hon. Gentlemen would not give their support to the Motion, but would allow the House to go into Committee of Supply.

said, the right hon. Gentleman admitted the existence of a grievance which affected the social happiness and the morality of the people of Scotland, as well as the discipline of the troops; but he looked upon these evils as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, to be put into the scale against a small increase in the public Votes. He thought there would have been much more reason for the jealousy of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the interests of the Exchequer, when the other night large Votes were passed for improving some of the parks of London. It had been said that this was a small grievance, but he denied that it was so; it was a serious and an exceptional grievance, and the duty of the Government was to provide a remedy. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Edinburgh would persevere in pressing his Motion.

explained, that he had not intended to express any opinion against the grant of public money for the removal of this grievance; but what he meant to say was, that as the question resolved itself into one of additional expenditure, it was for the House to consider how far it would go in furnishing the Government with additional funds for the purpose of providing a remedy.

said, he could not agree with the suggestion which had been made by a Member of the Government, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh ought to have brought forward this question in the shape of a substantive Motion. That hon. Member had called attention to a national grievance, and he thought the hon. Gentleman had fairly chosen the opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the House when they were on the point of going into Committee of Supply. If they were still to maintain the principle that the proper time for bringing grievances under the attention of the representatives of the people was when they were about granting supplies, he did not think the practical application of that principle could be better justified than on the present occasion. There seemed to him to be considerable inconsistency in the objections which were urged against this Motion on the part of the Government. The Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey) said this was a mere abstract Resolution and could produce no effect; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them it was far from being merely an abstract Resolution, that it was essentially practical, for that it assumed the shape of a financial vote. He (Mr. Disraeli) could not agree that if this Motion were adopted by the House of Commons it would be a mere abstract Resolution barren of results, for by it the House would counsel the Government to remove the grievance, and would leave it to them to pursue the best course by which such a result could be attained. He, therefore, felt persuaded that if the House adopted the Resolution it would not be barren of results, and he confessed that he did not see that there was much chance that the grievance would be remedied unless the House expressed an opinion on the subject. If the Resolution went so far as to say that an end should be put to billeting, he would not support it; but he could not ascribe to it the sense which had been attached to it by some of its opponents. It appeared to him that the representatives of Scotland had brought under the notice of the House what was in fact a serious grievance affecting the people of that country. They had the voluntary admission of the Minister who was peculiarly connected with the administration of the affairs of Scotland (the Lord Advocate) that the existing system was injurious to the discipline of the troops and interfered materially with the comfort of private families, and all the House was asked to do was to adopt a Resolution declaring that it was the duty of the Government to adopt means for remedying the evil. If he had entertained any doubt as to the course he ought, as an English Member, to take on this subject, the observations of the Under Secretary for War would have led him to the conclusion that it was advisable the House should come to a vote upon the question. He could not agree with the reasoning of that hon. Gentleman who made no distinction between billeting upon private families and upon innkeepers. The hon. Gentleman treated innkeepers as a particular class, and said that according to abstract principles of reasoning the system of billeting in England ought to be extended to every other class. But he (Mr. Disraeli) had always understood that the principle upon which billeting was confined in this country to a particular class—keepers of taverns and inns—was a very clear one, substantiating the justice and propriety of this Resolution. The principle was this, that by billeting soldiers upon tavern-keepers the sanctity of private homes was not violated, no social outrage was committed, and respect was paid to those feelings which were specially reverenced in England. Therefore the argument of the Under Secretary for War was not only fallacious but pregnant with dangerous consequences to this country. The grievance being complained of by all the representatives of Scotland, and acknowledged by the Government, in terms almost as strong as those of the Resolution itself, he did not see how the House could take any other course than to give its assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. That Resolution, if adopted, would not interfere with the barrack accommodation of our soldiers, nor did it pronounce any opinion as to whether the system of billeting should or should not be altogether and at once abolished—it did not pledge the Executive to anything but that which it was its duty to do—namely, to devise some remedy for the grievance; but which called upon the House, in a manner not to be mistaken, to express its opinion that the people of Scotland should be relieved of the burden imposed upon them by the existing system of billeting.

thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mistaken the tendency of the argument which had been used by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. His right hon. Friend had not stated that the hon. Member for Edinburgh had not a perfect right to move his Amendment; but he had observed, that the hon. Member, in asserting the existence of a grievance, had proposed no remedy; and that his Resolution ought to have been brought forward in the shape of a substantive Motion, when the House would be enabled to deal more effectively with the subject to which it related. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked, that if the House were to adopt the Resolution they would thereby have pledged themselves to no particular measure; but in his opinion they would, in taking that course, be binding themselves to the abolition of the grievance complained of—or, in other words, to the abolition of the system of billeting in Scotland. Nor had the right hon. Gentleman dealt quite fairly with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman said that the system was essentially different from the system which prevailed in England. Granted. But what his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War wished to show was that billeting was regarded as a grievance south as well as north of the Tweed; and he (Mr. V. Smith) might add, in corroboration of the justice of that view, that petitions had been presented over and over again from tavern-keepers in England against the system as established in this country. If, therefore, they were to put an end to billeting in Scotland, he did not see how they could avoid taking, with reference to England, a similar course. The House, in fact, in voting for the Amendment, would be recording it as their opinion that the English system should be put an end to [" No, no!"]. Yes; that would be the practical effect of the concluding words of the Resolution; and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been severely attacked for stating that it resolved itself into a question of finance, if they agreed to those words they would be obliged to consider the question as to whether it would not be absolutely necessary to build barracks all over the kingdom. The existence of a. grievance, so far as Scotland was concerned, being admitted by the Government and the noble Lord at the head of it having stated his intention to consider how it might best be remedied, he hoped hon. Members would not prevent the House from going into Committee of Supply, and thus proceeding with the public business. He trusted that the English and Irish Members at all events—though the Scotch representatives might be banded together for a particular purpose—would not, by voting for the Resolution, pledge themselves to a course which they might afterwards regret.

said, that what had really prevented the House from going into Committee of Supply was the speech of the Under Secretary for War. Scotch Members were really very quiet people, and he (Mr. Elliot) considered himself the most quiet of them all; but even his cold blood had been moved by the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the Motion. The people of Scotland had complained of this grievance over and over again; and the hon. Gentleman, instead of treating their representations with the consideration they were entitled to expect, had met them with something very like contempt. Now Scotchmen did not like to be treated with contempt; and they would rise as one man against such a mode of disposing of questions in which they took an interest. He (Mr. Elliot) was generally a good supporter of the Government; but he must on this occasion vote against them—he was very sorry for them, but he really could not help himself. It was not that the people of Scotland wished to do away with billeting—they would not object to its being continued even on its present footing, in the case of a regiment marching through a town, or wishing to stay there for a few days; but what they did object to was, the system of permanently billeting soldiers upon them, and they would not rest until this grievance was redressed.

, referring to the observations which had fallen from the right hon. President of the Board of Control, said he could not see the justice of opposing the redress of a grievance admitted to exist in Scotland, upon the ground that it would be necessary to extend the remedy to a similar grievance prevailing in England.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood, and had therefore misrepresented the remarks that had fallen from him at an earlier period of the evening. What he stated was, that he admitted the existence of a grievance in Scotland in connection with the liability of private families to have soldiers quartered upon them, while in England that liability was confined to the keepers of taverns. He had proceeded to state that that state of things could not be altered until the Mutiny Act came under consideration next year; and that if the liability complained of were dispensed with it would become the duty of the Government to take into consideration the means necessary to be adopted in providing for the accommodation of soldiers under new circumstances. He was not aware that any objection existed to the assimilation of the English and Scotch law upon the subject of billeting, and in the mean time, he was perfectly ready upon the part of the Government to consider favourably any measures which might have the effect of relieving the Scotch householders from a grievance of which they very naturally complained.

suggested that advantage should be taken of the existing barracks in Scotland to the full extent of their capabilities. It had been stated that some of them were comparatively empty.

said, that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would pledge himself to assimilate the law of Scotland to that of England, he would advise the hon. Member for Edinburgh to withdraw his Motion.

As at present advised I see no reason to object to such assimilation; and unless there should be some objection to it with which I am not now acquainted, I should be prepared to propose the assimilation of the law of the two countries in this respect.

I understand, Sir, that it would not be at variance with precedent that I should now move, notwithstanding that the Amendment has been carried—that this House should immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply. I therefore beg to make a Motion to that effect.

I do not rise to oppose the Motion; and I am glad to find that the public business is now likely to proceed. But I am totally at a loss, I confess, how to account for the reiterated expressions of Her Majesty's Ministers to the effect that if this House were to arrive at a very just and a very politic conclusion, we should thereby be precluded from going into a Committee of Supply, and I congratulate the House upon the discovery that, having done an act of great justice, we are not incapacitated thereby from dealing with the business of the country. I must express my regret, however, that they who are responsible for the conduct of public business, and for guiding the proceedings of this House, should have been so profoundly ignorant of their position—for they cannot have condescended to misrepresentation—or should, at all events, have shown so little foresight in this matter as they certainly have displayed; and I trust that this night will be memorable, not only as having witnessed the defeat of the Government in their opposition to a wise and just Resolution, but as having enabled us to arrive at an accurate result with respect to the mode of conducting the business of the nation—satisfactory to the House, and highly satisfactory, no doubt, to Her Majesty's Ministers.

assured the House that the Members of the Government were fully under the impression—which he believed was shared by many Members opposite—that the rules of the House were such that, when an Amendment to the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply was carried, the Motion itself was lost, and that it was not competent to proceed with the Committee the same night. However, during the division, by the diligence of the Clerk at the Table, a discovery was made very opportunely that a precedent did exist which would enable the Government to proceed with the Motion for the Committee of Supply. He trusted, therefore, that the Motion now made by Her Majesty's Government for going into a Committee of Supply would not be opposed, and that it would not be for a moment supposed that the Government had resorted to the unworthy and dishonourable course of inducing the House to suppose that they could not go into a Committee of Supply if the Motion on a division should be lost, while at the same time they knew there existed a precedent which would enable them to do so.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that, during the division, a precedent had been found to exist for the course now taken by the Government. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had not the slightest objection to that course, but it would be a satisfaction to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state what the precedent was.

said, that the precedent occurred on the 8th of April, 1850, on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply. An Amendment was moved by Captain Boldero on the subject of assistant-surgeons in the navy, when, on a division being called for, the Question was put that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. The House divided, when the numbers were—Ayes, 40; Noes, 48. The Question, "That the proposed words be added" was put and agreed to; the main Question, as amended, was put and agreed to; and the Question being then put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair," that Motion was agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

There is nothing in the Amendment to negative the Motion for the House going into a Committee of Supply.

did not for a single moment question the propriety of the decision given by the Speaker, but he had asked the question for the satisfaction of those who had not a perfect knowledge of the practice of the House.

took occasion to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the examiner in the Celtic languages, embracing as those languages did the ancient Irish, was allowed a salary of only £12 a year. The circumstance was the more remarkable when it was taken into account that the examiners in the more modern languages in the Queen's University received a salary of £100 per annum. If the forms of the House permitted he should move that the salary of the first mentioned examiner be raised to that sum.

lamented the expenditure of a very large sum of money upon the university in question with results so inconsiderable. He found that in that establishment there were twenty-two examiners, and that they had only forty-two persons to examine. He also perceived that £325 were laid out annually in the shape of exhibitions given to the pupils; that fifteen gold medals were yearly supplied; and he was sorry to say that the inducements thus held out were productive of no important consequences so far as the number of students was concerned. He might, for the consolation of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, observe, that although the examiner in Greek at the Queen's University was paid, in the shape of salary, £100 per annum, an examiner holding a precisely similar position in the University of Edinburgh received only £30.

said, he wished to state in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) who had complained that the examiner in the Celtic language was considerably underpaid, that the Government did not arrange the amount of salary to the examiners. A certain sum was given to the University, and the senate (which was composed almost exclusively of Irishmen) apportioned the salaries according to the work the examiners had to do; and the labour imposed upon this examiner, in their opinion, did not require a larger salary than had been apportioned to him. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) complained that during the last year there were twenty-two examiners for forty-two persons to be examined, and contended that the examiners were overpaid; but he would sec, by reference to the Estimates, that the examiners at the London University were paid more highly. They received on an average upwards of £100 a year, while the examiners in the Queen's University in Ireland received only about £70. With reference to the circumstance of there being only forty-two persons examined, it should be recollected that these colleges had been in existence only for a limited period and had not attained the dimensions which it might reasonably be supposed the institution would hereafter reach; moreover, the opposition which had been offered to the opening of them had prevented in some degree the youth of Ireland from flocking to them. He had further to observe that the number of students to be examined had been unusually small last year in consequence of a new and higher standard of examination having been adopted in the preceding year. In that year more than one-third of the students for examination were "plucked;" but in the present year, although the number was much smaller, there was not a single student who presented himself for examination but passed.

was still of opinion, notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that there could not be a stronger indication of the real indisposition of the Government to promote education in Ireland than the grant of this trifling salary to the Professor of the native language of the country.

said, that no fair comparison could be drawn, in respect merely to the salary given, between the London examiners and the Irish examiners, as the labour of the former was considerably greater.

said, the observations of the hon. Member, however applicable to the Regium Donum, had no sort of reference to the Vote before the House. That Vote was for the Theological Professors of Belfast, who were all Presbyterians. A similar grant was made for the Scotch Universities. He denied that the money was given by Englishmen; Ireland paid the same taxes now as England, and it was but just that they should participate in its advantages. He claimed this Vote as a right. There was no begging in the case. The Professors of Belfast were most able find deserving men, and had done much for the promotion of education.

said, that if the people of Ireland paid their share of this tax, the Roman Catholics, of Ireland—three-fourths of the population—were most unjustly taxed for the support of these Protestant Professors; for the Irish Protestants, the very men who sought this money from the State, violently objected to the grant to the College of Maynooth, on the ground that people ought not to be taxed for the maintenance of a religion of which they disapproved. He denied that six Professors were required at Belfast; three would be ample, and even one would be sufficient. In the Lancashire Independent College one Professor performed the duty of three of the Professors of this college at Belfast, and was, he ventured to say, a superior man to any of the three. If he turned to the time these Professors devoted to their labours, he found that Dr. Killen was occupied five hours in the week for six months in the year. Dr. Edgar made no return. Dr. Wilson was occupied five hours in the week, Dr. Murphy six hours, Dr. Gibson five hours, and Dr. Cooke thirteen hours as tutor, and two as dean. Let it not he supposed that these Professors were giving a free education to the students, for they charged heavy fees. One Professor received in fees £42 10s., another £71, another £52, and another £65. Dr. Cooke, in addition to his other allowances, received £320 as distributor of the charity—for doing that which any banker's clerk would do for the usual banker's commission. Dr. Cooke received £250 as a Professor, £40 in fees from students, and £320 as distributor of the fund, in addition to which he preached to a large congregation in a handsome chapel, so that his income probably amounted in all to £1,000 a year. There was the less reason for continuing the grant as the body in whose favour it was made was perhaps the richest body of Dissenters in the empire. During the last year they had raised upwards of £30,000 for manses for their ministers, and they had raised £10,000 for their missions. Let them be just before they were generous. Let them take their hands out of the public Exchequer. For his part, he was ashamed to see any body of Dissenters coming to that House with such a demand; no single body of Dissenters in this country condescended to do so; and he found that in Ireland itself there were other denominations whose members refused to imitate their example. It appeared that a portion of the money was given to the Unitarians. Now, he admitted that if such grants were to be made in favour of the members of one creed, it was only fair that they should be extended to the members of every other; and Unitarians were, therefore, as much entitled to them as Trinitarians; but it was a serious consideration for that House; how far it was consistent on their part with reason and common sense to grant a sum of money for the teaching of doctrines of the most solemn and of eternal importance held by a particular sect, and another Sum for the teaching of the doctrines of another sect who regarded the tenets of those who thus shared with them the public money as impious and idolatrous. He intended to test the feeling of the Committee on this question, whether they would make a grant to the teachers of one set of doctrines, and to those also who utterly denied their truth. He held in his hand a paper of great ability by a Presbyterian in Scotland, containing sentiments of reproach, shame, obloquy, and grief at the conduct of those accepting this grant. The excellent gentleman referred to stated that it would not do to plead the poverty of Ireland in justification of the grant, because the north of Ireland was not a poor district, possessing, as it did, many thriving factories; in no way could they account for the little progress of Presbyterianism there other than by their acceptance of the base bribes which effectually closed their months against Maynooth. He believed, in truth, that this grant had a most pernicious effect upon the people of Ireland, because it prevented the promulgation of divine truth and moral culture to a very considerable extent. He proposed that a retiring compensation or allowance should be made to these Professors, for he was sure that if all grants of this kind were discontinued, the whole amount would be made up next year by voluntary subscriptions. Ministers had not a fair chance, all voluntary generosity being put an end to, and they had nothing to look to but Parliamentary grants doled out in this way, always much opposed, and the acceptance of which raised a blush of shame on the cheeks of the recipients. Were they prepared to vote salaries to Professors of Calvinistic doctrines, and in the next Vote would they sanction a grant for Professors of Unitarian doctrines, which were diametrically opposite? The Roman Catholics of Ireland were closely watching them, and if there was any circumstance which begot in this land a distate for the very name of religion it was the doling out of these annual grants. It was a scandal and a reproach to the country to continue the system. The liberty of conscience consisted in absolute religions liberty to all men; therefore all ought to be treated equally, and by doing away with such grants as this the House would get rid of the anomaly of supporting conflicting systems of religion to the scandal of the nation. Could anything, indeed, he more calculated to destroy religion and to encourage scepticism than this mode of supporting religion? He intended, after the Committee had voted on the present Motion, to take the sense of the Committee on the next Vote also.

said, the speech of the hon. Member was a tissue of contradictions, and confessed his inability to reconcile its antagonistic principles. Which part of his address did the hon. Gentleman desire to hear answered—that in which he bewailed the tendency of State grants to paralyse voluntary efforts, or that in which he described as something little less than marvellous the spontaneous exertions of the Presbyterian recipients of such bounties? The case of the Belfast Professors was short and simple. When the Queen's Colleges were established in Ireland, the grant, until then enjoyed by the old Presbyterian foundation, known as the Academical Institution, was withdrawn; but the General Assembly were induced to found a theological seminary at Belfast by the promise made to them by the Government of the day, that, in the event of their doing so, the salaries of the Professors should be provided by a Vote of Parliament. Such in a single sentence was the claim of the Belfast Professors, and it was irresistible. No charge of incompetence or negligence had been proved against those gentlemen. It had been objected, indeed, that they did not give more than one hour a day to the duties of their respective professorships; but that was the time usually devoted to any particular branch of learning in all educational establishments, and neither did the students require, nor could eminent Professors afford, a longer period. Nor was the system that prevailed at Belfast extravagant either as regarded the number of Professors or the salaries awarded to them. There were more Professors in the college of Glasgow than in that of Belfast, and whereas the average expense to each student in the former institution was £26 a year, it was £70 in the latter. Session after Session, when this Vote was under discussion, it had been customary to single out Dr. Cooke as a remarkable instance of an overpaid Professor. Nothing could be more untrue than such a representation. Dr. Cooke, a man eminent for ability and attainments as any in the empire, had been in receipt from his church of an annual income of £400 a year. Not only did he give it up for a professorship worth £250 per annum, but with rare zeal, and disinterestedness almost unexampled, he continued to perform the ministrations of his church without salary. Unmindful of his own inconsistency, so flagrantly exemplified by his speech, the hon. Member could not brook the idea that Parliament should endow antagonistic doctrines. Yet here, too, he had shown how superficial was the attention he had paid to this subject; for, in point of fact, there was here no strife of creeds, each of the six Professors being an orthodox Presbyterian. With regard, however, to the portion of the grant designed for Unitarians, the hon. Member would have acted more frankly if he had had the courage to object to the Vote on the ground that he was opposed to the endowment of what he regarded as error. But he had not done so. He resisted it simply on the plea that it was "unnecessary and extravagant." It was to be hoped that the Committee would not be misled by arguments so false and unsubstantial, but would continue their support to an institution in every respect worthy of it. If the ground of opposition taken by the hon. Gentleman was that some part of these grants went to the support of doctrines that he regarded as infidel, the hon. Gentleman should have moved the rejection of the grants altogether, and not their diminution.

said, that he would withdraw his Motion, and propose instead that the Vote be reduced by £600, leaving £900 as a compensation or pension to the Professors.

said, it was not the practice of the Committee to vote retiring allowances to persons until they actually retired, and in this case the Professors had no wish to do so.

expessed his determination to support the Amendment. A great deal of irrelevant matter had been imported into that discussion. Properly speaking it had nothing whatever to do with the amount of the emoluments received by Dr. Cooke and the other Professors; the real question at issue being, whether or not it was consistent with the policy which Parliament should pursue to set up a quasi establishment of Scotch Presbyterianism in Ireland? There were two reasons that might induce a Legislature to endow a particular form of religion. The first was, a conviction on the part of the State that the creed in question was true, and ought to be supported at the expense of all other denominations; and the second, that the great majority of the population belonged to its communion. Presbyterianism in Ireland, however, was wanting in either of these characteristics—it was neither the national religion, nor was it the religion of the majority of the people of Ireland. A parallel had been drawn between this Vote and the endowment of the Scottish Universities. Yet there was no analogy between them. Presbyterianism was the established religion of Scotland, and was therefore entitled to grants from those who approved of State patronage for religion; but in Ireland that form of faith was not the creed of the bulk of the population, but an alien creed and a foreign mission. No public benefit accrued from such payments at all counterbalancing the ill feeling they engendered, Presbyterianism being fully as obnoxious to the people of Ireland as Protestant episcopacy, without having an equal claim to their veneration and respect. How, therefore, the members of that unpopular persuasion could come to that House and demand, as a right, an annual grant for its theological Professors, it was impossible to understand. The question was not whether their tenets were right or wrong, but whether a small minority should be allowed to tax the majority for the support of a Church the principles of which were wholly repugnant to them. It was, like all other grants of the same kind, an attempt to support the doctrines of a few by the money of the many—the religion of a sect by the money of a nation. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and those who concurred with him in his opposition to the endowment of Maynooth, ought, in consistency, to resist this Vote for Belfast College, an institution which—excepting that it received far less countenance from the people of Ireland—might fairly be regarded as "the Maynooth of Presbyterianism"

said, he did not want to be instructed in his duty by the hon. Member for Oldham. He should support the vote for Belfast College, because it taught sound doctrine. His opposition to Maynooth was based on the fact that that institution inculcated principles, in his opinion, not only erroneous and dangerous in themselves, but which the Sovereign of England was bound to condemn as such, and which, moreover, the Articles of the Established Church declared to be "idolatrous fables and dangerous deceits."

said, that the present proposition was a grant to the College of Belfast. Now, Presbyterianism was the predominant faith in the north of Ireland; so then, on his own showing, the hon. Member for Oldham ought to vote for it. He appealed to the Irish Members whether a great reason of the prosperity of that part of Ireland was not due to the introduction of that religion into the country? Taking it, therefore, on the narrow principle of supporting the religion of the locality, he thought the House would be perfectly justified in granting the Vote.

thought that a vote of this description could not be fairly objected to as long as the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth was maintained from the funds of the State. As to the item of £300 for the Unitarian Professors of the Non-Subscribing Association, when the hon. Member for Sheffield moved the disallowance of that sum he should have his (Mr. Mowbray's) vote in his favour.

said, he did not think the House was suited to judge of who were orthodox and who were not. They were assembled for a very different purpose than to decide which religion was right and which was wrong. He thought it would be much better if less time were taken up in discussing theological questions. It was well known that the majority of the population of Ireland were Roman Catholics; if, therefore, any religion was to be made the established religion, it should be that which had the largest number of believers. He found in the Estimate for Theological Professors at Belfast a Vote of £325 for six and a half years' mistakes in the retired allowance of Mr. Young, one of the professors. He thought it strange that Mr. Young hod not discovered the mistake until after the lapse of so many years, and he moved the disallowance of the item.

said, the hon. Member, in wishing to strike off the sum of £325 from the grant for retiring allowances, did not apper to be aware of the circumstances of the case. Prior to 1850 each Professor had a salary of £350 a year, bssides receiving various sums from their Pupils. It was then proposed by the Irish Government that the four Professors should have a retiring allowance of £150 a year; losing also the fees from the students. When the Treasury considered the matter first, they consented to the first three Professors having the retired allowance; but they suggested that Mr. Young might be appointed a Professor in Queen's College. The Irish Government replied that the appointments were all filled up, and suggested that Mr. Young should be treated in the same manner as the others, and be allowed to retire on the same allowance. In drawing up the minute giving Mr. Young his allowance, he was sorry to say, there had been a mistake, making his allowance £100 instead of £150. On receiving a memorial on the subject—not the first, he was sorry to say—he had been compelled to confess there had been an error. The object of the present grant was to repair that error.

wished to know if he could move to reduce the Vote by a prior item for the salaries of two Unitarian Professors?

said, he could not do so on this occasion.

then gave notice that he should do so after the present Amendment was disposed of. This was a Christian country, and should not give any aid in the propagation of anti Christian doctrines. The Unitarians, denying the Divinity of our Lord, could not be considered as holding the Christian religion. He entertained, therefore, an insuperable objection to this item in the Estimate, and he should certainly move to strike it out.

then moved the Amendment which he had just mentioned, for the reasons he had stated. The Amendment was to strike out the sum of £300, the salaries of two Unitarian Professors.

supported the Amendment, although for a reason irrespective of the religious opinions of the Professors. He objected on principle to religious endowments or allowances from the State. These two Professors had, it appeared, only three pupils between them. One of the divines had £150 a year for the professorship, and £230 for distributing the Regium Donum among forty of his brethren. Besides that, the rev. divine had £95 from the Regium Donum, and £130 from his congregation. The other of these Professors was similarly provided for.

, though not approving of the opinions of those professors, thought that it would be great injustice to deprive them of the remuneration which the Committee had just voted for others.

had no quarrel with the sum itself, nor any dispute with the theological opinions taught in the College; but he did not think it was within the province of the House, consisting of Gentlemen who represented all denominations, to vote public money for the propagation of any religious doctrines whatever. Besides, the Presbyterians of Ulster were a very wealthy body, and quite as able to maintain their own college as the Free Kirk of Scotland or the various Dissenting sects of England. He therefore moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £250, proposed to be paid for incidental expenses of the General Assembly College at Belfast.

said that this sum of £250 was not a new charge. It had formerly been voted for a professorship which had fallen vacant, and it was now thought desirable to apply the money to the incidental expenses of the College.

supported the vote. The hon. Member's statement was quite erroneous. A far larger sum had been voted to the Queen's Colleges, and a large sum for a botanical institution.

complained that the trustees of the British Museum had not placed before the public a comparative statement of the sums which had been received on the score of improvements. The managers of the National Gallery made such a statement. He did not doubt that the money had been properly appropriated, but should like to see the details. In 1854 there had been a grant of £100,000 for building purposes, and in 1855, £27,000. He highly approved of such institutions as the British Museum, and was glad to see that considerable improvements were making for the accommodation of the public. There was one matter, however, which he had to find fault with, and that was the number of days in the week that the Museum was closed to the public. He thought the public ought not to be excluded from daily admission, on any plea connected with the convenience of the pupils who studied in the Museum.

said, this subject would be more fittingly discussed on the main Estimate for the British Museum, which would very shortly be moved by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, on behalf of the trustees.

thought an arrangement might be made by which some part, though not the whole, of the Museum might be open to the public on every day in the week.

thought that, considering the immense sums which had been spent on this institution, greater facilities ought to be given to the public for visiting it.

said, that while seconding the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman he should feel himself compelled, in many respects, to express different opinions from him. In common with the hon. Gentleman, he felt that the Committee ought to be satisfied why they should be called upon to pay £650 for travelling expenses. Having taken a very active part on the Committee appointed to confer on the management of the National Gallery, he certainly had been surprised to find that a secretary had been appointed at a salary of £750 a year, in addition to a director at £1,000 a year and a travelling agent at £300 a year, exclusive of travelling expenses. He was at a loss to understand what was the object for appointing a "Secretary and Keeper." He certainly considered the appointment, to wear something of the appearance of a job. The only duty he would have to perform, not of a merely mechanical nature, was simply that of drawing up a Catalogue Raisonnée; and it certainly was the opinion and intention of the Committee, in proposing a liberal and fixed salary to the director that he should be willing himself to undertake any duties of this description. He was against the employment of a traveling agent, as he believed that pictures might be purchased in a better manner. He thought there were plenty of persons in the various towns abroad who, from their local knowledge, would be able to procure good pictures; and though, of course, these persons would charge a sufficient percentage for their trouble, which would raise the nominal price of each acquisition, he was convinced that this would prove at least an equally efficient, and a much more economical system than to employ an agent at a salary, with large travelling expenses. He felt bound, by a sense of duty, to make these remarks. He was in a position different from that of the hon. Gentleman, for he had the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of Sir Charles Eastlake, therefore he had no wish to say anything that could be annoying or personally offensive to him. But it was impossible, after having beard the evidence of Sir Charles Eastlake himself, that he (Mr. H. Vernon) could feel altogether satisfied by the appointment of that gentleman as the director of our National Gallery. At the same time, it was fair to state that it would be difficult to point out any other person who possessed better qualifications. In Sir Charles Eastlake the Government had found a gentleman, and a man above all sordid considerations; he was possessed of a very refined taste and of considerable pictorial knowledge. Whether in all respects be had displayed a sound judgment was a matter he would not then enter upon. In some remarks on the subject of the spurious "Holbein," Sir Charles Eastlake himself candidly acknowledged that he had not an accurate and critical knowledge of other schools of art than the Italian. And here be (Mr. Vernon) might be permitted to take notice of a curious statement that bad been made to the Committee. Sir Charles Eastlake informed the Committee, that a well known artist, Mr. Lance, could give some information with respect to the restoration of the "Boar Hunt" of Velasquez, which, is now in the National Gallery. The artist was summoned before the Committee, and he then stated that many years ago, when the picture was in Lord Cowley's possession, it had been placed in the hands of a picture restorer (Mr. Thane); that in the process of lining the picture, a piece of the painting had flaked off; that he (Mr. Lance) had been employed to restore the picture, and that in the damaged portion of it he had painted in, out of his own imagination, a whole group of figures and animals occupying a space as large as a sheet of foolscap paper! He (Mr. Vernon) was so astonished at this statement, that he went, the next day, with the artist, and requested him to point out the exact spot of the restoration in question. Mr. Lance, after a careful examination of the picture, declared that every figure in it was evidently the work of Velasquez's own hand, that he must have been quite mistaken as to the amount of the repairs which he had executed, and that the only work of his own, in the place in question, which he could trace, was part of the back of one mule and the head of another. Another strange statement made by the same artist was, that he had been employed on a picture by Rembrandt, which had been equally damaged, under Mr. Thane's direction, and that he had painted in the gap a black man out of his own imagination. The picture was said to have belonged to his (Mr. Vernon's) grandfather, the late Archbishop of York, and his uncle the Member for Oxfordshire was stated, by Mr. Lance, to have highly approved of the restoration. Now, though it is true, that some of the Nuneham pictures were placed in Mr. Thane's hands, no such picture as that referred to existed in the collection—nor was there a "black man" in any one of the pictures. Moreover, his hon. Relative entirely denied that he ever said anything of the sort attributed to him. Nevertheless he believed that the gentleman stated what he believed to be true; and he merely mentioned the circumstance to show how inaccurate some statements in reference to matters of fact were. He had seen the story in the newspapers, but he had not taken notice of it before, as he was not in the habit of writing to newspapers. With respect to Mr. Mündler, he had been very much startled to hear the story about the Correggio. He had seen Mr. Mündler in some of the towns of Italy, and that gentleman appeared to be an extremely painstaking and laborious person, and he had heard his opinion with reference to pictures very favourably spoken of by competent persons. He also—though his opinion might be worth very little—was favourably impressed with what he saw of Mr. Mündler. He could not help lamenting that the director should have gone abroad in company with Mr. Mündler for a considerable time, for he did not think that that was the most likely way to buy pictures cheaply. A travelling agent, if there wore to be one, should keep himself as quiet as possible. In his opinion, Sir Charles Eastlake, if allowed a fair trial, would prove himself more worthy of public confidence than the recent unfortunate purchase, which had justly caused so much sensation, might have made him appear to be. Having said thus much in justice to Mr. Mündler and Sir Charles Eastlake, he must express his opinion that this sum for travelling expenses was a most wasteful expenditure of money, and he trusted that some explanation would be given of the precise nature of the duties of Mr. Wornum, who received £750 a year in his capacity of secretary or keeper. With these observations, and considering that the expenses of the staff of the National Gallery were larger than he thought necessary at present, and that they went beyond the recommendations of the Committee, he should support the Motion of the Member for Stafford.

concurred in everything that had fallen from his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He was inclined, however, to go still further, and to declare that £1,000 a year was too much for the duties devolving upon the director. The principal part of that officer's duty would be advising the Government regarding the purchase of pictures. Now, Sir C. Eastlake was President of the Royal Academy, who enjoyed apartments in a public building, and other privileges, and he really thought that that body should consider it an honour to be consulted about the purchase of pictures, and to give their services to the State gratuitously. Probably there might be twelve pictures purchased in the course of a year, and Sir Charles Eastlake would have to give an opinion as to the value of each of them. Let him remind the House that the First Commissioner for the Consolidation of the Statutes was paid £1,000 a year, while each of the sub-commissioners, upon whom the greater portion of the labour was cast, received only £600 a year. Now, he wanted to know whether the duties which Sir Charles Eastlake had to perform could be considered to bear any comparison with the arduous duties of the Statute law Commissioners? There ought to be a juster proportion established between salaries and the duties performed for them. With reference to the Paolo Veronese purchased by Sir Charles Eastlake, he was assured upon the best testimony, that some time ago the picture was offered for sale for £50. Nevertheless for that picture the country had paid £1,975, though in the condition in which it now is £50 represented its proper value. A director at £1,000 a year, a secretary at £750, and a travelling agent at £300, besides his expenses, was a costly establishment. He was very much opposed to the plan of a travelling agent. Being well acquainted with Italy, he knew the sensation that would be caused in an Italian town among the artists by the arrival of an agent of the English Government amongst them. Such an event would raise the price of every picture in the town 100 per cent. We had diplomatists all over Europe, and he could not help thinking that they might find trustworthy persons in the cities in which they lived to give opinions and information about pictures. He was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend had not proposed a reduction in the salaries of the officers, for he thought that £500 a year would be an ample allowance for the director.

said, he could not concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the statement that £1,000 a year for the director was too large a salary. The Committee of 1853, of which he was a Member, were unanimously of opinion that the principal officer of the National Gallery had been up to that time underpaid; and as they felt that where there was not sufficient pay there was seldom good work, they came to the conclusion that, if a well-educated and superior man could be obtained as director to devote his whole time and professional talents to the management of the Gallery, he would be worth a salary of £1,000. But, strange to say, the Treasury had greatly exceeded the wishes and expectations of the Committee, for they had not only granted the salary of £1,000 to the director, but they had also appointed a secretary with a salary of nearly £800. Now there was not even any motion made in the Committee for the appointment of any secretary with a salary at all. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury had likewise appointed a travelling agent with a salary of £300 a year, and permission to draw for travelling expenses to an unlimited amount. Now the question of appointing a travelling agent had never been even mooted before the Committee; and to him (Lord Elcho) it did appear that those two appointments were superfluous and unnecessary. He had, indeed, expressed his opinion that £1,000 a year was not more than a, sufficient salary for the director, and that there was abundant for the director to do. But every gentleman was well aware that there was a period of the year in which, so far as regarded the purchase of pictures, there was nothing to be done in England. The time when the sales of pictures took place at the auction-rooms of Messrs. Christie and other well-known auctioneers was during the London season, in the summer; but there was nothing of that kind to be done in the winter, and that should have been the time for the director to be his own travelling agent, and to go abroad, and to do himself what he appeared to have done this winter with the assistance of this Mr. Mündler. He was now obliged, unwillingly, to allude to the personal part of this question. He had the pleasure of Sir Charles Eastlake's acquaintance, and he knew that he was possessed of most estimable and amiable qualities and of high literary abilities, and was a thorough gentleman. But it was his duty to the public to state that he thought the Government, in giving to Sir Charles the appointment he now held, had been guilty of a mistake. For many years Sir Charles, as Keeper of the National Gallery, at a salary of £200 a year, had exercised control over the purchase of pictures. He retired from that office in consequence of the purchase of the Holbein, to which reference had been made; but soon afterwards he became President of the Royal Academy, and, ex officio, a trustee of the National Gallery; and he continued to act as a trustee until he was appointed director. For the last ten years he had exercised a great influence over the management of the National Gallery, and virtually it was he, and not the trustees, who were responsible for what had been done. Now there could be no doubt that the appointment of the Committee had taken place in consequence of the general mismanagement which had taken place during that period, with regard not only to the keeping, but also to the purchase of pictures. It was clearly proved before the Committee that, whereas some beautiful specimens of Italian art might have been obtained for comparatively small sums, very large sums had been expended upon pictures of an inferior kind. Sir Charles himself admitted that the concerns of the National Gallery had been mismanaged, and that mistakes had been made in the purchase of pictures which ought not to have been made by the person who should be at the head of the National Gallery. About this time last year he put a question to the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the Treasury Minute appointing Sir Charles Eastlake, and establishing a new Constitution for the institution, as he wished it to be laid on the table before the Estimates wore voted; but months passed away, and it was not delivered until most hon. Members had left town—he received it at a German watering-place—and there was no opportunity of discussing it. The new constitution, although it gave the director more influence than he before possessed, also enabled the trustees, if they chose, to make themselves disagreeable, and to interfere with and hamper him; and thus did not get rid of the evil of the old constitution—divided responsibility. The director alone should have been made responsible if anything went wrong in the management as to the cleaning, the hanging, or the purchasing of pictures, and the trustees should have been merely a visiting and inspecting body. He would, in conclusion, offer a suggestion with regard to the purchase of pictures. It was, that purchases to a small amount should annually be made at foreign exhibitions, in order that English artists might instruct themselves in the schools of other countries without being put to the expense of travelling.

said, that by the Minute of the 27th of March, 1855, to which the noble Lord had referred, Sir Charles Eastlake, as director, was made solely responsible for every act done in the management of the National Gallery, though he might still confer with the trustees; yet it was difficult by any minute, doubtless, to define the duties of the person who was to be thus solely responsible. With regard to the Motion to reduce this Vote by the amount of the travelling expenses, he would say that, although Sir Charles Eastlake did travel last year, it was no part of his duty to travel, and that he could not incur any travelling expenses without the express consent of the trustees, and an application to the Treasury for that purpose. If this amount of £622 were now granted by the House, it was not therefore certain that it would be expended; but the functions of the travelling agent who had been appointed would be at an end if the House did not furnish the travelling expenses. It had been considered that Mr. Mündler was better qualified for that office than another, because as a foreigner his presence anywhere abroad would excite less curiosity and attention, than if he were an English artist of reputation. As for the purchase of this picture, which had been spoken of so much, an hon. Gentleman had said it was once valued at £50. Now he (Mr. Wilson) could only say that he saw himself a letter from Paris, which offered 60,000f., or £2,400, for that picture, at the very moment when it was purchased for the National Gallery. However, Sir Charles Eastlake would take the entire responsibility of the purchase, and none belonged to Mr. Mündler. If the value of that picture were to be tested by what those who wished to purchase it would give for it, it had been got below the market price. With regard to the office of secretary, it had been thought best to join that with the office of Keeper, and that the salary should be sufficiently high to command the services of a competent person. The duties were important, including the preparation of a catalogue, which, when completed, would comprise a most interesting history of art. These appointments were made after Lord Aberdeen himself had devoted as much attention to the subject as a Minister could spare; and although much party feeling prevailed upon matters of art, and any appointment which could be made was sure to he objected to by some, he believed they were the best that could have been made.

agreed in much that had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) with regard to the trustees. He (Mr. Ewart) had also been a Member of the Select Committee, and proposed that there should be no ex officio trustees. The Committee agreed to this Motion. He had also great doubts whether the honorary trustees ought to have been continued. The director was held to be solely responsible, and these honorary trustees impeded, instead of assisting him—they bore down his judgment, and destroyed his sense of his individual responsibility. The Secretary of the Treasury admitted that this was an anomalous appointment, and he hoped that the Government would, in time, dispense with the honorary trustees. If the director wished for advice and counsel, let him consult two men of equal knowledge and taste. He thought it a wise suggestion of the noble Lord, that we should buy specimens of the contemporaneous art of foreign countries, and thereby enable our artists to widen their ideas mid impart to them an European character. He (Mr. Ewart) would readily bear testimony to the qualities of Sir Charles Eastlake; but Sir Charles, himself, acknowledged that he had devoted himself mainly to the study of Italian art, and it might, therefore, be doubted whether he had so extended a knowledge of the various schools of painting as was desirable in the director of a National Gallery. But Sir C. Eastlake had adopted some very good suggestions, among which might be mentioned the affixing of the name of the painter and the subject of the picture upon the different works of art. The historical catalogue would also be of great use.

, as one of the trustees of the National Gallery, wished to inform the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) that the trustees under the new Minute were only a counselling body, and not an executive body. They could not interfere with the responsibility of the director or hamper his proceedings, but they would, where they saw reason, support by their opinion his representations to the Treasury, either about a purchase or any other money. It had been the unanimous wish of the trustees to resign, if it were thought that their retirement would tend to the better management of the Gallery, and it was only on the representation of the director that he wished to have the advantage of their counsel and advice that they consented to remain in office. The trustees were unanimous in thinking that the management of Sir Charles Eastlake had been most satisfactory up to the present time, and they were happy to see in the National Gallery a director of knowledge, taste, and discretion, and upon whom perfect reliance might be placed. The travelling agent was a man whose knowledge of pictures had been confirmed by the opinion of others. A foreigner was, he thought, better qualified to fill the office of travelling agent than an Englishman, since he was less likely to belong to a party. In the fine arts, a difference of opinion displayed itself which often took the shape of party feeling.

said, that the Secretary of the Treasury appeared to be under the impression that the trustees had no power to control the director; but he would read the portion of the Minute relating to the appointment of the Board of Trustees. It was as follows:—

"In the event of a director proposing the purchase of any picture, the trustees may either sanction such purchase on the grounds submitted, or, if they object to sanction it, and the director should still propose to act on his own opinion, they may cause their dissent, together with their reasons, to be entered in the minutes, and the whole proceedings shall be submitted to Parliament along with the annual report on the Gallery, which will in future accompany the Estimate."

said, he thought that no satisfactory reason had been given why the travelling expenses of the travelling agent should be paid. It would be better that the director of the National Gallery himself should go abroad and get all the requisite information from trustworthy persons residing in the several towns on the Continent. He thought there was ample ground for taking the course recommended by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway), unless the Government could give some better explanation, and he trusted he would persevere until something satisfactory was elicited.

said, he was not able to support the Motion for the reduction of this grant: at the same time, he did not think that the establishment provided for the National Gallery stood in a position altogether satisfactory. He understood the Secretary for the Treasury to say, that the appointment of Sir Charles Eastlake, on which other appointments depended, was made in conformity with the judgment of the Earl of Aberdeen. His hon. Friend knew well that the appointment was not made by the Earl of Aberdeen. The appointment stood over at the time the noble Earl quitted office, and was not made until afterwards. He was not prepared to question the propriety of that appointment. He did not presume to form an opinion upon it, and he was quite aware that the name of Sir Charles Eastlake did not require any testimony which he could render. Nor was he of opinion that the Committee were not warranted in recommending a salary of £1,000 a year to a gentleman of great reputation, experience, and skill in art; always, of course, acting under the supposition, that if not his whole time, the greater portion of his time, would be bestowed on the duties connected with the National Gallery. He saw no reason why he should not say there what he had said elsewhere, that whatever were the duties connected with the transition state of the National Gallery, and the formation of the catalogue, which no one could doubt was an important work, yet that the total expense of £3,000 a year for mere salaries in connection with a gallery of the extent of our gallery was somewhat heavy, and that it deserved the consideration of the Government with a view to some more economical arrangement. When in office, he certainly felt it his duty to make some inquiry as to the expense at which other great foreign galleries were conducted and maintained. All would admit that nothing could be more satisfactory than the condition in which the pictures were maintained in many of the great galleries abroad; no one would impeach the skill and competency of those who were charged with the custody of those galleries; and he was bound to say that, so far as he could learn the particulars, the cost at which those galleries were managed in foreign capitals was not such as quite to justify the scale of salaries which had been adopted in this country. He did not speak of the single salaries given to a director of such experience and character as Sir Charles Eastlake. He merely spoke of the aggregate expenditure of £3,000 a year in connection with the management of the National Gallery. He ventured to hope that further consideration would be given to that question, because he could not help thinking that prudent arrangements on the part of the Government would spare the nation some part of the charge; and, although he was certain the House of Commons would not begrudge the expenditure of any money necessary for the extension of the National Gallery to make it worthy the great objects they had in view, yet they would not pledge themselves to needless and unnecessary expenditure either in that or any other department of the State.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that most of the galleries abroad were already formed. It seemed to be the feeling of the House and country that great additions should be made to our gallery, and, if that were so, additional expense must be incurred.

said, he was under the impression that the salary of the chief director of the Louvre was 40,000f., and any one who had attended the parties given by that gentleman would be inclined to suppose that his pay was on a scale of great liberality. As to the sum of £13,000 to which some hon. Members objected, the French Government had given £25,000 for a single picture at Marshal Soult's sale. Sir Charles Eastlake had never ventured to emulate, and, he hoped, never would emulate, that style of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said no one would impeach the skill with which foreign galleries were conducted. But he (Mr. Stirling) possessed a thick octavo volume wholly composed of pamphlets written against the present directors of the Louvre, and he had no doubt they might fill a large library with productions of the same kind. Sir Charles Eastlake had been sufficiently defended, but, with regard to Mr. Otto Mündler, terms had been used by the hon. Member for Stafford which were unfair towards any gentleman who was not present to defend himself. When the hon. Member came to explain the imputation against Mr. Mündler, it appeared to be simply that Mr. Mündler had been led by his imagination to conceive a picture to be an original which was only a copy. That was an accident which might happen to any picture-buyer, and he had known persons transported by these imaginations to believe in the possession of a Raphael. Two or three years before Mr. Mündler received his present appointment he heard him mentioned by several artists in Paris as a person remarkable for his honesty and integrity. He wished to ask the Secretary for the Treasury how it was that only one of the thirteen pictures mentioned in the Estimate, and which it was generally understood were purchased last autumn, had yet appeared in the gallery, and that one a picture on which the criticism had not been generally very favourable.

said, the picture now placed in the National Gallery was purchased in London. It was brought from Vienna, almost entirely at the expense of the seller, and, being in London, there was no difficulty in placing it for exhibition. The other pictures were bought abroad. Some had not yet arrived in this country, and those which had arrived were not yet unpacked and framed.

said, it would be expedient to have information laid on the table of the House as to the scale of salaries for the management of foreign galleries. These, he thought, could he procured through the agency of the Foreign Office.

said, that when the present Government was formed he was told that Lord Aberdeen's Government had nearly arranged what they thought was best to be done with regard to this establishment; and it appeared to him that on the whole those arrangements were the best which could be adopted. With respect to the salary of the director, he concurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) in thinking it not too great for the duties required. It certainly seemed to him that advantages might arise from having a travelling agent competent to form a preliminary judgment on pictures, who should travel for the purpose of ascertaining where there were pictures, the purchase of which it was desirable to negotiate. They could not know what pictures deserving of purchase were in the market unless some person of judgment went to see them. That person could not go to a town without its being known on behalf of whom he appeared and what his duties were, and, therefore, any objection that his appearance tended to raise the price of pictures, was inherent to his engagement. With regard to Sir Charles Eastlake, he had no hesitation in concurring in the previous determination that he should be director, because his high character, his great knowledge of art, and his professional ability as an artist pointed him out as undoubtedly fit to hold the office intrusted to him. The hon. Gentleman had read a great number of newspaper attacks on Sir Charles Eastlake. He defied any one to point out any artist, who could have been appointed to the situation, who would not have been immediately a butt for the anonymous attacks of every disappointed competitor. Whatever the general merits of professions might be, it was a fact, which unfortunately did not admit of controversy, that in every profession there were individuals with whom personal resentments had greater influence than the interests of truth or the welfare of the community. Nobody who enjoyed the friendship of Sir Charles Eastlake and knew what his merits and attainments were, would allow his judgment to be warped to the prejudice of that gentleman by such censure as the Committee had been doomed to listen to that evening; and, as for Sir Charles Eastlake himself, he had far too much good sense to allow his serenity to be disturbed either by the anonymous communications which appeared in newspapers, or by the additional publicity which the hon. Member (Mr. Otway) had given to such unworthy attacks.

, having observed that the information to which the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the University of Oxford had alluded was contained in documents already presented to Parliament, remarked that he believed the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) to be mistaken as to the salary of the director of the Louvre, which was, in fact, about £800 a year. He must also, in justice to the trustees of our National Gallery, state that there was no foreign gallery in which the pictures did not suffer more than in ours. No evidence had been shown to the Committee of any serious injury having been inflicted upon our pictures, whereas there was no foreign gallery in which the practice not only of scrubbing but of repainting did not prevail.

replied, observing that the Committee had not been dealing with anonymous slanders, but rather with the criticisms of all the most eminent journals in the empire, as also with those of reviews and periodicals, to some of which Members of the present Government had at one time contributed. Every magazine of character, every newspaper worth anything—nay, more, the very Gentlemen who had been appointed by the Government to high office—Mr. Hnrlstone, President of the Incorporated Society of British Artist, and Mr. A. Stevens, the gold medallist—had commented with severity on the proceedings and purchases of Sir Charles Eastlake. Nothing had fallen from him (Mr. Otway) in disparagement of Sir Charles Eastlake's character. He knew that gentleman to be an honourable man and an excellent artist. He only dealt with his acts as connected with the National Gallery, which were obvious to every one who visited that establishment—and which, indeed, were condemned by his own evidence before the Committee of 1853. With respect to the item for travelling expenses, he (Mr. Otway) still adhered to the opinion that it was indefensible, and, even though the result should be to forfeit the services of Mr. Otto Mündler, he should divide against it.

observed that the Government, after inquiry, withdrew this Vote last year on the very proper ground that the Royal Society was quite able to conduct its experiments at its own cost; but for some unaccountable reason they subsequently made the grant out of the fund applicable to Civil Contingencies, and one-half of the present Vote was intended to repay that advance. The grant, however, was wholly unnecessary; and if the Committee were sincerely in favour of economy here was an excellent item with which to begin. He begged, therefore, to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, in order that it might be entirely discontinued in future.

explained that this annual grant of £1,000 originated in an application made to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, when at the head of the Government, by the Royal Society, for pecuniary assistance to enable it to conduct scientific experiments for public objects. The grant was made for several years from a certain charitable fund under the control of the Treasury, and without being brought under the notice of the House. Last Session, however, the attention of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) having been called to the fact that the payment was not strictly regular in respect of the source from which it was taken, the grant was suspended until it could be further considered. This step gave rise to a strong remonstrance on the part of the Royal Society, which, backed by many eminent scientific authorities, represented to the Government the serious prejudice that would be done to its valuable researches by the withdrawal of a contribution on which they had depended for a series of years. This induced him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to make the usual payment for last year, but he did so out of a different fund, and one subject to the review of Parliament—namely, the Civil Contingencies. Believing the grant to be really usefully applied by the Royal Society, he hoped the Committee would agree to its continuance, and also allow the sum advanced for last year, under the circumstances he had described, to be now replaced.

inquired what was the nature of the experiments to which this Vote was appropriated?

could not precisely state, but an account of them was contained in a letter to the Treasury, which would be produced if the hon. Gentleman chose to move for it.

supported the grant, which, he said, was expended under the supervision of a Committee of forty eminent scientific and professional men, upon experiments for testing the strength of materials, for experiments in anatomical science, and other objects calculated to be of the greatest advantage to the community generally.

thought the Vote ought to be postponed until the Committee had further information as to its necessity and its application. It was somewhat remarkable to find the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), a prominent advocate of the Administrative Reform Association, so ready to defend this questionable expenditure.

believed that no man could seriously doubt the importance to the community at large of the prosecution and extension of scientific investigation. It was impossible, moreover, for any one to tell beforehand how far the resources of the country might be improved by the results of scientific discovery. But experiments conductive to the advancement of science frequently required the expenditure of sums which the persons most competent to carry them on were unable to defray from their own means. Representations had been made to the Government by the most eminent men connected with science, that not only the Royal Society itself, but the cause and the interests of science generally, would suffer if the small assistance which Parliament was now called upon to afford for scientific experiments were withdrawn. He thought that an equal sum of money could not be applied to purposes of greater public utility than the Vote which was then under consideration, and the Committee had on this question the high authority of the hon. Member for Bath, who fully appreciated the importance of the objects to which the grant was applied.

thought that science had been discouraged in this country rather than assisted. It was impossible to look to what had been done for science in France, Austria, Prussia, and that country which we were pleased to call barbarous, Russia, without feeling that no class of persons was so much discouraged in England as scientific men. He entirely concurred with the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and thought that much more ought to be done for scientific objects.

said, Parliament had already been presented with the details of this grant. There was a paper presented last year which contained the details of the expenditure of £5,000. He was only sorry there was not a similar one given this year, because there was no secret about it; it was a perfectly open vote. There was no gain to men of science personally from this grant; it went into no individual's pocket, but was expended in experiments. Out of it there was a sum of £150 given for the verification of meteorological instruments in navigation used on Her Majesty's ships, and there was a great gain to the mercantile interest, and also to the navy, in having these instruments of the most perfect kind. The British Association for the Advancement of Science also gave money for the same object.

observed that, after the explanations which had been given he would not press his Amendment, and

brought up the Report of the Committee of Supply. Several Votes were agreed to.

said, that last year, when he mentioned the subject, the Home Secretary stated that he would give it his consideration, and see whether some more adequate provision for the treatment and maintenance of criminal lunatics could not be made than that which existed in the Hospital of Bethlem. He had not, however, been able to discover any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to make such provision, although the matter was one of great importance to the country at large; and the treatment of criminal lunatics demanded the earnest attention of Government, inasmuch as they were now dispersed throughout the various county pauper lunatic asylums, and were not subjected to any restraint or confinement different from that adopted in the case of ordinary lunatics. The consequence was that they possessed facilities for escaping from these places; whilst, if further restrictions were applied to them, the effect was unfavourable to the other lunatics confined in the asylum. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was able to give him an assurance that the attention of the Government had been directed to this subject.

fully admitted the necessity of making better provision for the custody of the class of persons to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. He was in correspondence with the Lunacy Commissioners on the subject, and he hoped that arrangements might in a short time be made for effecting this object. He was not at present in a position to submit any plan to the House, but it was possible that he might be able to do so before the close of the Session.

would have no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member if any reason could be stated for it; but the House was aware that the Bill was merely a continuation Bill, and that its principle had been debated over and over again. He believed that there was no institution in the country more useful than the Exchequer bill Loan Commission, which was now needed more than ever, in consequence of the numerous Bills that had been passed for sanitary purposes and the opening of new cemeteries. The Commission was appointed to grant loans upon the security of Parliamentary rates, and up to the present time it had not made a single loss, except in two cases in which advances were pressed upon it by votes of that House. The expenses of the Commission, which were small, were voted every year in Committee of Supply.

objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour. The principle of the Bill had not been discussed. He wished to know when the Bill was read a second time? [Mr. WILSON: On Friday.] No, on Saturday morning. From a return, it appeared that the Commissioners had incurred losses to the extent of £300,000 in England and Scotland, and of £1,477,000 in Ireland. They began by lending to other people, and ended by saddling this country with increased debt. Now the question was, whether the House was prepared to sanction the principle that had hitherto been acted on. He called on the Committee to consider whether half-past twelve o'clock was a proper hour to enter upon a discussion of a matter like this, which was one that should be thoroughly debated.

agreed with the hon. Baronet that it would not be agreeable to sit for three hours discussing the details of the Bill, but he saw no necessity for doing so. There was no new principle involved in the Bill, which merely continued the powers of the Exchequer-bill Loan Commission. Two years ago very long discussions took place upon the powers, position, and duties of that Commission, and although there was considerable difference of opinion at first, it was eventually admitted on all hands not only that the functions of the Commission were well performed, but that it conferred great benefits upon the country at large. He believed, moreover, that there was no public body in London which cost less than the Loan Commission.

objected to this Bill being carried out by a Commission some of the members of which were Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt—the very men who should check the acts of the Commissioners for this Bill. The name of Sir Alexander Spearman, Secretary to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, was the first on the list of those other Commissioners. Did the National Debt Commissioners ever meet? Did not Sir A. Spearman carry on the whole business that the National Debt Commissioners had the name of transacting?

said, that the persons who constituted the Commission appointed to execute the Act were gentlemen of the highest character, such as Sir Alexander Spearman and Mr. Hubbard, lately Governor of the Bank of England. The Commission had been in existence for a considerable time, and had discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the country.

said, that his observations referred not so much to the Commissioners appointed to execute the Act as to the Commissioners of the National Debt. It appeared, from a paper which had been laid upon the table of the House, that £8,000,000 had been given in the shape of loan; and that of that sum £1,800,000 had been lost to the country.

was not acquainted with the paper to which the hon. Baronet referred, but he might state that the public had never been a loser by any loan into which the Commissioners appointed to execute the Act under consideration had entered, except in two instances; the one, the case of the Thames Tunnel, and the other one which he could not at that moment recollect. He might add that, in the two instances to which he had alluded, the loan had been rendered compulsory upon the Commissioners by a Vote of that House.

said, he did not think that the Bill ought at that late hour (one o'clock) to be proceeded with. He should therefore move that the Chairman should report progress.

said, he thought an annual account ought, under the operation of the Bill, to be presented to Parliament and the country with reference to the nature and results of any loans that might have been made.

said, there was an account annually made up by the Commissioners; but if the obligation did not extend with reference to those accounts quite so far as the hon. Member suggested, he (Mr. Wilson) should take care that upon the third reading a clause with that object should be introduced into the Bill.

hoped the Government would not proceed further with the Bill that night. He should move that the Chairman report progress.

said, that, after the intimation which had just been given by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, the House would have no objection to go on with the Bill.