said, that before Mr. Speaker left the Chair, he was anxious to submit to the House the notice of Motion which stood in his name, relative to the substitution of a system of assessment in lieu of toll on the public roads of Scotland. He now begged to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying she will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission, to inquire and report how far it may be desirable and practicable to substitute an equitable system of assessment in lieu of the present mode of maintaining the public roads in Scotland by tolls and statute labour."

As he knew how anxious the House was to enter on the public business, he would not detain them longer than he could avoid, but he prayed their attention whilst he stated the position in which he stood with reference to the question of road reform, which had now for many years occupied the attention of the people of Scotland. It had been taken up vigorously in the county which he had the honour to represent, and various proposals had been made with a view of effecting so desirable an object. Having had his attention called to the subject, he last year drew up a Bill which was submitted to the House with the view of eliciting, as far as possible, the public opinion with reference to the important question of the best mode of providing for the maintenance of the public roads in Scotland, and at the same time of relieving the people from the payment of toll at the turnpike gates. The result of that measure was, that a considerable amount of discussion took place on the subject. His Bill was objected to on various grounds, but it certainly had the effect which he intended, of eliciting opinion, and showing in what light the question was regarded by the public of Scotland. During the present year he had ventured to ask leave to bring in a Bill on the same subject, which was of a permissive character. He must say that that Bill had met with much greater opposition than he expected it would have done. It was a measure which as he conceived, was drawn up and based on sound general principles applicable generally to Scotland. Although he was fully aware of the difficulty of the question, and that his Bill might require amendment in many of the details, yet as he conceived that it would be generally acceptable in Scotland, he had hoped that the Scotch Members would have given him more assistance in endeavouring to pass it, admitting, as they did, that the principle of substituting a system of assessment for the present inconvenient mode of taking a toll to be a sound one. Instead of, however, receiving, as he naturally expected, great assistance, the measure in question was opposed by the Scotch Members. His view was, if the Bill had been read a second time in that House, to have moved that it be referred to a Select Committee, when the whole matter might have been discussed in all its details, and, by the assistance of those hon. Members he should have nominated on the Committee, that they should have been able to frame such a measure as would have been suitable to the whole of Scotland. The Session, however, was now approaching its end, and he had had no opportunity of submitting his Bill to Parliament, still less of pressing it forward to a second reading. Under these circumstances, therefore, he thought that the best method he could adopt would be to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to in quire into the subject. He need not trouble the House by entering into any lengthened arguments in support of the Motion. He thought that they were all pretty well agreed that the present system of maintaining the roads by levying a toll upon travellers was as inconvenient as it was expensive and extravagant. No doubt in many isolated places the cost of collecting tolls was not very heavy, but, generally speaking, in considering the cost of maintaining roads by means of tolls they must deduct from the gross amount of money contributed by the public for the purpose of keeping the roads in repair at least twenty per cent., and therefore as a question of economy alone, he thought that no hon. Gentleman would maintain that the present mode of providing for the repair of roads, by means of tolls, was other than expensive as well as inconvenient. Where the difference of opinion arose, was as to the nature of the substitute which was to be employad for the purpose of maintaining the roads. Many persons thought that it was impossible to establish an equitable system of assessment in lieu of tolls. For his part, he could not but think that it was possible to establish such a system. Those who were opposed to the system of assessment in reference to roads, based their opposition on the ground of the objection laid down by Adam Smith in his Political Economy; that it was the duty of those who used the roads to pay for them. With all due deference to the opinion of so distinguished a political economist, the argument, in his opinion, would have been better put if it had been, that those who benefit by public roads should pay for their maintenance and repair. Everybody was interested in the establishment of good roads throughout the country, and therefore it was but reasonable that everybody should be called upon to contribute to their maintenance in proportion to the benefits which they derived, or, in other words, in proportion to the property he possessed through which such roads were carried. In his view, it would be as objectionable for a man who resided in a large town to pay a sewerage rate or a lighting tax as it was for one who resided in the country to pay a road tax. His own impression was, that an equitable mode of assessment, having reference to the amount of property which each man possessed in the country, might easily be arrived at. He admitted that great doubts as to the mode of dealing with the question, and as to an equitable mode of assessment, existed in Scotland; but he thought that if a Commission of able men were appointed to visit the various districts, and consider the question uninfluenced by local feelings or prejudices, a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at. They would have an opportunity of examining legal gentlemen upon it. In suggesting the course which he was now advocating, he begged the House to remember that he was only following precedents which had been made in this House on former occasions. In reference to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Ireland (Mr. H. Herbert) as the House would probably recollect, had adopted that course, and in 1856 a Commission was appointed to consider the question of maintaining roads in the neighbourhood of Dublin, and the Commission reported in favour of the principle of assessment, which was carried out to the extent of thirty miles round Dublin. On a subsequent occasion, a Commission was appointed to consider whether the principle which had been adopted, and had been found to work so well in the neighbourhood of Dublin, could not he applied generally to that country. The Commissioners in their report laid down the principle that the levying of tolls for the maintenance of roads was a specious fallacy, that it was not those who used the roads should pay for them, but those for whose benefit they were established. The Commission accordingly recommended that the remaining turnpikes in Ireland should be abolished. The result was, that in the last Session of Parliament a Bill was introduced for the abolition of turnpike tolls in Ireland, so that at the present moment a traveller might go from one end to another of Ireland without being subjected to this most vexatious impost. When the same difficulty arose with respect to the Welsh turnpike tolls, those tolls were likewise dealt with by Commissioners. But he might mention that, even with respect to Scotland itself, Acts of Parliament had been passed recognizing the principle of assessment in lieu of tolls on the roads. In the county of Argyleshire, and in several other places in Scotland, private Acts of Parliament had been passed providing for the maintenance of roads by assessment, and the same principle had been distinctly recognized in the Welsh Act to which he had referred. Without going into needless details, be might say that the general principle of assessment of roads having been adopted throughout the whole of Ireland, having been extended to Wales, and having been adopted in some counties of Scotland itself, as well as in some local Acts with respect to England, afforded a fair argument for the appointment of a Commission as a preliminary step to legislation. But there was another ground in favour of this change. The present turnpike system was no new system; the first Turnpike Act which related to Scotland dated no earlier than 1750. Up to that time the mode of providing for the maintenance and repair of the public roads was by means of what was termed statute labour, by which every person owning property in the neighbourhood was obliged to find a certain amount of labour for the purpose of mending the roads. The argument, of course, which would be raised against recurring to such a system as that, would be, that what I was suited to that time was no longer suitable. But he might reply to that by a counter argument, and say, that what was suitable to the country in reference to the maintenance of the roads before the establishment of the railway system was no longer suited to it. At the present moment railways traversed the whole country, and connected the most distant places, one effect of which had been that, in order to provide for the proper maintenance of the roads, they had been driven to the necessity either of establishing a different system altogether, or of imposing a much higher rate of toll. That had been eminently the case with reference to the county which he represented. For some time after the passing of the first Turnpike Act, which connected Edinburgh with that district, and before the great line of railway communication was opened between the northern and southern capitals the annual amount received was upwards of £1,500. But now that line of communication was finished, the amount of tolls were so much diminished that they were driven to the necessity either of imposing a higher rate of tolls or of having recourse to the principle of assessment for the purpose of maintaining the roads. He would not detain the House longer in support of the Motion which he had made, but he might mention that he believed his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had been in communication with the Lord Advocate on this subject. The learned Lord had now left the House to take the appointment of Lord Justice Clerk, to which he had been nominated, and he had reason to believe that the learned Lord was favourable to this Motion. He could not resume his seat without expressing his gratification that that learned Lord had accepted the appointment of the high post he had mentioned. He was quite delighted that he had done so, for the learned Lord had been long known as an ornament to the bar in Scotland, and he had not the slightest doubt that he would prove one of the greatest ornaments of the bench. The appointment of the learned Lord had been received with extreme satisfaction throughout Scotland. The Lord Advocate had gone back to Scotland; but before he went he said that he was in favour of the Motion, and that he thought that the question ought to be decided before some impartial tribunal. He (Lord Elcho) thought that this Motion was one which was in accordance with the spirit of the age in which we lived, which was in favour of the frequency of intercourse, nation and nation, and man and man.

said, that upon the Motion of his noble Friend he certainly had had some communication with the Lord Advocate before he returned to Scotland, and that the inclination of his opinion unquestionably was, that a Commission to inquire into this subject should be issued. His own opinion was also in favour of the appointment of such a Commission; but as he wished first to consult the newly appointed Lord Advocate, perhaps his noble Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion for the present, in order to enable him (Mr. Walpole) to consult that learned Lord.

observed, that he fully concurred in the necessity of a change, with reference to the maintenance of the public roads in Scotland; especially with reference to the great iron trade carried on in that country. The system of statute labour had been altogether altered; and, at the present time, many roads, which were originally public roads, had become mere local roads, and local roads which were maintained by parish assessments had become public roads, whereby a very heavy and unfair burden had been thrown upon those parishes. It was absolutely necessary that some fair adjustment, with respect to such roads, should be made. He was, therefore, in favour of any system by which the existing distribution of taxation should be altered. He was not at all surprised that the people of Scotland objected to the continuance of the present system; and he was of opinion, that if all the circumstances of the case were duly considered, the result would be a well-devised measure which, if it were framed in the spirit proposed by the noble Lord, would not only tend to equalize taxation, but to lighten the general weight; while at the same time, no heavier burden would be thrown on the farming interest than at present existed. In his opinion, it was not necessary, in any proposal for the redistribution of this taxation, to adhere to the present limits of counties, because, if that were done, there would be many cases in which difficulties would arise, especially in that portion of Lanarkshire which bordered upon Glasgow, where the interest of the various counties were not all in accordance with each other, and it would be found necessary to make a new distribution, without reference to their limits. He was very glad, indeed, to find that the Government were disposed to entertain this proposition, and he trusted that it would eventually be carried out.

said, that having been appealed to, he could fully confirm everything which had been said in regard to the success of the new system which had been introduced into Ireland. That system had been carried out all over Ireland with very great advantage, and he believed that the people were unanimously of opinion that the principle of assessment was far preferable to the old plan of taking a toll. He had been alluded to as having introduced a short Bill last Session, in which the very last of tolls on turnpike roads had been got rid of. He had since received information which enabled him to state to the House that the new Act of Parliament had worked exceedingly well, and that the arrangements made by the Commissioners had proved eminently satisfactory, and, as his noble Friend had stated, a person could now go from one end of Ireland to the other without paying a single turnpike. The only tolls which now remained were those which existed on a few of the bridges. He thought it would be well worthy of the Government that in any measure which should be introduced, facilities should be given for the abolition of those few remaining tolls, and that the Commissioners for Ireland should be invested with powers which should enable them to deal with them.

said, that no doubt every one was anxious to get rid of the turnpike tolls, in whatever part of the kingdom they might be situated; but he could not conceal from himself that there would be very great difficulty in satisfactorily assessing the property in Ireland. The different interests of the manufacturers would greatly clash, and it would be a work of great discrimination to fix the assessment fairly. The case of Ireland was very different, but, inasmuch as it was similar in England, the Commissioners would have to go into the whole subject, not merely as it related to Scotland, but to this country also. The Motion would not at all restrict such inquiry, and when the matter came to be examined, it might turn out that it was necessary to maintain the present system of tolls in some districts, whereas in others the proposed new system would be preferable. At all events, it was necessary to inquire whether the various trusts could not be consolidated and extended over a much larger area than at present. He hoped that this, as well as all other questions relating to the abolition of tolls, would be carefully considered before any measure was introduced on the subject.

said, that having acted as a road trustee for many years through the important mining district which had been referred to, and fully concurring in the propriety of an assessment system, he hoped the House would permit him to confirm what the noble Lord had said with reference to the admirable working of that system in one part of Scotland, which he contended was a sound argument in favour of its extension throughout the whole of the kingdom. His own opinion was that there could not have been a more unfavourable locality for trying the experiment than that which had been selected, and he was confirmed in that opinion when he found, by the returns of the officers of public works, which showed that the expense of maintaining the roads on which a heavy traffic was carried on, as well as in populous towns, was much lightened by the new system. He believed that the expense of maintaining the roads in the Strand and the neighbourhood, where there was a much greater traffic than in any other place in the world, was much lighter than in country districts of Scotland. If, therefore, the system of assessment worked well under the most unfavourable circumstances, it was but reasonable to suppose that it would work well in other places. He would only add one more argument in favour of doing away with tolls, and that was, that there were instances in which 1,000 miles of country could be traversed without the payment of a single toll, in which the roads were well kept up, and the ratepayers were quite satisfied, and would not, on any account, consent to revert to the whole system.

said, he was anxious to express his entire concurrence in the Motion of the noble Lord, and in confirmation of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) he might say, that some time last year a road meeting took place in the town of Belfast, the principle seat of manufacture in Ireland, at which it was agreed upon all hands that the substitution of the assessment system had worked exceedingly well. The hon. Gentleman had also alluded to mines. He (Mr. De Vere) was well acquainted with extensive mining districts, and from his intimate connection with a large property in that neighbourhood, he was able to glean with accuracy the opinion of the public upon the matter. There was no railroad in the district, and the consequence was that heavy traffic had to be conveyed over the roads in the country in the common carts, and notwithstanding the heavy wear and tear of the roads, it had been found that the assessment system had worked perfectly well in that district also.

said, that it was probable after the discussion they had had in the House that day, and the favourable opinions which had been elicited towards a change in the present mode of providing for the maintenance of the public roads, he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the fact that there was a great deal of conflicting interests as regarded the boroughs and the counties. He should therefore suggest, in case such a Commission Were appointed, that they would take especial care that the various interests of the boroughs and counties should be properly represented before the Commission, and should receive its earnest consideration.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that portion of the Second Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue relating td Hops, in which reference is made to the Minutes of Proceedings of the Hop Duty Committee which sat last year, and a presumption expressed by the said Commissioners as to the opinion which that Committee would ultimately have reported to the House, although no Report was made by the Committee. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, perhaps the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department would give his attention to it. He had no wish to enter at any length into the question of the Hop Duty, but he would observe, that having had three years of superabundant crops of hops, which had so reduced their value, that unless they were "fortunate" enough to have a blight, the growers would find it to their interest to destroy their crop rather than dry it, and thus become liable to the duty. In consequence of the depreciation in the value of hops, the growers were unable to pay the duty, and therefore they had to consider whether it would be wise in them to take upon themselves further responsibility without better prospects before them. His object, however, in calling attention to the subject was to show that the opinions of the Board of Inland Revenue, as expressed in their report, were not in accordance with the divisions which had taken place in Committee. The Commissioners had expressed their, opinion that if the Committee had made a report it would have been of such a nature as to justify the keeping up of the duty, under which the farmers were suffering most grievously. The inference drawn from the proceedings of the Hop Committee was utterly Contrary to the fact; no Committee could have been more at variance on the subject, and it was his opinion that if the report had been made it would have been strongly condemnatory of the duty in question.

said, he thought that the Commissioners and Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue came to the only Conclusion which they could according to the evidence taken and the divisions in the Committee.

said, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had taken a great liberty with the Committee in issuing the report he had on the subject.

said, he entertained a similar opinion with respect to the conduct of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue.

said, as a member of the Committee he was of opinion that if they had made a report it would not have been in favour of the remission of the duty. It was clearly shown in evidence, that if a man drank a quart of beer a day, the abolition of the duty would only relieve him from a tax of 11d. per annum. The evidence tended to show that the sooner the Sussex hop growers shut up shop the better, it being impossible for them to grow hops with advantage either to themselves or to the public.

said, he wished to move as an Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. That this House is of opinion that the cost of the purification of the river Thames in the vicinity of the metropolis should be borne by the Consolidated Fund and the metropolitan ratepayers in equal proportions. He understood that there was a strong feeling against his Motion, but he thought he was justified in asking the country to bear one portion of the expense of the metropolitan drainage, as in his opinion the inhabitants of London had not received justice or fair play at the hands of Parliament and the Government. The Corporation of the City had long been empowered to raise large sums from the entire metropolis in the shape of a coal-tax and metage dues, from which the inhabitants of London at large derived no adequate return. Of the 1s. 1d. per ton levied on coals the Corporation retained 4d. the remaining 9d. being applied in any manner which the Government thought fit. By this means nearly £2,000,000 of money had been taken out of the pockets of the inhabitants. The sanitary laws passed for the metropolis also, had inflicted heavy injury upon it. Some years ago they went sanitary mad, when all sorts of Boards were created, and amongst others the Metropolis Local Management Act had created the new Board of Works, and given to it the charge of the main drainage of London; but though the task of purifying the Thames had been thrown upon that body the powers requisite for its execution had been denied to them. A plan had been proposed for cleansing the river which would not cost more than £2,500,000; but the Government had interposed to prevent it from being carried out, and had insisted that if the work were to be done at all an outlay of seven, or nine, or even eleven millions should be made upon it. It was clear that if the metropolis was to supply the whole of the money it ought to have the right of deciding upon the scheme to be adopted, together with the entire control of the expenditure. The nation at large was equally interested in the removal of this nuisance with the metropolis itself; and as the state had offered obstructions to the remedy of the evil, and also aggravated its intensity, he now called upon Parliament to come forward and contribute towards the cost of this important work.

had been asked to second the Motion, and he never declined a brief unless for special reason. He hoped his advocacy might be useful, because everybody knew that neither individually nor through the influence of constituents he had any interest in the decision. He felt confident that the friends in the provinces with whom he had acted, not altogether without success, would take a favourable view of the principle contained in the Resolution. If an invading army attacked the metropolis, it would not be urged that the provinces ought not to assist. In like manner the danger of the Thames came here because it was the metropolis, because it was a collection of interests from the whole country. All human life ought to be a reciprocation of benefits. The time might come when provincial interests would look to the metropolis for assistance, and he was sure it would not be in vain. The necessity was of enormous magnitude, for it was a question of no less than conveying all the sewage of the metropolis into the Thames at a point sufficiently distant to enable it to be done at high and not at low water. He was surprised at the way this particnlar point had been lost sight of, in what had been heard in the House. Call a Committee of watermen and ask them whether, if a man fell overboard at high water at Woolwich, they would ever look for bins at London Bridge; and whether, if he fell in at any time much removed from high water, they would not. Instead of this, the sewage of all kinds was diligently poured into the river at low water, when in the nature of things it could do nothing but be bandied up and down under the noses of the citizens, every portion finding its way at some remote time or other into the sea, but leaving a certain maximum of foulness, like a man who never washes himself and so the dirt sticks to him till it begins to fall off of itself. He should be glad if the industrial interests in the provinces would listen to an ancient friend, and show their liberal spirit as they had done before; and assuredly the gratitude of the City of London on some coming peril, would not be a bad investment.

said, he did not see why the country generally should be called upon to bear the burden of the improvement of the metropolis. If the metropolis had been injured by previous legislation, that might be a good reason for correcting such legislation, but it was no ground whatever for throwing the local burdens of the metropolis upon the whole country. In fact, the entire question resolved itself into this—that the metropolitan public wanted the rest of the country to contribute towards the expense of improving the metropolis. He was ready to admit the importance and dignity of the metropolis as being the seat of the Court and Legislature, but he must contend that every man coming from the country paid indirectly towards the rates of the metropolis. Supposing the case of a plague in the town, the great losers would be the permanent residents, who would be deprived of the enormous sums of money annually spent therein by those who had no local interests. The Health of Towns Act rendered it imperative on every town in the country to defray the expense of its own cleansing, and why should London be an exception to so excellent a rule? If any other town in the kingdom were to ask the country at large to relieve it of its local burdens, the thing would be generally scouted. If then, such a demand ought not to be made by any other place, à fortiori it came with a bad grace from London, which enjoyed the advantage of having a large influx of visitors from all parts of the kingdom. Every hon. Member who voted a shilling for this purpose from the public funds would be doing a direct wrong to his constituents, and he trusted he should never see hon. Members so neglectful of their duty as to vote away the public money in this reckless manner.

pointed out that the Motion was informal, because, by the Standing Orders of the House, all grants of public money ought to be preceded by a recommendation from the Crown, and be considered in the first instance by a Committee of the whole House. On this ground, without reference to the principle of the Resolution, he must vote against it. The House ought not to go on with the discussion, but—as the Government had intimated that the subject was under their consideration, and they were about to introduce a measure—should wait until they had made a distinct proposition with regard to it. The late Government had been applied to by the Metropolitan Board of Works for an advance on behalf of their plan of main drainage; but the Government had no legal power to make any large advance of money for such a purpose. It then remained for the Commissioners to endeavour to borrow on the security of the metropolitan rates; but it was soon found that their borrowing powers, as given in their Act, were defective. It was well known that the whole of the creditors of the State, whether they had lent their money long ago or but yesterday, stood upon precisely the same footing in respect to their rights. This principle was extended to the Act under which the Board of Works acted. The consequence was that the insurance offices and other societies would not make advances to such a body as the Board of Works, because the loans would not be secured by a priority of right. The borrowing powers of that Board were therefore comparatively inoperative. The late Government, however, would not give a final answer to the application made to them by the Board of Works until they saw what plan was ultimately decided on.

said, that if his hon. Colleague was wrong in point of form, the sooner the discussion was stopped the better. The Resolution, however, did not impose a burden on the Consolidated Fund, but merely declared that a contribution from that source was desirable. The metropolitan police were partly maintained out of the Consolidated Fund; and as Parliament and the State contributed to the stench of the Thames, surely they ought to contribute towards its purification.

said, that the House had wisely guarded the grant of public money by Rules and Standing Orders; and it had directed that no Motion for a grant of public money should be proceeded with which had not first been recommended by the Crown, and had been introduced in Committee of the Whole House. But the Standing Orders went further, and provided that, if any Motion imposing a charge upon the people were made, the consideration of it could not be at once entered upon, but must be deferred until such future day as the House shall think fit to appoint. There were indeed precedents in which the House had given an expression of its opinion that a certain Vote of public money should be made; but it remained for the House to decide how far such intimations of opinion should bind it in the future course which it might adopt. Such intimations certainly created no new charge on the public, but they led to no practical result, and the whole question had to be begun again de novo, and to pass through all the forms of the House.

trusted that the House would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Radnor. It was the intention of the Government on an early day, and certainly during the next week, to introduce a measure for insuring the purification of the river Thames; and when that measure was before the House, the legitimate opportunity would offer for this discussion. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee of Supply would be at o proceeded with.

, having ventured on a former occasion to express a hope that the House would in some manner indicate its opinion on this subject before the Session closed, now entirely concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government, having intimated their intention to bring forward a measure, it would be most inconvenient to continue that discussion.

said, that on behalf of many Irish Members who could not attend next week, as well as on behalf of many English Members who would then be absent at the assizes, be rose to beg the Government to give some indication of the outlines of their measure now. This Motion was a most extraordinary one, and he trusted the House would at once go to a division upon it, and mark it with their emphatic condemnation. It would be much cheaper for them to build a new House in Hyde Park or at Oxford than to pay out of the national funds for the purification of the Thames. The Government had better take the opinion of an architect as to the erection of an edifice in which Parliament could sit during the pestilential season of the Thames. Every argument used in favour of taxing the public for the benefit of London would equally apply to the case of Dublin, where the Court of the Lord Lieutenant, the courts of law, and the public offices were concentrated, and where during the summer months the state of the Liffey was nearly as bad as that of the Thames. The Corporation of London had long acted as the Conservators of the Thames, and were jealous as well as proud of their functions. [An hon. MEMBER: No, they are ashamed of them.] Having kept the river for many years in a condition that was so disgraceful, what right had they to call upon the whole country to pay for the results of their own misconduct? The people of Dublin, of Edinburgh, or of Oxford would, he was satisfied, be glad to accommodate Parliament with a place of meeting.

said, he quite concurred in the opinion that it would be of great advantage if the Government had an expression of the House's opinion on this subject before bringing in their promised measure. The House ought not to allow this Motion to be withdrawn, but should insist upon negativing it in a way that would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that they would not consent to a farthing of the public money being voted for metropolitan improvements. Since the heat of the weather had abated, the bad smell from the river had very much diminished. They might, therefore, discuss this question free from the influence of panic. The medical authorities admitted, though apparently with a feeling akin to regret, that this nuisance had not affected the public health to any appreciable degree.

said, he thought, after the announcement just made by the Government, that it would be improper to vote on an abstract proposition like the one before the House. The metropolis ought to pay for its own cleansing and drainage, but when the scheme exceeded those limits, the question was, whether London ought not to be assisted by the nation.

suggested, that a contribution might be made from the Consolidated Fund equivalent to the proportion of the rates for metropolitan improvements which would fall upon the public property situated there.

said, he wished the Resolution to be withdrawn; but, at the same time, he hoped that the Government would not adopt any particular plan until it had been decided who was to pay for its execution.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Government were prepared, not with a plan but with a measure, which they desired to introduce at the earliest possible moment.

said, he would beg leave to withdraw his Resolution, of which he had given notice before the Government had intimated their intention to bring in a measure.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the injudicious course pursued by the Departments of Science and Art in diminishing in some instances the allowance to provincial schools before art instruction had become sufficiently appreciated in such localities as to render the schools independent of Government aid for their maintenance. The Vote proposed to be granted by Parliament for these departments had now reached upwards of £80,000; but the lion's share of that sum was absorbed by the Museum and other institutions at Kensington, while the claims of the country schools were comparatively neglected. Unfortunately, in that part of Ireland with which he was connected manufactures Were in such a backward state that the diminution of the allowances pressed with peculiar severity on the schools of art; and he hoped that, considering the immense benefits conferred by art instruction, a stringent inquiry would be instituted and the evil remedied.

said, that as this was one of the first votes on the paper, it would have been better to have delayed this matter until the House went into Committee; but as he had introduced it, he must be allowed to say that the hon. Gentleman was utterly mistaken in saying that an unjust share of the Vote was apportioned to the metropolis, for the museums were open to all visitors, and in fact were actually sent round the country. Moreover, so far from Ireland being dealt with unfairly, it stood on precisely the same footing as the rest of the country, and fully shared in the benefits conferred. As regarded the change in the mode of bestowing grants, he could only say that it had been of the greatest advantage. Experience had proved that the old system of affording pecuniary assistance annually to provincial schools had tended to destroy all self-reliance in the schools themselves; but by the introduction of the new system of granting assistance according to the results, and the number of prizes, the schools had become more self-supporting, and the cost to Government had been reduced from £4 per pupil to 13s., while the education had improved, and the number of students had been multiplied to a most considerable extent.

said, he felt the greatest distrust of State grants for such purposes, and he hoped that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to enter into a statement of the effect of local schools.

in the Chair.

did not rise to oppose this Vote. He was actuated by no spirit of enmity to the Science and Art Department of the Privy Council, or to its museum. He believed that that department had done much good, and he trusted that it would do still more. At the same time, he had various objections to make to the details of its museum. The site he thought unfortunate. It must be remembered that the selection of it had sprung from the scheme of building the National Gallery at Kensington Gore, which, to the satisfaction of every one, had been since abandoned. Still this museum Was left behind, and no doubt the Government would be prepared with plausible reasons to defend it, for it was easier and cheaper to do that than to propose a vote for its removal. But no one really liked the site, while the means of education which were formerly accessible to the working classes had ceased to be so since their removal to Brompton; which, for reasons not very evident to him and other persons, had been termed South Kensington. The collection at Brompton was not strictly an educational museum, although there was in it an educational department. An educational museum ought to be composed of models and drawings, and of casts of the most famous sculptors, with a few good originals. In this case, however, the casts of sculpture were chiefly modern examples, compelling the student who desired to study the great works of antiquity to go to Sydenham, where the collection was in a great measure composed of antiquities, mostly belonging to those Mediæval and Renaissance schools which had of late years assumed so important a position in the eyes of Europe, although previously neglected. These were mostly bought at the Bernal, sale. At the same time the British Museum was commencing a collection of the same schools, Against this division of strength he protested. The whole national collection of antiquities in this country should be made one organization, although the question of whether the different departments of it should be in one house might be a moot point. The belief which was current at the time of the Bernal sale, that the British Museum and the Department of Science and Art outbid each other for the same things, although unfounded, showed the popular appreciation of the absurdity of dividing the national collection of Mediæval art between two branches of the State. As to the argument, that the originals contained at South Kensington were more useful to the art-workman than they would be in the British Museum, he answered that this objection could be met by arrangements which would open the latter to periodical classes of those workmen for study. They might derive more advantage from occasionally beholding a great collection than by having their looks palled by the perpetual presence of a smaller and inferior one. A few originals might be kept in the hands of the fine arts department, but the rest should be transferred to the British Museum. Then the museum belonging to the department of science and art ought to be made strictly an educational one, and transferred to a central and more accessible locality.

said, he wished to point out the peculiar character which was aimed at by the museum at South Kensington, and which had been lost sight of by the hon. Gentleman. The primary object of it had been to improve the art education of the working classes, and not to deal with the higher branches of art. Now, the reason it was called the Kensington Museum was because it was in Kensington. There was nothing in the South Kensington Museum which ought to be in the British Museum, although, indeed, there were things in the British Museum which might advantageously be transferred to Kensington. As regarded casts of the best works of the old masters, there were such casts in the school, although not in the museum, but the object of the museum was not so much to encourage fine art as industrial art, and there was a broad line of distinction, without rivalry, between the Kensington Museum and the British Museum.

said, that if he might be permitted to revert to the subject of his Motion, he wished to stare that notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley), he had no hesitation in declaring that the self-supporting system with regard to art had entirely failed in Ireland, more particularly in Belfast and Waterford. Art instruction was not appreciated in Ireland, and the effort to make it self-supporting had deprived his country of its benefits. The result of persisting in the present system would be that there would be masters without schools, He spoke earnestly upon the subject, because he felt that there was no people that required instruction in science and art so munch as the people of Ireland; and no people which would do so much credit to that instruction; and he could not but regret seeing the system which had been established altered. He would conclude by moving, as an Amendment, that the sum of £52,380, required for the support of schools of art and science in the United Kingdom, be disallowed.

said, he agreed that the expenses of training and teaching in schools of art should be defrayed by a central body, and not left to local management. It was necessary to have a large central establishment for this purpose, and if therefore the system had failed, they ought to discontinue the whole Vote. He could, moreover, bear testimony that the subsidized schools afforded a result which was so unsatisfactory that, if such a result from the other arrangement was to be expected, he would be prepared to give his vote for that purpose. The voluntary system, however, in its result had been much more satisfactory, and from their nature that was to be expected. If the withdrawal of the small grant of £25,000 would cause the destruction of the schools in Ire- land, then the House might despair of schools which existed on so frail a tenure under any circumstances. In 1853, there were two subsidized schools of navigation in the United Kingdom, and they were not attended with any great success; but at the present day there were schools of navigation conducted on the voluntary system in every seaport town throughout the country, and he hoped that the House would not consent to revert to the old system of subsidized schools.

observed, that at present the British Museum was not in a proper position. There were three establishments in different parts of London, all bidding against each other in the fine arts—the British Museum, the South Kensington Museum, and the Institution in Jermyn Street.

said, that he would not offend his hon. Friend by speaking of the museum as the South Kensington Museum, but he would use the better known and more euphonous epithet of the Brompton boiler to characterize it. The money spent upon the schools of design, whatever might be said of their management, had not been wasted, for they were exercising a very beneficial influence upon our manufactures. With regard to the Kensington Museum, if the articles contained were sold by auction to-morrow, they would fetch double the outlay that had been incurred upon them. The proposed affiliation of the Edinburgh School of Design with the institution at Kensington had been the means of rousing the Scottish lion in the northern capital; but he was himself in favour of the scheme, if well conducted. In Edinburgh a national gallery had been built, but there were hardly any pictures in it. The affiliation, however, of the School of Design and the Edinburgh National Gallery and Museum of the Society of Antiquaries, with the Department of Science and Art, was effected by a Treasury Minute, dated the 25th of February last. That Minute had placed the whole establishment upon a new footing, and had established a system of curators at considerable expense. He objected to the appointment of curators. The Board of Manufacturers took the greatest care of the National collection, and he was at a loss to know why it should be taken out of the hands of the local authorities and vested in those who were subject to a centralizing power. It was quite evident that the absence of curators did not prevent the pub- lic supporting the institution or persons sending pictures there, for he could mention the gratifying fact that it was the intention of the Marquess of Abercorn to send to the institution, to be placed under the care of the Board a very fine collection of fifteen or sixteen pictures by old masters. The gallery was by no means well stocked, and in his (Lord Elcho's) opinion, that instead of having this large building with bare walls, they should devote the money which was to be given annually to curators to the purchase of pictures with which to cover the walls. He also objected to the manner in which these curators were to be appointed. By the scheme of the Treasury, the curators were to be appointed not by the Board of Manufacturers, but the choice was to be left virtually to the Royal Academy for Scotland, who were to send up four names, of which the Treasury should be bound to select one. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) shook his head, but he (Lord Elcho) contended that such a course would virtually be to vest the appointment in the hands of the Royal Academy. Although it was true that four names were to be sent up, yet if the Royal Academy wanted to appoint a particular man, what could be more easy than for them to select three names of persons they knew to be utterly unqualified, so that the Treasury would have no choice but to appoint that gentleman. Virtually, therefore, that was to give the nomination to the Royal Academy, which, in his opinion, was not a wise mode of proceeding. If these curators were to be appointed, he did not sec that the choice of them should he confined and restricted to the Royal Academy of Scotland. Having said thus much with reference to the National Gallery and Museum of Scotland, he wished to say a few words more about the Kensington Museum of Art. A letter which had been addressed to him from some gentlemen in the neighbourhood informed him, that on the 16th ult. one of the principal officers of the institution applied for and received a license which enabled him to retail wine, spirits, and other liquors at the Museum, thus making it to all intents and purposes a public-house. The writers of the letter asked him whether he did not agree with them, that such a proceeding was most improper, and whether there were any good reasons why a Government officer, holding such an important post, should be converted into a licensed victualler. He wrote to the gentlemen, say- ing that he should like to sec them, and consequently a deputation waited upon him, and handed to him a report of the proceedings upon the application before the magistrates, which he held in his hand, and in which it was stated, that although the magistrates did not think it proper to grant licenses generally for the sale of wines and spirits in such institutions as this, yet they considered that it was an exceptional case, and therefore they should grant it. Now, he was at a loss to know how it could be considered an exceptional case. It might be said that visitors to that place required something of renaissance or revival in the shape of ginger beer, spirits, porter, or tobacco; but if they were for that reason to make a publican of Mr. Cole, they ought also to do the same for Sir William Hooker at Kew, whose visitors had a greater distance to travel, and must, therefore, be supposed to stand in greater need of those comforts. For his part he objected to their turning such places into public-houses, but other people might have different tastes. Refreshments to a certain extent might certainly be allowed to be sold, but not spirits, beer, and tobacco. If so, and such a system were persisted in, he would make a suggestion that this matter should be carried a little further, and that dancing licenses should be given, so as to make them rivals to Cremorne. They would then possess the advantage which Cremorne did not on all occasions, namely, that of non-exclusiveness.

said, that although great jealousy had at first existed in regard to the affiliation of the Royal Dublin School with this department, yet the experiment had worked very successfully. The late Government had had reason to believe that a similar measure would be generally acceptable to the people of Edinburgh. There was a beautiful national gallery standing empty in Edinburgh, and it was most desirable that it should be properly officered and brought into practical operation. At the same time he might remark that the number of pictures in the National Gallery of Edinburgh was not so small as the noble Lord seemed to imagine, and he certainly was mistaken as to there bring no necessity to appoint a curator. It must certainly be admitted that the National Gallery of London had been greatly improved of late in consequence of the better regulations enforced, and there was every reason to suppose that the appointment of a curator would produce an equal improve- ment in that of Edinburgh. His noble Friend had stated that the pictures in possession of the Royal Institution at Edinburgh had been well kept, and that the management of the whole had been of the most satisfactory kind. Surely his noble Friend could not be ignorant of the fact that a number of the very finest pictures in that Institution had been completely spoilt by the system of cleaning which had been adopted, and that some of them had been entirely destroyed beyond recovery. According to the best information which he had upon the subject, he thought that the only plan was to have a responsible officer placed in the institution; and, therefore, that the late Government had done right in applying the recommendation of the Select Committee with respect to the National Gallery in London to that of Edinburgh. He did not understand the noble Lord to make any decided Motion on the subject, but he sincerely hoped that the present Government would continue to carry out the recommendations in that Report, and that they would make a decided statement of their views upon the subject, in order that, as the question was so important, they should have a definite understanding upon it. His noble Friend was quite in error respecting the sending up of four names by the Royal Academy to the Treasury from which to select the curator. The choice of that gentleman was to be left entirely to the local management, in addition to which only three names were to be submitted,

said, that the bon. Gentleman had taunted him with being in error; but what did the error amount to, and how did it affect his proposition that the officer in question was to be selected by the Royal Academy of Scotland? It turned out that the Academy sent up three names, not to the Treasury, but to the Board of Manufacturers, but subsequently they were submitted to the Treasury, so that although the Royal Academy were apparently restricted in point of fact, they virtually appointed the curator.

said, that the Board was not bound to accept the name submitted to them; they might reject it altogether, which made a wide distinction. The person appointed would not be a Treasury officer.

said, that he was anxious to state what course the Government had taken in reference to this important matter. Before the change of Government, the minute to which the hon. Gentleman opposite alluded was made. When they came into office they gave it their best consideration, and in the exercise of their judgment, considering all the circumstances of the case, they did consider that the adoption of that minute was calculated to confer a great advantage with reference to the promotion of art and science in Scotland. The scheme under which the national institution was formed stated that the Lords of the Treasury had entire confidence in the Department of Science and Art; that, in carrying out the change, they would consult, in every way consistent with the object, the wishes of the trustees and commissioners of the Board of Manufacturers, and the interest of the masters and others connected with the present schools. To that the present Government formally adhered. They thought it desirable that the minute should be carried out consistent with the wish of the trustees, and, confirmed in that view, they entered into communication with the Board of Manufacturers in Scotland, with a view to ascertain what their wishes were, and how far they could overcome their objections by adopting them in their integrity. Several steps had been taken by the Government with a view of effecting that object, and they had sent over Mr. Cole and Mr. Ledgrave to consult with them upon the subject. The result of that mission was extremely satisfactory, and their reply to the Treasury, dated the 19th of March last, stated that, after a lengthened interview with the Board, and full explanations had been given of the course of action of the departments, and its adaptation to the Edinburgh School of Art, they were requested by the Lord Justice General, the chairman, to put the substance of their observations into writing; that they accordingly prepared memoranda, and submitted to the Board, which they stated contained all the information they required; and that, as soon as they received them, sanctioned by the Treasury and the Committee of Council on Education, they would be prepared to communicate their decision to the Board. The instructions under which Mr. Cole proceeded to Edinburgh were, to consult, as far as possible, the wishes and feelings of the Board of Manufacturers, because it was known that a strong feeling existed in reference to this matter; and the manner in which those objections were obviated was this:—The whole management of the school, in respect of the continuance or the dismissal of the present masters, or their suspension or control, as to guiding or directing the course of study, &c., would be left to the management of the Board. That was the way in which they had approached this matter; and he was fully persuaded that they had adopted that course they had considered the best.

said, he fully concurred with other hon. Members that the old system had failed, and that they must institute a self-supporting system. He hoped that the day was past when Irishmen thought of nothing but pulling at the Exchequer. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the whole Vote amounted to £83,000, of Which £10,000 was in round numbers the increase upon the Vote of last year for the same object. The portion which went to Kensington and Jermyn Street was about £70,000, the remaining £13,000 being applied for the benefit of the local institutions of Edinburgh, Dublin, and other places. A considerable portion of the increase this year occurred upon the item for Kensington, which was £55,000 altogether. The increase was caused by purchases, and by a rise in the salaries, granted in accordance with the Report of a Commission. The Vote was appropriated to purposes that were strictly educational, namely, for the support of the museum and of training schools, in the benefits of which Scotland and Ireland participated. As to the site of the Museum at Kensington its distance from the centre of London had not prevented an enormous concourse from attending it daily throughout the year. It was obviously a convenience to the visitors to be able to obtain refreshment without adjourning to a neighbouring public house. The refreshment department referred to by the noble Lord was no part of the institution, the accommodation required for it being rented by a private individual. It was an entire mistake to say that the Kensington Museum had not a special object which distinguished it from the British Museum and from all the other metropolitan collections. It was designed not so much for the cultivation of the higher branches of art as for the promotion of education in the principles of art applicable to manufacturing industry. This object was one that the artisans of the country could not achieve without assistance from the State, and the public money devoted to it was very usefully ex- pended. The present Vote represented the maximum amount that was likely be required for these purposes, and he trusted the Committee would now agree to it.

said, he would beg to withdraw his Motion.

said, he should object to the Vote unless he had an assurance from the Government that it was to be the maximum charge for this department.

said, he rose to complain of the meagreness of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire's (Mr. Adderley) statement as to the local schools in England. The moral to be drawn from the signal failure of the schools in Ireland was that, where a real demand for a commodity did not exist, it was perfectly vain for the State to seek to stimulate it by artificial means. He protested against any attempt to break up the magnificent collection at the British Museum.

said, in consequence of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening in reference to the above Bill, he would give notice that when the proper time arrived he would move an Amendment in the Superannuation Bill with the view of including in its operation the officers and labourers of dockyards; and also other Amendments in order to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in respect to placing the whole of the civil servants of the Crown on a perfect equality in regard to compensation for services performed.

, said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government might not properly take into consideration the expediency of making use of the Leviathan in order to lay down tile Atlantic Electric Cable?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not taken the matter alluded to by the hon. Member into their consideration. I understand that the hon. Gentleman suggests that we shall do so. Any suggestion coming from the hon. Member will no doubt be attended to by Her Majesty's Government.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) whether, in pursuance of a Resolution of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge, it is his intention, as Chairman of the Committee, to bring the subject under the notice of the House this Session; and if so, when?

said, the Committee of which he was Chairman certainly did at the conclusion of their labours add a Resolution to the Report that he ought to bring the matter before the House before the end of the Session. But that Report had only been before the House for ten days or a fortnight, and he had thought it not consistent with his duty to bring a matter of such great importance forward until hon. Members had had an opportunity of reading the Report. He was unwilling to bring the subject forward upon going into Committee of Supply, or whilst there was so much pressing business before the House. For this reason he had thought it better to defer the matter for a few days, but he hoped to be able to bring it on shortly.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Troops sent from the Mauritius to India at the commencement of the late Mutiny, consisting of nearly the whole of the Garrison, have been replaced, or whether orders have been given to that effect?

said, the 2nd battalion of a regiment was now under orders for the Mauritius. They would proceed to that colony as soon as the transport appointed to convey them was ready.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Beard whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Friendly Societies Act Amendment Bill during the present Session.

said, he was greatly disappointed in not being able to press forward the Bill before this. Night after night he had placed that Bill upon the list of the House, but was as often obliged to postpone it. It now stood first on the list for Tuesday next, and he fully intended to proceed with it. He did not believe that there were any objections to it, on the contrary, he heard that the opinions of hon. Members generally were in favour of it. He could not, therefore, but hope that his measure would receive the sanction of the House.

said, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends proceeding with the Poor Removal Bill, which was also on the paper for Tuesday?

said, he did not intend to proceed with the Poor Removal Bill this Session, but he was most anxious before he withdrew it to make a short statement as to its objects. He would therefore on Tuesday next, on moving for leave to withdraw it, take that opportunity of making such statement.

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) in respect to his Motion which stood on the paper for that evening, on the subject of the destruction of timber in the Gulf of Bothnia during the Crimean war. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would accede to the request which he was now about to make. He had made inquiry as to the nature of the papers in relation to the matter, and he confessed he found that those papers alone did not constitute any sufficient ground on his part to appeal to the hon. Gentleman for a postponement of his Motion. At the same time he was bound to say that those papers would not place the House in possession of the facts of the case. He wished, therefore, to add other papers to them, in the shape of a correspondence with the Board of Admiralty as to the nature of the attack which resulted in the destruction of this timber. He would undertake that the papers should be printed without any loss of time. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not object to postpone his Motion for a few days. He had reason to believe that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of bringing his Motion forward on another day. In the meantime the Government would take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the merits of the case.

said, he was ready to proceed with his Motion at once; but as his only object was to get a decision upon the merits of the question, and as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it necessary for that end that further papers should be produced, he felt that he had no alternative but to accede to the request of the right hon. Baronet. He would, however, only do so upon the clear understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant him an early and suitable opportunity for bringing on his Motion.

said, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any measures are in contemplation for creating a Department of Justice for the promotion of useful legislation, the supervision of passing Bills, and the simplification and precision of the wording of Acts of Parliament, and other objects, in conformity with a Resolution which has already passed the House of Commons?

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements he proposes to make for the architectural restoration of the Norman Chapel and adjacent Chambers in the White Tower of the Tower of London. The White Tower of the Tower of London, much as it had been disfigured by so-called restorations, was one of the most curious and perfect remains of the architecture of our forefathers, as it was one of the most interesting historical monuments in this or ally other country. Its most important feature was the domestic chapel of the earliest dynasty of Norman Kings, which, though small in dimensions, retained the characteristic features of the solid and magnificent Norman architecture, less mutilated either by man or by time than was to be found in any other structure. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth it was made a depository for records; but about ten years ago all the papers were removed to the new Record Office in Fetter Lane. On the same floor were two apartments—one the Council Chamber, in which Richard III. held his Council; and the other the Revenue Chamber of the Kings. At present these rooms were both filled with military stores, to secure the safe custody of which a door leading into the gallery of the Chapel had been bricked up. What was needed to be done to place all these apartments in a satisfactory condition was to remove the stores, to reopen this door, and to make a few alterations in the Chapel, all of which might be accomplished, he felt assured, for a few pounds. If more was done it might, probably, produce more harm than good; but, unless the measures which he had suggested were adopted, it was probable that in ten or twelve years the Chapel and these Chambers would fall into a state of dilapidation which could not easily be dealt with.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was fully alive to the historical and architectural interest attached to the building in question; and in any future arrangements that might be contemplated he should hope that, in a true Conservative sense, everything would be done that was necessary to preserve the particular place alluded to. But for the present there was no intention on the part of the Government to make any alterations whatever in the existing state of the structure.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience of protracting the Session during the summer months, said, that that inconvenience, which had always been felt during the six years that he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, had this year been painfully experienced. He did not intend to detain the House with any remarks upon the state of the river, further than to remind them that, whatever remedy was applied to it, a considerable time must elapse before the evil could be fully removed; and, while he fully admitted the responsibility of the Government to the public, he could not but think that for the Members of that House the true solution of the difficulty was that they should not sit during the months in which this nuisance occurred. Apart from this consideration, however, he could not refrain from asking why, in contradistinction to every other representative assembly, and reversing, as it were, the natural order of things, the British Parliament should hold its meetings during those months which were precisely the most unsuited for legislation. This practice had only grown up of late, for not many years ago Parliament used to meet in November, and separate before the King's birthday in June, and he had never heard any satisfactory reason given for the departure from that earlier and better practice. Summer Sessions were not only injurious to the health and feelings of the, Members, but adverse to the proper transaction of public business. He need, in proof, only point to the number of useful measures which they always found at this period of the Session scattered dead around them. And as to those measures for which a happier fate was reserved, and which passed into law, could it be wondered at that under the influence of a July sun those measures often left the House in a crude and imperfect state, and without having received that discussion and attention that, under other circumstances, would be given to them? An attempt had sometimes been made to meet his proposal by a reference to those Sessions, which, though commencing in November, did not terminate till the usual time. That, however, was owing to the fact that the real business was not commenced in November, the attention of Parliament having on each occasion been exclusively confined to the object of its congregation. In the November Session of 1852 Parliament did nothing but settle the question of free trade and the fate of the Ministry; in 1854 nothing was submitted to its consideration but the Foreign Enlistment Act, while in the December Session of last year it had only to pass an Indemnity Bill. But when they pressed upon Government the necessity of calling Parliament together in November, he, of course, wished them then to commence the real business of the Session. He saw no reason why the financial year should not be altered in accordance with his proposal, and he thought the time for delivering the usual notices might easily be changed so as to enable private business to be proceeded with at once. He also desired to submit to the Government whether of the two recesses at Easter and Whitsuntide one might not be dispensed with. This question had been submitted to the noble Lord the Member for London when he was leader of the House. That noble Lord did not object to it on principle, but thought the moment inopportune, in the month of August, for determining upon assembling in No- vember for the next Session. Parliament had now, however, for the first time for many years, some prospect of being able to finish its labours before the beginning of August, and he could not conceive, therefore, a more favourable opportunity than the present for trying the experiment which be recommended.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Control if any decision has yet been come to on the subject of granting compensation to Indigo Planters and other British Settlers in India whose property has been destroyed by the rebels? He hoped the noble Lord would not give the stereotyped answer that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, but that he would express some opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued. The destruction of property need not be compensated for out of the revenues of India, for there would be abundant arising out of the forfeited estates to satisfy all such claims.

said, before the noble Lord answered the question, he was anxious to draw his attention to the discontinuance of the papers relative to the progress of events in India. During the early part of the mutiny, papers were issued giving a detailed notice of what had passed in India; but for the last three months the record had been discontinued. He thought it would be for the public interest that the papers should continue to be published.

I said, he wished to call attention to the existing position of the church-rate question. The House, after repeated discussion extending over a lengthened period, had sent up a Bill to "another place" for the settlement of the question, but it was there rejected. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, upon the discussion of the Bill in "another place," stated that he thought it desirable that Dissenters should be relieved from the payment of church rates, though the manner in which he proposed that should be done was somewhat ungracious and ungenerous. It was not for the interest of the Church that the question should be thus trifled with, nor was it to the advantage of the magistracy, who had to administer the law under great uncertainties, and since there yet remained one or two months of the Session—he thought the Government were bound to do something towards bringing about an immediate settlement of the dispute. He did not think the smell of the Thames had so much to do with the anxiety of hon. Members to get away, as the smell of the sea or the heather, and the Government need therefore have no apprehensions on that score; it ought not to preclude their making an attempt at an immediate compromise, which would not involve a larger sum to the State or the Church than £75,000. After the opinions expressed on this subject by a noble Lord in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in that House, he felt that the Government were bound to make some attempt at legislation; if they did not, they were not fit for their places, and he begged to inquire whether they proposed to fix a period for the termination of the Session without recommending Parliament to adopt a measure in which their views on this question should be embodied.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the operation of the laws regulating the sale and consumption of Spirituous Liquors in Scotland. About four years ago an Act came into existence for regulating the sale of spirits in Scotland, under which great evils had, he believed, arisen. It had been attempted to be shown that the consumption of spirits had largely diminished in Scotland of late years, but he thought that was largely due to other causes, and amongst them to the increase of the duty on spirits, from 3s. 8d. to 8s. 3d. per gallon. The intention of the Act was to diminish drinking by diminishing the number of public-houses, and placing them under restrictions. But the result of these restrictions had been to increase the illicit sale of spirits to a great extent. He admitted, indeed, that the number of cases of drunkenness brought before the police had diminished, but that did not give an accurate representation of the results of the Act, and of its tendency to give rise to evils of another kind. He understood that in some towns the police were extensively bribed by the keepers of illicit houses. Licensed houses had decreased in number, to the loss of the revenue, while those who kept them had in many in- stances become keepers of illicit houses so that, in some parts of Scotland, the number of illicit now exceeded those of licensed houses; whilst it was stated that, in point of fact, the Forbes Mackenzie Act was only enforced against the poor, and not against the rich. In Glasgow the number of licensed houses had diminished from 1,900 to 1,600, with a corresponding increase of illicit trade to an extent that was appalling. It was carried on by all classes of persons, young and old. And it was stated that every licensed house that was suppressed was succeeded by the establishment of an illict house, the result of the traffic in which was most injurious to the public. In Glasgow, when the Act had been put strictly in force, public opinion had declared itself so strongly against it that, in order to obtain convictions, it was necessary to employ the police as spies, which he (Lord Melgund) thought most objectionable. The police either went themselves dressed in plain clothes to places where illicit traffic was carried on, or employed men of disreputable character to frequent those places. He put it to the Government whether the employment of the police in that capacity should not at once be abolished?

said, that the views of the noble Lord were much exaggerated, and that there was an unanimous opinion amongst the magistrates, and all those interested in the preservation of the peace and the improvement of the morals of Scotland, in favour of the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act. In Glasgow, notwithstanding an increase of population, the cases of drunkenness for the last three years had been only 53,000, whereas for the three years preceding the Act they had been 71,000. He found from Returns respecting Glasgow that in the three years from 1851 to 1853 the drunken cases of all classes were 71,648, and in the three years from 1854 to 1856, 53,146, showing a decrease of 18,502. The number of cases of persons drunk and incapable was, in the first three years, 41,234, and in the last three years 36,461, showing a decrease of 4,778. The drunk and disorderly cases, including those of persons discharged without being brought before a magistrate, numbered, in the first three years, 30,414; in the last, 16,685, showing a decrease of 13,729. Similar cases brought before a magistrate in the first three years, 21,174; in the last, 7,916—decrease, 13,258. The num- ber of disorderly persons between the years 1852 and 1854 was 16,462; from 1855 to 1857, 8,546. The number of persons drunk and taken for protection during the first three years was 57,652; in the last three years, 45,436. With regard to the Sunday cases, he found in the first three years they amounted to 1,483, in the last three years to 535, showing a decrease of about one-third.

said, he had placed upon the paper a Motion relative to the clothing and ammunition of British troops in India, a subject of the highest importance as it affected the efficiency of our troops in that country. They had in India a small body of Englishmen, who had to contend against tenfold odds, and it was self-evident that in order to enable them to do so successfully it was essential that they should be supplied with clothing suited to the climate in which they were employed, and that their ammunition should be of the very best description. That, he was sure, was the wish of the House and of the country, and it was the universal belief that our army in India was in every respect most suitably clothed and equipped. He feared, however, from what had lately appeared in the public prints, that this was not exactly the state of the case, but that, so far from our troops being clothed in a manner suitable to the climate, some of them retained the clothing they were accustomed to wear in this country, minus, in one instance, shoes and stockings. He held in his hand an extract from the last letter received from the correspondent of The Times newspaper in India, who said—

"Whatever the exact nature of the attack may be, it is evident that the best preventive must be found in protecting the head and the body from the sun, and I own I am distressed when I see the 60th Rifles dressed in dark-green tunics, which absorb the heat almost as much as if they were made of black cloth, and their cloth forage caps poorly covered with a few folds of dark cotton. What shall we say of the 79th Highlanders, who still wear that picturesque and extraordinary headdress, with the addition of a flap of grey cloth over the ears? If it were white, perhaps it would afford some protection against the sun, but, as it is, this mass of black feathers is surely not the headdress that would be chosen by any one, except a foolish fantastic savage, for the plains of India. The most decisive argument against it, however, is afforded by the objection of the men, who say they would much rather be without the bonnet. Can the most learned antiquaries ascertain the period when the trade in ostrich plumes between Africa and the Highlands was so brisk as to afford material for this national military headdress? I regret to say, indeed, that in some points our soldiers here are not so well provided for as they might be. At home you will be surprised, and perhaps disgusted, to hear that many of the men of the Highland regiments are without stockings to their feet, and that their shoes are worn through and through, nor can they get any others."

It was unnecessary for him (Lord Elcho) to dilate upon the importance of doing all that could be done to promote the comfort and efficiency of the army employed in India. It would be necessary in future to maintain a large British force in that part of the world, and it was impossible to foresee the difficulties that might arise in obtaining a sufficient supply of recruits. It appeared that in this instance somebody must have been blameable, but he hoped it was an exceptional case, and that the Secretary for War would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the questions which he (Lord Elcho) was about to put to him. With regard to the ammunition supplied to the army, he found that The Times' correspondent made the following statement:—

"The Enfield ammunition of some regiments is so bad, so infamously made, that it almost destroys the utility of the weapon. When will the authorities have the courage to hang a fraudulent contractor? Imagine the men of the 79th being obliged to hammer down their cartridges by striking the head of the ramrod against a stone in the wall, and, even when loaded after this fashion, the weapon is rendered useless by the rim of the bullet sticking in the breach."

It appeared to him that this was a very sorry return for the large amount of public money expended upon the establishment at Woolwich for the manufacture of small arms. He had visited that establishment, and could state that nothing could be more efficient than the manufacture of ammunition for the Enfield rifles. The machinery by which it was made was exceedingly well adapted to the purpose, and the general work turned out was in every respect satisfactory. It appeared, therefore, as if some mistake had been made, and the ammunition to which the correspondent of The Times referred was probably old ammunition, or some which had been made up in India. [An hon. GENTLEMAN: Read on] He (Lord Elcho) knew it was stated in the letter that the ammunition appeared to have been made up in India, and the cartridges might have been manufactured in an inferior manner in that country, or—as he knew that some of the ammunition originally manufactured for the Minié rifles was very defective—it was probable that some old ammunition might have been served out by mistake. It was well known that when accounts were received from the Crimea, describing the state in which the troops then were, the enlistment of recruits was materially affected, and he feared it was not improbable, if an impression got abroad that our army in India was not properly provided for, a similar effect might be produced. He hoped the case to which he had referred was a purely accidental one, and that care would be taken that for the future no ground of complaint should be afforded. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for War whether due provision was made by the Government for insuring to every British soldier on landing in India a supply of clothing suitable to the climate, and the best ammunition which this country could produce?

said, his noble Friend had placed a notice upon the paper of his intention to put a question to him respecting the troops in India; but as the noble Lord did not state what the nature of the question was to be, he (General Peel) felt some difficulty in answering it. Indeed, he always felt great difficulty in answering any question as to anything relating to our troops in India, for he received no report whatever from the Commander in Chief in India, or any information beyond what was conveyed to him through the India Board. With regard to clothing, the regular clothing was served out to the troops serving in India, and was sent out from this country to India. One year they received the tunics, and the next year the serge frocks, and the difference in the price of those articles was paid to the soldiers, to enable them to purchase the light clothing which was furnished by the East India Company. He knew nothing about what was done in India. All the light clothing was served out by the Company, and he had no report of anything that happened to any regiment after its arrival in India. He could not understand how any portion of the troops could have been in want of boots or shoes, as was stated by the newspaper correspondent to whom his noble Friend had alluded, as every regiment sent out from this country was supplied with a year's clothing, and with boots which would last for a year. He might state that 50,000 pairs of boots and 7,000 pairs of the description of shoes worn by the Highland regiments had been sent out. With regard to the ammunition supplied to the army, he conceived that that was one of the most serious questions that could be brought under the consideration of Parliament. If the ammunition for the Enfield rifle was not most carefully attended to, the rifle itself would be perfectly useless. He had no opportunity of knowing, as he had said before, whether the ammunition now complained of had been sent from this country or had been made up in India. Every soldier who had gone out had been furnished with 600 rounds of ammunition, which was manufactured at Woolwich, and which he had no doubt was of the best quality. A great quantity of balls and paper for the manufacture of cartridges had also been sent out to India for the East India Company. It was therefore impossible for him to say whether the ammunition complained of had been made in India, or had been sent out from this country. This most extraordinary fact, however, he might state—that he had seen private letters, written by every mail from Sir Colin Campbell and the Generals commanding detached corps, to the Commander in Chief, who had had the goodness to forward them to him, and he had never found the slightest complaint in any one of them. The instant he found, from the private letters of officers, that with regard to one division of the army—that of Sir Hugh Rose—there were complaints of the ammunition, orders were sent out to Sir Colin Campbell to institute the fullest inquiry with regard to the ammunition, clothing, and supplies of the troops. He had, however, received no information whatever from officers in command in India, and therefore he could only speak upon the same authority as that upon which the noble Lord relied—namely, information derived from private sources.

said, he would take this opportunity for replying to the two questions which had been addressed to him, and at the same time for saying a few words in corroboration of what had fallen from his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith) had asked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the publication of papers respecting the insurrection in India. He begged to say that he had given directions that the publication of those papers, which had for a time been discontinued, should be renewed, and that a selection from them should be printed. He had also been asked whether any compensation would be given to British settlers who had suffered loss from disturbances in India. He found that as early as December last, instructions were sent out from this country to the Governor General of India to procure evidence and information with reference to claims of that description; and he was desired, as soon as the state of the country would permit, to appoint a Commission to investigate those claims. He (Lord Stanley) believed that Commission had been appointed, but its Report had not yet been received. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had put a question to the Secretary for War with regard to the clothing and ammunition supplied to the troops. He could confirm what his right hon. Friend had said, that light clothing was supplied by the Indian Government to every regiment which arrived in India. What became of that clothing after it was issued to the regiment he had no means of knowing; but he apprehended that, if it had not been used by any troops in the field, that was a matter for which those directly in command were responsible, rather than either the East India Company or the authorities at home. As to the Enfield rifle ammunition supplied to the troops, there was no doubt that some part of it was found very defective. Instructions were sent out on the 8th of last month to inquire minutely into these defects, and, as far as possible, to amend them. Skilled workmen were being sent out from England, and machinery was also being forwarded by which defective bullets, either too large or not of the proper shape, could be made fit for use. Government had acted without delay or the information which had reached them, and he believed that all necessary steps had been taken to remedy that very serious cause of complaint.

said, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, as the statement of the car-driver, that Burke admitted to him (the cardriver) the false character of his (Burke's) evidence against the Cormacks on the trial, has been confirmed by Burke on his examination before the Solicitor General for Ireland, it is the intention of the Government to take steps for the apprehension of Burke? A most painful impression had been produced upon the public mind in Nenagh by Burke's admission, and he thought that it was incumbent upon the law officers. of the Crown to prosecute an inquiry which they had themselves instituted, and thoroughly to sift the evidence which had been brought against the accused persons. It was the more necessary to ascertain how far Spillane was to be relied on, as be was now in the hands of the Government, to be brought forward on future trials.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion brought this question before the House, and he thought that be had then given him a satisfactory answer, but he regretted to find that he had not done so. It was alleged that the witness Burke, while leaving Ireland, told a story to the car-driver, when the police had left the car, that the evidence which he had given on the trial was false. On this being reported by the police an inquiry was instituted, which took place, not before the Solicitor General, but before a magistrate, when it was found that there was no reason to detain Burke for one hour. Burke was accordingly conducted out of the country, according to the custom which prevailed in that part of Ireland when a witness could not safely remain after giving his evidence in a case of this kind. But the Solicitor General stated distinctly that there was nothing in the depositions taken in the case which would have justified him in detaining Burke one hour; and even if a man did state a falsehood, that did not justify his arrest; for if it did the prisons would soon be inadequate to hold the prisoners.

said, the Attorney General had not answered the question in such a way as to set the public mind at rest. The car-driver and Burke were said to have been examined in the presence of the Solicitor General. The general impression was, that on being thus examined before a magistrate Burke confirmed his statement to the car-driver, and repeated that his evidence against the Cormacks on the trial was false. Was that true? Burke now stood in this position:—When examined before the Coroner, on oath, he said he knew nothing of the transaction; on the trial he made a contrary statement, and gave evidence against the Cormacks, and since then he had confirmed his original statement before the Coroner. He wished, therefore, that the Attorney General would give a distinct answer to the question—yes or no.

said, that it was very painful in a case of this kind, that concerned the administration of justice, that after a trial of two days, and after a witness had been examined And cross-examined by eminent counsel, and his testimony believed by a jury, it should now be sought to impeach it by the simple, uncorroborated statement of a man who was taking him to the seaport. He could only answer the question by reading the words of his colleague:—

"These persons were brought up and carefully examined before a magistrate. Having perused their depositions before the magistrate, I came to the conclusion that there was no ground for detaining Burke, and that there was no ground for making a charge against him."

There was no ground for saying so, and it was absurd to say that there was.

said, he must again appeal to the Attorney General to give a distinct answer whether Burke had or had not repeated the statement he made to the car-driver.

could not say exactly what Burke said, because he was not present, and had not seen the depositions. There were, in fact, no depositions, and there could be none, for there was no charge and no trial. The man was asked certain questions; he answered them, and was let go about his business.

said, he should now proceed, with the permission of the House, to answer the several questions which had been put to him in the course of the evening. The first to which he should reply was, that of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) who desired to know whether the Government had any measure in contemplation for the purpose of creating a Department of Justice in conformity with the Resolution which had been passed by the House of Commons. Now, with regard to that, as with regard to another Resolution to which the sanction of that House had been given, he would only say, that if it had been productive of no result it was not owing to any want of respect for the House upon the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. He could not, of course, state the reasons which might have induced the predecessors in office of the present advisers of the Crown not to act upon the Resolution in question; but, so far as he himself was concerned, he was perfectly ready to admit that he would have been quite prepared to propose a vote to the House with the view of establishing a Department of Justice, provided he had been furnished with any satisfactory definition as to the duties which such a Department when constituted would be called upon to discharge. Hitherto he had not been furnished with any satisfactory definition upon that point, and he had not deemed himself, therefore, to be in a position to ask the House of Commons to incur the expense which the scheme would involve; but when the necessary information upon the subject was supplied, he would be found prepared to act in accordance with the Resolution at which the House had arrived. He should next advert to the question of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Trelawny), who had referred to a subject of still greater importance. He wished to ascertain what the intentions of the Government were in reference to the long-vexed subject of church rates. The hon. Baronet seemed to be of opinion that, in consequence of the views with regard to it to which expression had been given by Members of the Government in the other House of Parliament, it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers immediately to introduce a measure to carry those views into effect. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not prepared to say upon the part of the Government that it was their intention to introduce in the course of the present Session any measure with that object; but he must, at the same time, be permitted to state, notwithstanding certain observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet, that Her Majesty's Ministers did not relinquish the hope of settling the question of church rates, and that they would take the earliest opportunity after the re-assembling of Parliament to ask the opinion of the Legislature upon a Bill which they would introduce, in the hope and belief that it would be accepted as a satisfactory solution of a long-controverted subject. In dealing with either of the important matters to which he had adverted, however, some regard must be had to the time at which Parliament should resume its sittings—a question which had been brought under the notice of the House last evening by an hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. C. Forster). Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was bound to admit that the arguments which were urged in favour of the assembling of Parliament in the autumn were not merely plausible, but that they were, to some minds, convincing. He believed that the origin of the meeting of Parliament at that period of the year at which now it was accustomed to assemble was not at all to be attributed to the popular cause which was usually alleged—namely, the passion by which the people of this country, as well as the Members of the Legislature were animated for the sports of the field. Our predecessors were as much attached as we could be to those sports, and yet Parliament in olden days, and even he believed in the commencement of the present century, was wont to assemble in the autumn, and to bring its labours to a conclusion at the commencement of June. The custom in accordance with which the Legislature met early in the year, instead of towards its decline, had its origin, he believed, in the union with Ireland, and the necessity which had thence arisen for making a complete change in the system which previously prevailed, in order to promote the convenience of those brother Members who were obliged to repair from what was then considered a great distance to this country for the discharge of their legislative functions. That being so, he had simply to state, in reply to the hon. Member who had called his attention to the subject, that whenever it was brought fully under the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers they would be prepared impartially and temperately to discuss it. He must, however, remind the House that it was hardly fair to recommend that such a change as the hon. Member proposed should at once be carried into effect. It must be borne in mind that there had been an autumnal Session in the present Parliamentary year; that, although that sitting had not been of a protracted character, it had entailed all the inconveniences of disturbing the plans and habits of hon. Members, and that some time had been expended upon a very important discussion. But although the late autumnal Session had not been very long, he was, he thought, entitled to call the attention of the House to the fact that, owing to those changes which from time to time took place under a constitutional form of Government, Her Majesty's present advisers were called upon to conduct the affairs of the country not till some time after Parliament had met subsequent to the Christmas recess, he himself not having taken his seat upon re-election until the 12th of March, and that during the period which had since elapsed they had found it to be their duty to deal with subjects of a most important and difficult nature. He might add that the time of the Government had in consequence been completely occupied; that they had as yet by no means concluded the business of the Session, and he, therefore, thought it would be unfair to ask them to meet Parliament again so early as the month of November or December next. They had not had the advantage of any preparation for the policy which they had pursued during the last few months, and under those circumstances he could not help thinking that they were entitled to ask the House not to adopt the great change which was proposed until Parliament assembled again at the beginning of next year, which would probably be the case. In making those observations he must not be understood as being at all opposed in theory to the scheme of the hon. Gentleman who had put the question. There were, however, in his opinion, valid arguments against any immediate alteration of the present system. Having answered the various questions which had been put to bins he trusted the House would be prepared to go at once into Committee of Supply.

said, it appeared to him that it would be a change for the better if, as a general rule, Parliament resolved to assemble in the autumn instead of at the beginning of the year. When the Earl of Derby made a proposal that Bills left unfinished in one Session should be taken up at the same stage in the next, he (Lord J. Russell) was the only one of those who usually took a leading part in the discussions in that House that expressed an approval of the noble Earl's suggestion. As to the plan now under discussion, he did not think that meeting in autumn would be sufficient to ensure a satisfactory disposal of business unless the plan were accompanied by other arrangements. The question was an important one for Her Majesty's Government to consider; but if they thought they required more preparation for their measures this year than an autumnal meeting would permit of, he had not a word to say against giving them time for that preparation.

said, he was anxious to put a question to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the manufacturers of this country used certain marks in order to distinguish their products from those of other persons and by these means acquired a name for their well-made goods. Now, it appeared that by certain dishonest persons abroad those marks had been forged. An inferior article was produced by them, and upon it the name of some eminent English manufacturer was stamped. High prices were asked for those spurious articles, which of course were soon discovered to be of inferior quality, and then the parties by whom they had been sold brought forward their own manufactures, which were by no means equal to those which were produced in this country, but which were nevertheless superior to those upon which the forged marks appeared, and which being sold at a lower price had the effect of dispossessing the English manufacturer of his fair market. Now, several foreign nations had concurred in the expediency of reciprocating the protection afforded to their manufacturers by other countries in that respect, and in France a law had been passed which set forth that, if a treaty were entered into with that object, they would protect in their law courts any manufacturer whose marks had been forged. He wished under those circumstances to ascertain from his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the subject, and whether there would be any difficulty in our entering into a treaty with France for the purpose to which he had referred?

replied that, the attention of the Government had been called to the question, and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were most anxious to take steps as early as possible to remedy the inconvenience of which the English manufacturers complained. The question was now under the consideration of the Attorney General, and they (the Government) were not without hope that they might be able in the course of the present Session of Parliament to introduce a Bill which should enable them, by conventions with foreign countries, to carry out the object the hon. and learned Gentleman desired.

said, he wished to reduce the sum by £9,045 8s., being the increase on the Vote of last year. They were the conservators of the public purse, and their duty was to see that these Votes should not be continually increased. He agreed with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) that they ought not to grant more money than was recommended by a Committee of the House, or some other body such as the trustees of the British Museum, in whom the House had confidence. If they had recommendations of that sort, the House would not grudge the money necessary for the promotion of science and art.

said, he thought it right to state that the National Gallery in Edinburgh had given very great satisfaction to the people of that city. In matters of art, it was not easy to arrive at a result that was pleasing to every one. Now, this object seemed to have been accomplished in the present instance. The artists were satisfied as well as the public, and artists were proverbially very ill to please in such matters. On the whole, he thought the institution did great credit to the country, and more particularly to all parties connected with its establishment. He believed that the National Gallery would be a great advantage, not only to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, but to the people of Scotland generally.

said, that hon. Members should understand that this Motion would preclude any objection on any particular item in the Vote.

said, he could not concur in the objection urged against this Vote by the hon. Member for Swansea.

remarked, that he understood that the sum now asked for by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) would be the maximum. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that if a larger sum were asked for in future he should object to it.

said, he could not assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) that this Vote was now at its maximum, but it was probably something near it. He must, however, decline to give on the part of the Government any specific pledge on the subject. It was in accordance with the most rigid rules of political economy to apply a portion of the public money in stimulating art in this country, and it was also clear from experience that as the stimulus took effect the system of education became more and more self-supporting. There had been a departure from the subsidizing system for one which met the efforts made in each locality. As this had been more and more adopted, and encouragement had been given in prizes and certificates where results had been obtained, local exertions had been called out, and the schools had become not only more efficient but more self-supporting. It was even found that as the Parliamentary grants to schools were reduced the burden upon the locality itself was diminished, the voluntary subscriptions being less needed in consequence of the increased tendency of the schools to support themselves. It might seem that as the schools increased the expense would naturally become larger, yet there was reason to believe that the increase would be more and more counteracted by the self-supporting tendency of these schools of art. He could not promise that the Vote should not show some small increase in future years, but he was inclined to regard it as very near its maximum at present.

was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, as it proved that the system had come very near to the object which the Committee, which sat to consider this subject, had in view, namely, that schools of design should be rendered self-supporting. He believed that as these schools extended themselves they would become more popular institutions.

pointed out the inequality with which the Vote was dealt out to Ireland as compared with England and Scotland. He did not see why a city like Cork, which had produced many eminent artists, should he excluded from the benefits of a school of design.

said, he felt bound to repeat his objection to the appointment of the curator of the Museum being vested in the Royal Academy. He should not divide the Committee on the question now; but if the Vote came up next year with this appointment in the same hands, he should decidedly move an Amendment, and take the opinion of the House on the matter.

said, it could be prove to demonstration that no public money spent of late years had been productive of so much benefit to the country as that which was devoted to the promotion of art and science. He did not mean high art or science, but the inculcation of practical knowledge and information to those who earned their bread by their daily labour. He would mention a remarkable result of this expenditure. Twelve years ago our exports to France were only £400,000 a year, but now, in consequence of our improved designs, combined with cheap labour, they had increased to upwards of £2,000,000—and it would be found that a large portion of those exports consisted of porcelain and other objects of taste in which formerly the French were our successful competitors. Again in the article of silk, until within the last few years, our exports were not so large with the whole world as they now were with France alone. This was another proof of the immense advantage which these schools of design had afforded to our manufactures. The House should not do anything to preclude itself from increasing these votes if they continued to produce such profitable results. Parliament, however, had nothing to do with the subject brought under the notice of the Committee by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho). A certain sum was voted for the National Gallery and the Museum, and the appointment of the curator was a matter in the hands of a local Board.

said, that several minor places in England got shares of this grant; and he thought that the advantage of the Vote ought to be extended more widely. The City of Cork, the City of Dublin, and the town of Galway, and other towns in Ireland, were well entitled to a portion of these funds.

said, that if Ireland did not receive a sufficiently large share of the grant, it was her own fault. Ireland was placed on exactly the same footing as England and Scotland with respect to its distribution. He hoped the money would not be looked upon as an eleemosynary fund, to be doled out according to the arbitrary discretion of the head of a department. It was appropriated strictly according to certain conditions which were equally applicable to all portions of the kingdom. If, therefore, any application were made from any town in Ireland it would be immediately complied with.

said, he thought these institutions were conferring great benefits on society, and it was substantially carry- ing out the old university system of this country. The observations that had been made about the Report were too severe, and he thought it was an interesting document.

said, it was entirely the fault of localities in Ireland that they did not enjoy the advantage of the grant, and, as an instance of this, he might refer to a recent interesting and successful exhibition of works of art and pictures in Dublin, the nucleus of which was several specimens of art, which had been lent to that city by the society in England. He hoped other localities in Ireland would follow the example of Dublin.

said he could bear testimony to the inestimable benefit which schools of design had conferred upon the country. He had no doubt that, by following the present system, the designs in this country would shortly be as good as those in France.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the expediency of making such modifications in the conditions under which public money is granted to non-vested schools as may extend the benefits of the National system of education to a larger portion of Her Majesy's subjects in Ireland. If he had brought on this subject on going into Committee of Supply, in accordance with the notice he had given, he should have presented a vast number of petitions praying that the Bible might be introduced into the National schools in Ireland. He wished, in the outset, to guard himself against its being supposed that any hostility towards grants for the education of the Roman Catholics of Ireland induced him to give notice of his Motion. So far from that being the case, if aid were to be confined either to the Roman Catholic or the Protestant schools, he should prefer that it should be given to the Roman Catholic, because the majority of the population was Roman Catholic. The first thing that struck a person, in looking at this subject, was that our National system of education in Ireland was not National. It was repudiated by nearly every clergyman of the Established Church in Ireland; in other words, by the great body of those who were paid to be the guides and teachers of the people. It was repudiated, also, by a large number of the proprietors of land. That surely was a flaw in the system, which otherwise had great merits; and surely, if that system could be made acceptable to the whole instead of a part of the people of Ireland, it would be more satisfactory. The system had another defect—it stirred up a vast amount of bitterness. For thirty years, a feeling that they were not treated justly had rankled in the minds of the clergy. Now, he did not himself believe that a large number of intelligent and excellent men would go on for thirty years bewailing their hard lot unless their lot were really hard. No doubt it was irritating to hear people filling Heaven and earth with their lamentations, and one's inclination was to shut one's cars. But it would be unworthy of this House to give way to exasperation, however tiresome the Irish clergy might have seemed to be. It would surely be wiser, if possible, to remove the ground of complaints than to pooh-pooh those who made them. But though he should think that no work could be more fit for a statesman to do than the work of removing discontent, and above all when that discontent arose from religious scruples being disregarded, still he did not seek for a change in this system as a boon to the Irish clergy. They were admirable men. There was not in the world a set of men more devoted to their duty; and be thought they had reason to feel themselves illused. But it was not from sympathy for them that he asked for a modification of the system. His reason for doing so was this—that, having travelled now and then in Ireland, and made a point of visiting the schools, he had found the bulk of the peasant children provided by the nation with as good an education, as well-built schoolrooms, trained schoolmasters, first-rate books and apparatus, annual inspection, and a printed report of their progress could bestow; and that they were in themselves a priceless blessing to the Irish people. Side by side with all this, he found some hundred thousand peasant children, in the Church Education and other schools, who were not in the enjoyment of these advantages; and he felt that in holding its hand, and not giving those great benefits to that great multitude of children, our National system was doing less than it might do for the welfare of Ireland. He might more especially allude to the loss it was to them not to have masters trained in the National normal schools, and, above all, not to have the annual inspection and report. So far, then, as that went, he did not doubt that all who held that an ample education was a blessing to the children who received it, and in the long run to the country which gave it, would agree with him in regretting that nearly 100,000 children should be outcasts from the National system. So much, he was sure, would be granted him by the candour of the House, that it would be desirable, if it could properly be done, to convey the benefits of the National system to these additional 100,000 children. But then he should wish, with equal candour, to examine the difficulties that stood in the way. What was it that narrowed the field of usefulness of the system, and debarred those children from it? Why, that the National Board could give no help to any school, unless its patron took a pledge that no child should receive any religious teaching to which the child's parents objected—a most plausible restriction he acknowledged, but a pledge which the clergy could not take. They deemed it to be their absolute duty to give a knowledge of the Word of God to all the children under their care. They thought that, when they had founded a school, they had no right to withhold Scriptural education from any of the children who came to it; and that if they promised to do so, for the sake of getting money and help, they would be betraying a trust. That might be a great mistake on their part, but he was sure the House would allow that that scruple of theirs was a decent, a respectable scruple—not one to be treated with utter scorn. He did not want the House to endorse the scruples of the clergy; but he did want them to acknowledge that the heartfelt religious scruples of a great body of admirable men, who had stood their ground during a sharp trial of thirty years, ought not to be lightly passed over, and that the House was bound gravely to weigh whether it really was necessary to exact that pledge which so much disturbed them. That pledge, he contended, kept the National system from being national:—it excited vehement discontent; and it cast off 100,000 children from great educational advantages. Another evil in connection with the present system was, that the existing National Schools bad a monopoly of the Government aid; and in consequence the schools became in many cases feeble and languid. Nothing could tend more to the advantage of schools in Ireland than a healthy competition. These were the disadvantages of keeping up the present system. On the other hand the argument was, that if you removed the pledge you destroyed the essence of the system. But he would ask the Committee to consider whether the good effected by the pledge outweighed the evils he had described. They all knew why it was established. It was hoped that if the parents knew that their children could receive no religious teaching without their consent, then the Protestant and Roman Catholic child would be sent to the same school for their secular education and receive their religious education separately. It was thonght that, trusting in that pledge, the parents of different denominations would not fear to have their children brought up in the same school. And certainly, if that hope had been fulfilled, if the pledge had really produced that effect, if the Protestant and Roman Catholic children were really receiving a combined education in the National Schools, he should be the first to implore the House not to lay its fingers on the machinery by which so wise, so beneficent an end had been attained. But he lamented to say that, while in its main end of conveying a first-rate education to a great multitude of peasant children the National system had been a splendid success, in its secondary aim, of bringing up the Protestant and Roman Catholic children in harmony under the same roof, it had been an utter failure. There were scarcely any schools out of the 5,245 under the Board in which the children were combined for secular and separated for religious education. Many National Schools were exclusively Protestant, great numbers were exclusively Roman Catholic, but scarcely any in which the members of the two religions were combined for education. There lay the whole gist of the question. The pledge that no religious teaching was to be given to any child whose parents objected to it could be of no conceivable use, unless it effected that union of Protestant and Roman Catholic children. If it did not do that, it did nothing. It was then simply rubbish, and a mere dead weight on the system. If it did that it was invaluable. If the hon. Gentleman who were opposed to him, could get up and prove from the Reports of the Board that this pledge did what it was meant to do, that trusting in it the Protestant and Roman Catholic parents sent their children to the same National Schools, that it did produce a combined education, then all that he had said must go for nothing. But if they could prove nothing of the kind—if this pledge, though potent for evil, was impotent for good—if it did not create a combined education of Protestants and Roman Catholics—if its only effect was to keep the clergy aloof and to deprive those 100,000 children of the help of the Board, then he submitted whether it was worth while to keep up a restriction which did but narrow the sphere, enfeeble the force, and impede the flow of the national effort on behalf of the education of the poor. It might be said he was seeking to destroy the National system and to make it sectarian. What he affirmed was, that it was now sectarian; that already there was not a combined education, but a sectarian education in the National Schools. In acknowledging this fact to be a fact—that the attempt at a combined education had been a failure—they would only be acting with good sense, and not twenty National Schools in Ireland would undergo one iota of change were the pledge he had alluded to laid aside. The Board had conceded an exclusive education to the Presbyterian Schools, and to the Convent Schools, and the ordinary National Schools were exclusively Roman Catholic. Why were they to refuse aid to those whose only demand was that they might admit the word of God into their schools? It was objected that, were this restriction removed, the priests would become paramount over the Roman Catholic children in their schools. Every one familar with the subject knew that already the priest's sway over the Roman Catholic children was entirely unchecked. Remove that restriction, and he would have no more real authority that he had now, and he already had as much as he pleased. It seemed to him, then, that by cutting off that mischievous feature of the system the House would render it really national, remove bitter and chronic discontent, improve the education of 100,000 children, and not in the smallest degree destroy or damage the system, but rather enlarge its influence and extend its great benefits through a much wider sphere.

If the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down had concluded with a substantive proposition, I would have been prepared to give him my decided opposition. As he has not done so, it may be more for the convenience of the Committee that the notice which I have given, and the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, should be discussed together, instead of having two Motions and a double discussion. It is my intention to charge the National Board with certain defects in its administration, defects so marked and so full of danger, that they afford an additional reason why there should be no further relaxation of their rules, and why such relaxation as the hon. Gentleman and his English friends demand ought not to be granted. However, before I proceed to show that the evils of which I complain exist, it is only right that I should guard myself from the possibility of being misunderstood or misrepresented, by stating what my feelings are with respect to the system of National Education in Ireland. I have ever been an advocate and supporter of that system, and I am at this moment, as I ever was, one of its sincere friends. With the hon. Member for Newport, I believe it has conferred priceless blessings on the people of Ireland, by the education which it has imparted to vast masses of the children of the poorest class. But, Sir, it is because I consider the system as having been a priceless blessing to the people of my country, that I conceive it to be my duty to call attention to serious defects in the administration of the Board which fill me with alarm, and are fraught with danger to the future. I regret to say, that a spirit of discontent is growing up in Ireland, arising from a sense of alarm caused by late proceedings of the Board, and the existence of a policy which, if not attended to and checked in time by a return to a more wholesome policy, will certainly lead to the worst consequences to the success of the system. The fact is, the Board appear to be gradually departing from the principle on which the whole system was originally based. What was that principle? The principle on which the National system was based was that of combined literary and separate religious instruction. This was the system which was announced by Parliament in its memorable Resolutions of 1828; this was the system which was proclaimed by Lord Stanley in his celebrated letter of October, 1831; and this is the system which was practically carried out, to the satisfaction of the Irish people, for sixteen years after. Now, the great object of this separate religious teaching was this, to afford to the Catholics of Ireland an unpoisoned education. This was the benevolent intention of the authors of the system, and this was the boon which men of all parties and of every shade of opinion united in conferring on that country. The desire was to prevent the possibility of proselytism, that which was the canker at the heart of the Kildare Place system, and of every other educational system which had been previously established. What was the plan adopted in order to enforce this salutary principle of separate religious teaching? At first it was resolved that no religious teaching could be given on the same day that literary teaching was given, and even different days were adopted for different religious instruction. But eventually, while religious and literary instruction were allowed to be given on the same day, this salutary rule was strictly enforced—that no child should be suffered to attend at the teaching of a religion different from that to which the child's parents belonged. So strictly was this rule, this wholesome and protecting rule, interpreted, that the teacher, manager, or patron was obliged to exclude children of different denominations, while religious teaching other than that allowed by their Church was being given. To show the meaning attached to the rule on this important point, I would quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. M'Creedy, for many years Head Inspector under the Board, who was examined in 1854 before a Committee of the House of Lords that sat for the purpose of inquiring into the operation of the system. He is asked:—

3326. "What was the practical construction of the rule; was it left practically to the teacher to put the children out, or was it left to the parental authority to enforce itself?"

"My opinion is, that for a long period it was understood, that the obligation lay upon the patron and upon the teacher of the school to put out the children."

This rule was acted on for a period of sixteen years, to the year 1847, when unfortunately it was altogether changed. Acting under the strong pressure of Protestant remonstrance, the stringent rule which prevented the attendance of a Catholic child at Protestant instruction, or of a Protestant child at Catholic instruction, this miserable substitute was adopted—that when religious instruction was about to be given, a card should be turned upon the wall, that the master should announce "religious instruction," and that all children who were of a different religion to that about to be taught should be allowed to go away, or should not be compelled to remain. Now, what a difference between the two rules! The one rendered it com- pulsory on the master to remove from, or not to allow in the school, children of a different faith from that taught; whereas the other merely went to this length, that their attendance at teaching contrary to the faith which they and their parents professed, should not be compulsory. The former rule was a charter of protection for the faith of every child in the land—the other is a miserable mockery, opening the door to all kinds of influences, insidious or otherwise. It was on the condition embodied in the spirit of the former rule that the Irish Catholics accepted the system of National Education as a boon and a blessing; and it is on the principle of protection and non-interference that they will consent to retain it. From 1847 to 1855—that is after public attention was called to the existence and operation of the new rule—a plan was adopted to the following effect:—In case the master of a school gave religious instruction—which, by the way, under the system, intended in 1828, he was not authorized to give—he was obliged to serve a document of this kind on the parent of a child-So-and-So "is informed, in compliance with the instruction in rule 16, Section IV., Part 1, of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education, that—attended the religious instruction given by me on—the—day of—185—,at the time set apart for religious instruction in the above school, this being—first attendance, &c., &c." Imagine the effect of such a document as this served on a poor ignorant peasant, perhaps the tenant or dependant of a landlord or employer of strong proselytizing tendencies, and then say what kind of protection this notice affords to him and his child? But, miserable as is this mockery of protection, it is only to be given in case the master himself gives religious instruction; but no such notice need be served where religious teaching is given by any other person—for instance, an officious clergyman of another persuasion, or a zealous patron of anti-Catholic feeling. Then, should such a notice be served on the parent, and the child not removed, or should the child return on another day, his attendance is to be regarded as having the sanction of his parents, and any description of religious teaching may be given in his presence. Well, Sir, miserable as this protection was, it excited the apprehensions of those whose object was to carry their own aggressive views, and to turn this great system to their own purposes; and therefore pressure was again brought on the Board in Dublin, and with this result—that the rule of serving this notice on the parents and guardians was to have only a prospective operation, and was not to refer to children already in the schools of the Board. Thus the Catholic children in the Protestant and Presbyterian schools of Ulster were not to be included; and the fact is given in evidence that in these schools, somewhere about 1,000 in number, there are no less than over 30,000 Catholic children—of whom thousands were then and are at this moment receiving Protestant and Presbyterian instruction. What I principally desire is to see the wholesome rule which existed to 1847 restored to its former stringency, whereby protection may be given to the faith of all—for that which I demand for the Catholic child I would insist upon for the child of the Protestant or the Presbyterian. Now, Sir, to show that the apprehensions of Catholics are not without good cause, I shall give a single case in point. I say that grave and serious fears are entertained in consequence of the facilities to proselytism afforded by the present relaxed rule; and I now proceed to adduce an instance of what has been going on in one of the most Catholic provinces in Ireland, in order that the Committee may be able to judge of the insidious attempts which are made to undermine the faith of the Catholics of that country. I also rely on the case I am about to state in order to prove what I assert, that the Board did not perform its duty with that alacrity and energy which its special character demanded. Mr. Kavanagh visited the schools of Ballindine, in the County Mayo, in May, 1857, and reported to the Board on the condition in which he found them at the time of visit. I may, before going further, incidentally refer to Mr. Kavanagh as a gentleman who was reduced by the Board from the rank of Head to District Inspector, more, I believe, because he discharged his duties too zealously than for any other reason. However, I shall not allude to his case at present, inasmuch as, though certain exparte papers have been laid on the table of this House—papers which had been hurriedly printed in Dublin, brought over here by the Secretary of the Board, and granted, and reprinted on the Motion of a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert)—both sides of the case are not yet given; and until they are both given, it would be unfair to Mr. Kavanagh to have it brought before the House. Well, Sir, Mr. Kavanagh made a Report of these schools on the 16th of May, drawing the attention of the Board to a flagrant violation, not to say of its rules, but of the essential spirit of the system which it had to administer. The schools were three in number—a school for boys, a school for girls, and an industrial school attended as well by girls as by grown women. These schools were under the patronage of the Hon. Godfrey Browne and his sister, who, while in the country, was its active patroness and superintendent. That lady was the Hon. Mrs. Ridley, stated to be the wife of a colonel in the Guards. The school may, no doubt, have been established by Mrs. Ridley with the best and most benevolent intentions—namely, to provide employment for a number of young people, to whom the assistance which it afforded was most welcome. Mr. Kavanagh reported that Mrs. Ridley was accustomed to read to the industrial class, regularly twice in the week, if not more often, certain works; amongst others one entitled, Scripture Instruction for the Least and the Lowest, which contains passages of the most offensive and outrageous character to the feelings of Catholics that could possibly be imagined. Mr. Kavanagh reported this as "an openly anti-Catholic work." What did the Board do thereupon? Instead of taking immediate steps where so grave a charge was reported by one of their officers, they did not stir for a period of two months; and then, haying communicated to the Hon. Mr. Browne, and received his answer, in which he first denies the fact, and then charges Mr. Kavanagh with the manner in which he performed his duty, the Board ride off on a mere collateral issue, and content themselves with demanding an explanation from Mr. Kavanagh with reference to this trifling charge—whether or not he desired the teacher not to tell of his visit, or some other alleged irregularity of the kind. After two months of utter inactivity, they occupied two more in letter-writing, and then they rested for two months more; and it was not until Mr. Kavanagh wrote a strong letter on the 23rd of November, more than six months after his first Report, that anything was done in so grave a case. In this letter Mr. Kavanagh repeated his charges, and gave several extracts from the volumes, which he also sent to the Board. I shall quote one or two passages from the work in question, and the House can judge whether it is, or is not, of a sectarian or offen- sive character. But I may state that, when the Board at length took active steps in the matter, and sent down one of their Head Inspectors, Dr. Newell, to examine and report upon this school, he reported that Mrs. Ridley had continued to read this work on Thursdays and Fridays up to the time of his visit. Let the House now judge for itself whether a book, whose character may be understood by an extract or two, was a fit book to be read to Catholics:—

"Some in our own country have, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, been cast into the fire because they would not be idolaters. There was a time in England when people were required to worship a piece of bread, which the Popish priest told them was changed into the body of Jesus Christ! There were many holy men who could not believe this wicked and foolish lie, and they had courage and strength given to them by God to refuse to obey. And what was done to them? They were carried away and bound to a stake, and then their enemies set fire to the wood, and the martyrs perished in the flames."

I ask, was this fit teaching for Catholic children and women? Take one other passage, in order to judge of this volume —a passage in which the Blessed Mother of God is thus alluded to:—

"Was there anything in Mary which made God honour her so much? Was she different from other women—less sinful than they, and more worthy to be the mother of Jesus? No; Mary was like every one of us, poor weak sinners," &c., &c.

Now, Sir, I say this is not Protestant doctrine; but, whether it be or not, it is the grossest outrage upon Catholic belief. Do not Protestants, as well as Catholics, hold that the Virgin Mother of God was "full of grace," that she was "blessed among women," and that "blessed was the fruit of her womb?" And did she who is now described as a "poor weak sinner"—did she not exclaim, when filled with the Holy Ghost, "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." I cannot conceive any teaching more calculated to undermine and break down Catholic faith than this. To thousands and thousands of females in Ireland—the youthful virgin and the modest matron—the Blessed Mother of God is an ever-present example of purity and holiness, whom they imitate from afar; but in this abominable teaching she is reviled and degraded. It has been said that no proselytes were made, although this system had been adopted for years. But that is no answer whatever. For my part, I say to those who attempt to change the faith of the Catholic poor, I would far prefer to see them made good Protestants than bad Catholics. Make Protestants if you please, but do not make infidels or hypocrites. Now such teaching as this undermines the strength of that faith which is the comfort and support of the female mind and heart. When the report was first made by Mr. Kavanagh, the Commissioners ought to have adopted prompt measures to put an end to such a gross violation of the essential spirit of the system, and prevented the teaching of such poisonous and infamous doctrines to Catholic women and children; but they allowed seven months to elapse before anything practical was done—and for this I charge the Board with lathes of the worst character. I could adduce numberless other instances in which attempts have been made to read Protestant books to Catholic children; but I think I may be satisfied with the illustration which I have given, especially as there is no controversy as to such a book having been read, and as the case is officially before the House. That such cases have excited the gravest suspicion in the minds of Catholics is not unnatural; and, Sir, I regret to say, the constitution of the Board, as well as the character of the whole administration, is not calculated to inspire any particular confidence. How is this National Board constituted? But first, what is the number and proportion of children attending its schools? If I mistake not, the number on the roll at present is something like 620,000. Of this vast number 540,000 are Catholic, while but 80,000 are Protestant and Presbyterian. So that the system may be almost said to be Catholic. At any rate, the Protestants and Presbyterians form less than one-seventh, while the Catholics constitute over six-sevenths of the whole. The teachers are as four Catholics to one of all other denominations, and the patrons are about three to one of all others. How is the Board constituted? There are fifteen Commissioners in all; and yet although the Catholic pupils form six-sevenths of the whole, there are but six Catholic Commissioners at the Board. Now let me say who these Catholic Commissionors are, in order that we may judge of the influence which they are likely to exert in preventing that retrograde course in which the Board appears to be resolved. The first is Lord Bellew, who never attends; the second is Sir Thomas Redington, who rarely attends, and who while holding the Secretaryship of the Board of Control, and living in London, was a Commissioner; Dr. Meyler, a Catholic clergyman, of venerable age, and certainly not calculated to be either an active business man or a punctual attendant. Then there is Master Murphy, who, I believe, joined the Board with great reluctance, and who, from the important character of his duties, as Master in Chancery, cannot give his attention to the duties of Commissioner. Next there is Mr. Thomas O'Hagan, a barrister of great eminence and lucrative business, and who besides, as Chairman of Kilmainham, has to hold six sessions in the year—who, in fact, cannot attend the Board, save on rare occasions. Lastly, there is Mr. O'Farrell, who certainly does attend. On the other hand, there are, besides the Resident Commissioner, who is always on the spot, eight other Protestant or Presbyterian Commissioners. The working members of this body are not only Protestant, but natives of Ulster; and I assert that not only is the administration becoming every year more Protestant, but that it is also becoming more Ulster in its character. The fact is, the entire administration has fallen into the hands of Mr. Macdonald, the resident Commissioner, a gentleman, as I understand, eminently fitted for his duties, a gentleman of the most cultivated mind and scholarly attainments. But the fact is, that the working of the whole system is practically in the hands of this Protestant Commissioner and the Senior Secretary, Mr. Cross, a Protestant. And the three best attenders of the Board are there Belfast gentlemen,—Mr. Gibson, a Presbyterian; Dr. Andrews, a Unitarian; and the Rev. Dr. Henry, a Presbyterian. Surely, in such a constitution there is no sufficient protection for Catholic interests —for the interests of six-sevenths of the entire pupils; and in order to counteract this overpowering Protestant influence, there should be a certain number, one or more, of Catholic Commissioners paid for their regular attendance. Now, not only is the Board Protestant, but all the heads of departments are Protestant. The head of the Inspection Department, which may be termed the controlling department of the whole institution, is an Ulster Presbyterian. Up to 1855 this department was directed by a Catholic; since then it has been given to a Presbyterian, under the protest of the Catholic Commissioners. The Training Department, up to 1855, was under two Professors—one Catholic and the other Protestant; but it is now entirely in the hands of Dr. Sullivan. And who is Dr. Sullivan? This gentleman is the writer of a dictionary, in which he kindly allows Catholics to have two sacraments out of seven—the five others he defines as "rites"—and in which he treats Purgatory, in which Catholics believe, as a respectable myth. Now, considering we refer to our dictionaries, to our Johnson, our Walker, or our Webster, for definitions, we can understand the benefit to a Catholic child in consulting the Protestant dictionary of Dr. Sullivan on matters relating to his faith. The Agricultural Department is under a Northern Protestant. And of seventy inspectors of all classes, thirty-six are Protestant, and but thirtyfour Catholic. Take the very latest fact, as a further proof of the manifest favouritism in the dispensation of patronage. In 1856 a class of officers called "organizers," were first appointed—fifteen in number; and out of that fifteen, while but six were taken from the three Southern Provinces, nine were given to Ulster. The unfairness of this distribution will be more apparent when it is understood that this office has been intended as a reward for the deserving teachers throughout the country. No doubt the men of the North were capital hands at a job, but certainly they have no claims of any kind, save their place of birth, which the Southerns have not. And for the teachers of Munster, I can assert that they equal the teachers of the North in mental faculty as well as in literary and scientific attainments. From such facts as I have given, it can be easily understood how jealousy and discontent are growing up in the public mind, and that suspicion is daily on the increase. A short time since the sum of £3,000 was raised in a day or two in the City of Kilkenny, for the purpose of establishing schools under the Christian Brothers, and getting rid of the National system. Were it necessary, I could give other striking indications of the want of confidence felt in the administration of the Board, the result of its reactionary tendency. But, Sir, I have one word to say of a body of men who are the rank and file in the army of education-those who are the hardest-worked and worst-paid class in the country—the teachers of the schools under the National Board. The average pay of these men is something about £23 a year, and this includes school fees, salary, and everything. This would give them a weekly payment of less than 9s.— which, considering the duties they have to discharge, and the great importance of their office, is shamefully inadequate. If necessary let the well-paid Secretary, or the well-paid Commissioner be cut down £500 each, and let there be other retrenchments if necessary; but at any rate, let these men, who are the sturdy pioneers of civilization, have a fair reward for their labour. I really do not wish to diminish the salary of the high officials by a single shilling, but I do make an appeal on behalf of a class of men who are entitled to the utmost consideration at the hands of the Government; and though nothing can be done at once for them, I trust the Commissioners will take the subject into their best consideration. Now, Sir, a word more in reference to the policy of the Board, and I have done. They have had full information of the growing feeling of the country with respect to it; for no further back than 1856 the five Head Inspectors respectfully remonstrated with the Board upon that policy; but how were they treated? Why, those autocrats of Dublin Castle, snubbed their officers, termed their conduct contumelious and insubordinate, and threatened them, in case they repeated the offence, to dismiss them. I charge the Board with attempting to deceive Parliament and the country, by withholding intelligence from both on a matter of the greatest importance. Mr. Keenan, Head-Inspector of Ulster, made this Report for 1855, in 1856; and in that Report he stated that thousands of Catholic children were receiving Protestant instruction in the schools of Ulster. He also complained that the rule to which I alluded, in reference to the notice served on the parent, was given a prospective effect only. But the Board omitted that important paragraph, and presented a fraudulent Report to Parliament. No doubt it was a piece of good policy; for had the Catholic bishops and clergy of Ireland known that thousands of their children were receiving Protestant instruction in schools under the Board, their alarm and indignation would have been at once excited. I may add that Mr. Keenan, is not likely to repeat his offence; for he is now appointed to a Catholic district, while his place is filled by a Presbyterian. I, Sir, am not an enemy to the system of National Education—I am only an enemy of the abuses of that system. And I earnestly trust that this House will guard itself against opening the door more widely to proselytism; and I trust that the Irish Government will, before next year, consider the necessity of making some fair concession to the alarmed feelings of the Catholics of Ireland, and grant them, by an improved constitution of the Board of National Education, security against the violation of the principles of Lord Stanley's letter and the Resolutions of this House.

said, he found it impossible to approve of the taste which had led the hon. Gentleman, who had just addressed the Committee, to introduce a discussion on the character of the "Blessed Virgin." He felt that he had a right further to complain in the strongest manner of the language of the hon. Gentleman in characterising Protestant doctrines as "poisonous." But he would not enter into these controversial topics, and he rose principally for the purpose of noticing the new specimen of gallantry, rather unusual in the countrymen of the hon. Member when speaking of the fair sex. He referred to the allusion made by the hon. Gentleman to a lady whom he had thought proper to attack by name. That was the first time he (Lord Lovaine) had ever known such a course to be pursued in that House. It so happened that he had some slight acquaintance with the lady in question, and from all that he knew of her he felt convinced that she was utterly incapable of doing anything to outrage the feelings of Roman Catholics, or of the followers of any other religion.

explained, that when he used the word "poisonous" he only applied it to the teaching given to the Catholic children, and he did not think that he had shown any disrespect to the lady in referring to what had appeared in a public document.

said, he had listened to the course the discussion had taken with a great deal of regret, as he did not think it at all calculated to serve any useful purpose. If there existed any objection to the present system, or any desire to alter it, let the subject be brought distinctly before the House in the shape of a Motion; but it was certainly inconvenient to be called on to discuss, in an incidental manner, the whole question of the National School system in Ireland. He had heard this discussion with regret, because he thought it calculated to prevent the continuance of a system which he believed had been productive of great benefit to Ireland. He confessed that he entertained considerable fears lest the continuance of the National system of education in Ire- land should not be of long duration; and as it had been attacked on both sides, he trusted the House would allow him to make a few observations on the subject, in which he would carefully abstain from any subjects of polemical controversy. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the discussion said due regard was not paid to the conscientious scruples of the Protestant clergy in Ireland. Now, he hardly need say that for the clergy he entertained the greatest respect, and no one would go further than he did in respecting their conscientious scruples. The proposition was, not that in Protestant schools Protestant children should be taught by Protestant clergymen—no one objected to that—but the objection was, that in the schools of the Church Education Society, which were mixed schools, and which were instituted for the purpose of inducing Roman Catholic children to attend them, Roman Catholic children should be instructed in the tenets of the Protestant religion. They were proselytising schools. He did not mean by that that any unfair means were used, quite the contrary; but believing, as they had a right to do, that theirs was a purer faith, they endeavoured to propagate it, by inducing Roman Catholic children to attend their schools, and they made it an essential principle of their education that the children should be compelled to be present at the reading of the Scriptures. The number of Roman Catholic children attending these schools, in 1848, was 46,367; in 1852 they had fallen off to 32,000. There were no subsequent returns; but he believed he was correct in stating that the number of Roman Catholic children now attending these schools was not more than 15,000. An attempt was made when the Derby Government came into office in 1852, to reconcile the National system and the system of the Church Education Society, and the Earl of Derby's Government, to do them justice, were anxious to do so. The Earl of Eglinton, when he first went to Ireland, was an opponent of the National system; but on the Motion of Lord Clancarty he declared that, after considering the subject, he found it absolutely impossible to reconcile the two systems, and accordingly the Earl of Derby's Government, in 1852, never endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation. And it was quite obvious that such reconciliation could not take place, as the principle of the National system was to respect parental rights, while the system of the Church Education Society was compulsory instruction in Protestant doctrines. And let him tell the hon. Gentleman that the relaxation which he wished to obtain could not stop where he would desire it. If they relaxed on one side they must relax on the other. ["Hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheered, but had they asked themselves the consequences? If the Church Education Society was to have the benefit of the National funds, how could they object to Roman Catholic schools having them also? Could they refuse the demands of the other societies which would spring up and ask for relaxation in their favour to the destruction of the whole system. For instance, under the Christian Brothers there were 16,000 children receiving education of a character which no State system could hope to surpass, and he contended that if they extended to the Church Education Society, or any other system, the assistance of the State, they could not refuse a like assistance to the Christian Brothers. By so doing, a system of separate education would at once be established; and what must be the consequence? Remember that now—and he hoped for a long time to come—the great bulk in Ireland of those who required the aid of the State in education were Roman Catholics. Of course there would be a respectable minority of Protestant and Presbyterian children also receiving assistance from the State; but in the case of the Roman Catholic children, to whom were they to entrust the funds for their education? Were they to entrust them to Roman Catholic prelates, or to a Board of Roman Catholic prelates containing an admixture of Roman Catholic laymen? He had no objection, for his own part, to either course; but he apprehended that were such a course pursued they would have Motions in that House and discussions arising out of them neither pleasant nor useful, complaining of the application of funds given by the State to the propagation of Roman Catholic doctrines. If statesmen on both sides of the House were agreed in favour of a separate system, let them adopt it; but let them also follow out the consequences of such a step to their legitimate results. Unless he could see a prospect of some better system being substituted for the National system, which, with all its defects, was of great service, he was not prepared to part with it. When the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) complained, on the one hand, that the Board of National Education was too unfavourable to Roman Catholics, and when the Board was attacked, on the other hand, as being too unfavourable to Protestants, he thought that those opposite accusations afforded some evidence that the Board had pursued a medium course. He had not heard sufficient reasons to induce him to join with the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The name of a lady who was charged with having endeavoured to proselytize Roman Catholic children had been mentioned; but it appeared from the evidence of the inspector, given in the appendix, that she had never read to the children any books of the slightest sectarian tendency, and she had been acquitted by the Roman Catholic priests themselves of any attempt at proselytism. Surely a Board which had worked well for twenty or thirty years ought not to be abolished because its members had not corrected as promptly as they might have done some errors which had been brought to their notice. He admitted that there were defects in the constitution of the Board, and he thought that as some of the Roman Catholic Commissioners did not attend the meetings they ought to be replaced by others who would discharge the duties of the office. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had charged his Friend the right hon. Alexander Macdonald, the resident Commissioner, with having presented a fraudulent Report to that House. [Mr. MAGUIRE: No! the Board.] The hon. Member certainly charged Mr. Macdonald with having erased from a document presented to that House a passage which it had originally contained. That was a most serious charge, and ought to be substantiated. He did not know any one to whom the Roman Catholics of Ireland were under greater obligations than Mr. Macdonald, and he thought it was most unjust that the Roman Catholic body should now turn round upon him and say that no confidence could be reposed in him because he was a Protestant. [Mr. MAGUIRE: I did not say so.] He (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) had known Mr. Macdonald long and intimately, and he believed he had administered the system justly and impartially, with an anxious desire to promote education fairly and liberally, and without the slightest wish to trespass upon the just rights of conscience of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.

said, he was much gratified with the tone of the speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee. For his own part he did not rise to attack the Board, but to confirm the statement made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton) who, he thought, must have fully satisfied the Committee that there was something wrong in the constitution, system, and working of the National Board which required the consideration of the Government. His desire was that the expenditure of the funds at the disposal of the National Board should be so far liberalized that schools in which the Bible was taught should derive the same benefit from the grant as those from which the Bible was excluded, and that the National system of education in Ireland should be in some measure assimilated to the National system of England. He had no wish to detain the Committee at any length on the question, but would only briefly refer to what had taken place on the question of education in Ireland. The first Society supported by public grants was the Kildare Street Society, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred in strong, if not in harsh terms. The rule of that Society was that every child should read the Bible at school without note or comment, and that no system connected with any church teaching should be introduced into the schools. The hon. and learned Gentleman had described that system as poisonous. That Society increased fast, and had, at one time, 1,600 schools, attended by 136,000 children, half of whom were Roman Catholics. He desired to abstain from any observations calculated to give offence. It was sufficient to say that that system—which he believed was the best—was given up, and was succeeded by two great systems—the National system and the Church Education system. By the original constitution of the National Board, although the Scriptures were only read in the schools at certain times, of which due notice was given, Scripture lessons were a necessary part of the instruction, but by degrees the system was altogether changed, the Scripture lessons were given up, and many men, who had formerly presided at the Board, separated from it. By this change those who desired to see the Bible read in the schools were disappointed. The Church Education Society was at the same time established. It raised by voluntary contributions an income of 40,000 a year; it had 1,700 schools, and educated 80,000 chil- dren, of whom, as correctly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, only 15,000 were Roman Catholics. That, however, must be considered a large number when the impediments thrown in the way of Roman Catholic children attending these schools were taken into account. He had high authority for saying that after all a greater amount of secular education was given under these schools than under any other system of education in Ireland. So far they had a fair claim for some portion of the National grant. Two objections were raised to this proposal. It was said that it was a mere means of indulging the contumacy and obduracy of the Irish clergy; but surely these were hard terms to apply to a body of men who had made such sacrifices and stood in a position so peculiar on this question. By his ordination vows a clegyman was bound to teach the Holy Scriptures to the children committed to his charge; yet if he asked the Board to help his school, the question put was, "Do you teach the Scriptures?" answered by "Yes, my ordination vows oblige me to do so;" whereupon this reply would be given, "Then you shall have no assistance." That appeared to him (Mr. Lefroy) to be a hardship which the clergy of Ireland ought not to be called upon to undergo, for it was one which no English clergyman would submit to. He was not an advocate for proselytizing. All he asked for was that the National Board should, without asking any questions as to the teaching of the Bible, allow a portion of the grant to those schools in which the Bible was read. The second objection to such a proposal was that it would interfere with a system which was working well, and giving general satisfaction. For his part he could not agree with those who said that the present National system worked well. One objection to it had been stated by the titular Bishop of Cashel in the reference which he had made to the number of reports addressed to the Board which they had not allowed to see the light. The titular Bishop of Cashel must answer for the correctness of the following allegation:—

"The value of the testimony of their inspectors—Arians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Protestants, and many nominal Catholics—on a matter of the kind may be understood from the fact that so offensive to the managers of schools, so absurd in sycophancy, so puritanical and canting, and so anti-Catholic are numbers of the reports of the fifty inspectors, that, although printed for the past year, and intended for publication, the Board dare not allow them to see the light; and, awaiting the hope of a resurrection through some curious Irish Member of Parliament, they are imprisoned in the official limbo of Marlborough-street, many of them a disgrace to their authors and the system."

In reference to this system the Irish Quarterly Review stated:—

"The National system was a great boon to Ireland when first introduced, but the country has grown in intellect and in a thirst for knowledge since that period; but that which might be a blessing, through went of expansion, is becoming a curse."

He had on a former occasion alluded to the testimony of a Scotch clergyman who had examined into the working of the system, and who had pronounced it a failure. The objections to it were that it excluded a great many Protestants from the Board and not less than 100,000 children from the benefits of the schools. An allusion had been made by the hon. Member to the state of the Church schools in some parts of Ireland. If they were not what they ought to be, it was owing to their not receiving that share of the public grant for education to which they were entitled. A few days ago one of these schools had been examined by the Lord Lieutenant, and his Excellency had expressed himself highly gratified with the proficiency of the scholars. He thought the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton) was fully justified in bringing the question under their consideration. The importance of religious education for the young had been admitted by some of the most eminent men of this country. Lord Brougham, in the House of Commons, thirty-eight years ago, said:—

"A religious education is most essential to the welfare of every individual: to the rich it is all but everything; to the poor, it may be said, without a figure, to be everything. It is to them that the Christian religion is especially preached; it is their special patrimony; and if the Legislature does not secure for them a religious education it does not, in my opinion, half execute its duty to its fellow-creatures."

He wished to allow Roman Catholics the utmost liberty in the teaching of their religion, but he claimed the same liberty for Protestants, and was anxious to guard against carrying this system to an extent that would lead, not to National union, but to National infidelity. At the fifty-third annual meeting of the British and Foreign School Society, Lord John Russell, as chairman, said:—

"This Society has been established more than half a century, and has seen no reason to alter or to modify its original basis. On the contrary, I think, flux of time has only confirmed those who are carrying on the business of the society and those who contribute to it in the belief that the original basis was the sound one and the best calculated for the education of the people of this country. When I say the 'original basis,' I may use the words employed in one of the resolutions which will be moved, 'the Scriptural and comprehensive basis of the society.' If we had not taught the Scriptures we should have thought we were falling short of what was necessary; if we had gone beyond the Scriptures, and taught the formularies of any denomination, we should have thought we were going beyond what we ought to have taught. I believe that you will find that this basis having been thus acted upon, there is no need that we should reconsider or make any change in it whatever."

He was not one that would seek to proselytize or to give offence to his Roman Catholic brethren. On the contrary he wished the Roman Catholics to have the fullest opportunities for carrying out their own system of education. He did not desire to put an end to the National system of education which he thought had worked well for those who had confidence in it. He could not understand why the Roman Catholic and the Protestant inspectors should not reciprocally assist each other. Let the Government put their pen across everything that excluded religion from the system of education. Let those, too, who differed from them have their secular schools as they desired. But above all things, let those who thought that the Bible ought to be the foundation of every system of education have full opportunities to carry out their views, and let it not be said that on account of their attachment to the Bible they ought to be discouraged.

was once connected with Ireland by official ties, and he should always be connected with it by the tie of friendship and affection. He thought, therefore, he could not better show his good will than by striving to maintain inviolate the system of National education —which in his conscience he believed to have conferred the most inestimable blessings upon the country. He regarded it as being of the greatest advantage to Ireland, and some atonement for the injury which had been inflicted upon her. In the darkest times of Ireland's history it was the ray of hope to which her wisest and best patriots looked with confidence; and he was sure that if she was wise she would cling to it with the utmost pertinacity as the best security for her future progress. There were at the present moment no less than 600,000 children enjoying the advantages of that system which, in his opinion, was as sound and good en one as that under the operation of which the poorer classes in this country were educated. In speaking of it thus, his observations must be regarded as applying to it not only as a scheme of secular but of religious education, and he confessed he was not a little surprised to hear it said by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, that there was some danger of its tending to introduce principles of infidelity into Ireland. For his own part, he entertained no such apprehension. Infidelity was a weed which could not grow upon Irish soil. Some hon. Members had said that they cared not, provided their object was attained, whether it was on the separate system, or on the present mixed system. He confessed that he cared very much. It was not a matter of indifference to him. They could not halt between the two systems; they must either maintain the present system in all its essential parts, or they must resort to the English system, which was a separate one. They had this inestimable advantage; in every parish in Ireland they had now a school open to all, taught by well-trained instructors, who dared not to introduce any sectarian elements in the course of their tuition. On the other hand, if two sets of schools were established throughout Ireland, Roman Catholics would be opposed to Protestants, and the result would be that the schools would be used as a means of proselytism. Those who argued from England as to the way in which the system would work argued from incorrect premises. He looked forward with interest to the statement of the Government; and he trusted that they would maintain unimpaired the present system of national education in Ireland. Allusion had been made in the course of the debate to Mr. Macdonald. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed that to this gentleman more than any other man, the country was indebted for the satisfactory working of this system. He regretted that, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman had mentioned his name without perhaps the amount of respect it deserved. He hoped the Committee would hear from Her Majesty's Government their views upon this question, and though some doubts had been expressed as to the principle of National education in Ireland as now conducted, the Committee would be true to itself, and true to the cause of Irish education, and would never allow the principle to be called in question.

Sir, allusion having been made to the opinions of the Government upon this question, I have no hesitation in rising to express my views in relation thereto. I must frankly state to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), and to the Committee, that if I entertained the slightest doubt in my own mind as to the application of this Vote, for which the Government has asked in order to support the National system of education in Ireland, I should have immediately risen after the Vote had been proposed, and have stated my opinions. You may depend upon it, when the Government propose a Vote for a special object they intend to act upon it in the sense in which the Vote is actually proposed to the House. I have, Sir, no hesitation whatever in stating, whatever opinions I may have expressed on this subject before, and I am saga that the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of saying that I am acting consistently with those opinions which I have so expressed—I have no hesitation in saying that I would never do anything, so far as I am concerned, to destroy or to disturb the principle of the National system of education in Ireland. Sir, since the appeal has been made to me, I think I should frankly reiterate the opinions which I have always entertained upon this subject—namely, that in carrying into execution and in devolping that system, I always have believed —and, indeed, I hope, that on some day or another I shall see my wish carried into effect—that while giving a portion of your grant raised by the public taxation of the country to the National Schools in Ireland, from one end of the island to the other, you shall not, or should not, while consistently maintaining that system, exclude any portion of the people from a participation in it. When I had the honour of bringing forward a proposition on this subject, while sitting on the opposite benches, I beg to remind the Committee that that proposition was couched in language very identical with the language used to-night by the learned Serjeant. When I then moved that such an extension or modification should be made in that system as would extend to vested as well as non-vested schools belonging to the Church, I qualified that proposal with two distinct conditions. The one was that the parental authority should not be interfered with in the teaching of the children. I can assure the Committee, while expressing a hope that a plan may yet be devised by which those who do not at present participate in the grant may for the future be enabled to participate in it, I for one will never be a party to propose any such modification of the system which would in the slightest degree interfere with the rights of conscience or parental influence. Now, having given that assurance, frankly, freely, and honestly, I trust I shall not be blamed if I add to what I have said, my desire is that the operation of the grant should be extended to those who do not at present participate in the advantages of it. I am sure that the House with the liberality it has always displayed, would support me if I should be able to make such a proposition. With reference to the debate of this evening the attacks upon the National system—no, I will not call it an attack—but the observations which have been made against the National system have come from two distinct quarters. Now I cannot but express my opinion that the objections made to it ought rather to have been brought before the House in the shape of distinct propositions, instead of being mixed up with a vote upon a money grant, in reference to which all parties hero seem to agree in opinion as to the propriety of continuing this national system. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) made some remarks as to the management of the Commission in Ireland, which I consider to be well worthy of our attention. If it should be found there is anything in the management of the system as it relates to Dublin, which is open to a reasonable objection, I am sure my noble Friend beside me (Lord Naas) and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will be ready to receive any suggestions which may be made on the subject in order that any abuses existing in the system may be remedied. With regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton), I must say that I concur with him in a great part of what he had said. I will not now prosecute this discussion any further. I have frankly stated my opinions upon the subject, and I hope that the Committee will give me credit for having acted fairly and candidly in respect to it. I will only repeat that nothing will induce me to take any steps which can in the least degree destroy or disturb the National system of education in Ireland. But I hope, consistently with the maintenance of that system, I may be able to carry into execution those opinions which I entertain, such opinions as have been distinctly expressed by Earl Granville, in his place in the House of Lords, namely, to extend the advantages of the grant to those who do not at present participate in it, that in future they may be able to educate their children as well as others educate their children; in fact, that the blessings of education may be extended, without distinction of sect or class, from one end of Ireland to the other; and that this long-vexed and agitated question may be no longer a source of inquietude, but, on the contrary, that it may give the most complete satisfaction to the whole community.

said, that no person was more opposed than he was to the introduction into those schools of anything that might be offensive to the religious feelings of any class of the people of Ireland. He was not aware that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had intended to refer to the Ballindine Industrial Schools, or he should have been prepared to refute all the statements he had made. He could state, however, that the school was founded by a benevolent lady, Mrs. Ridley, during the Irish famine. For this school the amount of the grant she received from the Commissioners was £8 a year. She very much regretted that the book to which allusion had been made was ever made use of in the school; but it was ascertained by a gentleman, who had made the fullest inquiry, on the testimony of the teacher, Miss M'Dermott, that the offensive passages contained in that book had never been read in the school. He would only say, that during the eleven years those schools had been in existence there had been no case of proselytism; and the Roman Catholic priest who had attended those schools had found no fault with their management.

said, he fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the present was not the best time to discuss at length this important question. If the question were raised it ought to be upon a distinct Motion, and not upon a vote to which nobody had an objection; and if he was to understand from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that although he had an idea that modifications might be beneficially introduced into the system, yet the Government had no intention to make such modifications without first submitting their plans to the consideration of Parliament—[Mr. WALPOLE assented.] Then the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. The hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lefroy) had repeated a statement which had been often contradicted, but which he should contradict again, as it was the point on which most misrepresentation existed, and which gave rise to a number of petitions from persons, the greater portion of whom it was evident, knew nothing about the matter. The hon. Gentleman had asked the Committee whether they meant to continue to sanction a system of education from which it was imperative to exclude the very view of the Scriptures. Now he (Mr. Herbert) found himself somewhat in a dilemma, because from the character of the hon. Gentleman he believed he was utterly incapable of stating that which he did not conceive to be strictly true. But whilst believing that, he was driven to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman had not studied the question even so much as to have read the rules which regulated the system. For he could show that so far the view of the Scriptures being excluded from the schools under this system, there was nothing to prevent any landowner or proprietor in Ireland from setting up a Scripture school and teaching the Scriptures in that school, and that he was only prevented from compelling the children of parents who objected to it from reading the Scriptures. [Mr. LEFROY: I distinctly stated during school hours.] That was to say, that a person was not allowed to keep children there for the purpose of forcing them in opposition to their parents' wishes to read the Scriptures. If the hon. Gentleman would turn to page 4 of the rules, he would find that opportunities were to be afforded, as thereafter provided, for the children of all National Schools receiving such religious education as their parents or guardians approved of; that the religious instruction must be so arranged that such schools must be open to the children of all communions; that due regard should be had to parental rights and authority; and that accordingly no child should be compelled to receive or to be present at any religious instruction of which his parents or guardians disapproved; and that the time of giving it should be so fixed that no child should be excluded from the other educational advantages which the schools afforded. Then came the regulation which had been so much complained of—that a public notification of the times for religious instruction should be inserted in large letters in the time-table supplied by the Commissioners who recommended that as far as might be practicable the general nature of such religious instruction should be stated therein. And rule No. 10 provided for the reading of the Scriptures, either in the authorized or Douay version, the teaching of the catechism, and public prayer and religious education; and that the parents or guardians of the children might require that they should receive such instruction in the schools. The hon. Gentleman also had quoted some authority to show the system was a failure; the best proof to the contrary was, that 600,000 children were now attending, and he could speak from his own knowledge of the vast benefit they had conferred, and the improvement they had produced in the people. He was willing to confess that he (Mr. Herbert) remembered the time when he himself looked upon the system with suspicion, being ignorant of the intentions of those who had established it: but the more he had seen of it, the more he was convinced that it would be most dangerous for a single stone in the edifice to be touched; and he warned right hon. Gentlemen opposite how they ventured to propose modifications, however plausible at first sight they appeared to be, for the consequences might be such as were least contemplated by those who were loudest in calling for a change.

said, as a Roman Catholic, he would make a few observations. He regarded the present system as one of the most important advancements made in that country, and he could not hear that there was a disposition to remove or modify that system without raising his humble voice against it. He must therefore protest against the statements made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lefroy) with regard to the effects of the national system of education. When he recollected what the peasantry of Ireland were formerly, and what they were now, he could not understand how any one could stand up and say that that system had failed. There was nothing to prevent a complete and thorough scriptural education being given in the National Schools. He thought, however, that the reading of the Scriptures ought not to be forced upon those who objected to it. He was in favour of continuing a system of education which did not interfere with religious opinions, leaving the children to receive religious instruction from the clergymen and ministers of the persuasion to which they belonged. But what hon. Gentlemen opposite desired was, that a scriptural education, according to their own views, should be forced on children whose parents did not wish an education of that kind for them. He Hoped the House would not interfere with a system which had been productive of great good to Ireland.

said, that what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert) had stated was quite correct; that no change should be made in the present system without its being fully and fairly discussed in Parliament, but he could not admit that he had fairly represented the objections of the Protestant clergy to the national system. With regard to the objections which were put forward by the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, he would take the case of his own parish. If any one entered the school attached to the parish church of Enniskillen, he would see on the walls of that school a number of short quotations from Scripture, and when the school had assembled in the morning a portion of Scripture was read. Now that was the practice adopted in every Church school in Ireland. That school was attached to the parish church, and it was supplementary to those schools that the National Schools were originally established. What then was the practical effect of the rules to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert) had adverted? Take a church school in which there were a hundred children. The doors were thrown open, and every child of every religious denomination in the parish might enter if he pleased, it being well known to the whole parish that a portion of Scripture was read every morning in the school. But suppose the school received assistance from the National Board, and that of the hundred children ninety-nine were Protestant and one a Roman Catholic, that one Roman Catholic child, being so directed, might forbid the reading of the Scripture on the assembling of the school, and so control the entire practice of the school in reference to the ninety-nine Protestant children. That was the practical result—["No, no," from Irish Members.] He said "Yes." That one child, under the operation of the rule, objecting to the reading of a particular book, that book could not be read. What was the evidence given by Mr. Crosse upon this point before the Committee of the House of Lords? He was asked, "were those books (the books which had been approved of by the Archbishop of Dublin) used by the patrons, and were they understood as capable of being used when those patrons put their schools under the Board?" and Mr. Crosse answered, "Yes." He was then asked, "Was it in your opinion just to withdraw these several books at the bidding of the child, contrary to the understanding which had been entered into with the patron?" In reply, he said, "I have no doubt of the fact that a considerable number of the patrons have put their schools, whether vested or non-vested, under the Board, upon the express understanding that the Scripture lessons, sacred poetry, and lessons on the truth of Christianity were to be used in the schools." He further said, "The patrons of such schools might very naturally and justly consider that by the withdrawal of such books, or any one of them, their compact with the Board was broken." His right hon. Friend must not say, therefore, that there was not a fair case to be submitted to Parliament. In his opinion there was a case, and a very fair case, to be submitted to Parliament; and he could assure his right hon. Friend, from his own knowledge, that whilst the Church of the Reformation existed in Ireland the clergy of that Church would claim the right to read in their schools each day a portion of that book which they believed to be the foundation of their religion.

said, he had been guilty of no misrepresentation in saying that the Scriptures were not allowed to be read in schools.

said, that no doubt the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) was correct—that there were certain religious books as to the use of which in the schools objections had been made, and that those books had been withdrawn. In the secular instruction given in these schools there was a large mixture of religious instruction. And it became a question whether in the books used during the hours of secular instruction there was not a good deal of controversial matter. And when it appeared doubtful whether some of these books did not contain matter offensive to the parents of some of the children, they were withdrawn; but merely for the period devoted to secular instruction. On the other hand, so far from the Scriptures being excluded, his right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Herbert) had been at pains to show that the patrons and Friends of these schools might insist upon the Scriptures being taught in them. It was also true that in the Church Schools a portion of the Scriptures was invariably read. The children might get very good secular instruction in these schools, but when the religious instruction commenced the children bad not the right to go away. This was the whole question raised between the National Board and the Church Education Society. It was, however, too important a question to be discussed in a Committee of Supply. He was glad to hear that the Government would assent to no modifications of the present system which would interfere with the rights of conscience and parental authority. But then, in that case, they would make no concession to the Church Education Society, because they professed to bow to obligations higher than the rights of conscience and parental authority, and they made it a condition that a child who accepted their secular instruction should also accept their religious instruction. The question was whether Parliament would impose a compulsory reading of the Scriptures upon children whose parents objected to it. Some misapprehensions on the subject at issue had been widely circulated and generally credited, but he hoped it would be understood that, so far from an exclusion of the Scriptures being made a condition, great pains had been taken to encourage the patrons of the schools in allowing the Scriptures to be read at reasonable hours, the only limitation being the 15th rule, which declared that patrons, managers, and teachers should not induce children to attend religious instruction contrary to the wishes of their parents. They had been told that the denominational system which existed in England would be preferred in Ireland. But the fact was that while in Ireland, with a population of six millions, there were 600,000 children in the National Schools and 100,000 in those of the Church Education Society, there were only about the same number of children at school in England, which had a population of 20,000,000. That appeared to show that the great experiment which had been tried in Ireland under circumstances of great difficulty had succeeded. It was impossible to have a more general system, and, although the National system of education in Ireland had been opposed by the extremes of both parties, he trusted that the Government would strengthen the hands of the great middle and moderate party, and uphold a system which had drawn upon itself the hostility only of persons of extreme views.

said, he was glad to hear that the House was to be consulted before any change was made in the present system, as he felt convinced that no such change as that proposed by the hon Member for Newport and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), two years ago, could be introduced with safety to the integrity of the National system. That system had worked extremely well. The question was, not whether the Scriptures were to be used, for it was quite clear the patrons and managers had the right of insisting on their being read during the hours set apart for separate religious instruction, but whether the reading of the Scriptures was to be forced on children against their wishes and the wishes of their parents, the principle being that of neutrality as to religion, and protection to the faith of the minority. The instance had been put of 100 scholars of whom one was a Roman Catholic, but in that instance the school would and ought to be essentially Protestant. No man in Ireland could say that he could not teach his own religion to his children, but the supposed grievance of such of the members of the Established Church in Ireland as were hostile to the National system of education was that they could not compel all the children who attended National Schools to receive Protestant instruction. Could it be supposed that the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland—the followers of John Knox—were less ardent advocates of the Bible than the members of the Established Church? And yet the Presbyterians were not opposed to the National system. Why? Because they were not actuated by the same desire as the members of the Established Church to proselytize Roman Catholic children. A destruction of the National system would be nothing less than a destruction of the means of improving the condition of Ireland; and, reversing the words of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, he would say that if they interfered with that system in the manner suggested by its enemies they would turn a blessing into a curse.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fortescue) had failed to answer the argument put by the Attorney General for Ireland. In England the Roman Catholics were in a great minority, and yet they received separate grants for the instruction of their children. Why were the protestants of Ireland to be deprived of a similar advantage? The much-vaunted National system, after a trial of twenty five years, had been condemned by parties on both sides of the House. Protestant members had complained that it deprived Protestants of the advantage to which they were entitled, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan had attacked the National Board quite as severely as any of the opponents of the National system.

said, he observed a very large amount in the Vote for agricultural education in Ireland. That education would no doubt greatly benefit the landlords, and they should be made to pay for it. There were grants for fifty-two agricultural schools. He hoped that in the Vote for the ensuing year these grants would disappear.

said, that the allowances to Professors and Examiners in this University were extravagant, when compared with the number of pupils. The University had not answered the purposes for which it was established, and he hoped that some reason would be given by the Secretary for Ireland why such exorbitant charges were allowed to appear in the Vote.

said, the matters referred to by the hon. Member were under the consideration of the Commissioners, and he hoped to be able soon to lay their Report on the table.

said, a certain sum was paid to gentlemen at the head of the Colleges, but there was considerable complaint that they were non-resident. Another point to which he wished to allude was that of paying by regular salaries solely.

said, he had no doubt that the attention of the Commissioners would be directed to this matter. He would cause inquiry to be made into the matter.

said, he must object to that part of the Vote which went to provide living models for the use of the students. It was well known that artists did not consider they derived much advantage from living models, unless they were females and perfectly nude. This mode of study was attended with many evils. From want of due caution many persons who ought not to be admitted were allowed to enter the room where the living figure was, and a bad effect was produced on the minds of the humbler classes, who found it difficult to connect such exhibitions with high art. It was not desirable that Parliament should be mixed up with studies like these; for he had observed that among the lower orders there was an impression that such studies were connected with the dissolute pleasures of the rich, and that they had the full sanction of Parliament. Mr. Norman M'Leod, who had been appointed to inquire into the manner in which this grant was applied, disapproved the system, though he was not prepared to say that it had not been advantageous to art. This mode of study might be of advantage to art, but what what was of more importance than art was the interests of morality, and he most decidedly objected to a system which had a most demoralizing effect on the humbler classes of society. He was astonished that the grant should be proposed after the Report of Mr. Norman M'Leod, and he would now move that the Vote be reduced to £280.

said, there had been an inquiry into the working of the present system, and many improvements had been suggested, which would be carried out in due time. There was reason to believe that many defects in this class of institutions would speedily be done away with, and he might state that the Irish Government would take care to see that the recommendations made in the Report which they had received were as far as possible carried into effect. As to the use of living models, he believed they were considered necessary in every school of art, both at home and abroad. At the same time considerable discretion was necessary in the management of such studies, and he could assure the noble Lord that if any of the evils which he had alluded to continued to exist care would be taken to have them remedied.

said, it was quite indispensable to students of art that they should have opportunities of studying from the nude, and to deprive them of these would be to take away from them one of the principal advantages which they gained from attendance in the academy.

said, his hon. Friend, (Mr. Coningham), who was a great patron of art, had, no doubt, studied in this form, and he (Mr. Kinnaird) would not object to the system provided it was done at the expense of those who practised it. If a man wished to study art in this way there was no law to prevent him indulging in it, as his hon. Friend no doubt had done, but be protested against the money of the people being spent in such a manner. What they called the improvement of art he would call the degradation of one and the demoralization of many, and be thought they were much indebted to the noble Lord for having brought the subject forward.

said, he did not defend the abuses. of the system; but he held that the use of living models was necessary to the perfection of art. Those employed were professional models and were respectable people, and it should be considered that their services were entirely voluntary. If the question, however, came to be one of State grants for the promotion of art, he must say that on principle he was entirely opposed to such grants.

said, that live models were necessary, and they were not made use of to any great extent. He should therefore oppose any reduction in the Vote. There had been unfortunately some dispute between the authorities, but a Commission on the subject had been issued, and he trusted that in future there would be no difficulty. He might add that it was in this metropolis, where living models were made use of, to a much larger extent than everywhere else, that objection should be first made to votes of this kind.

said, this was not the way in which the public money ought to be expended, and if the noble Lord (Lord Haddo) went to a division he should vote with him.

said, that this was the last of the series of Irish Votes, and therefore he hoped that the Committee would agree to it before reporting progress.

supported the Motion. The House had been engaged twelve hours that day in voting Supply.

said, the Vote was one which would give rise to considerable discussion, and it was undesirable to press it at so late an hour.

said, the Irish Assizes would commence on the 15th instant, and that would cause the absence of Irish Members.

asked, if any other Irish business would be taken after this?

said, that any orders which were unopposed would be proceeded with.

said, that having last week taken the sense of the House against voting money to theological professors in Scotland, he was quite consistent in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax, which would reduce the amount of this vote to the sum required for retiring allowances.

said, he was ready to admit the consistency of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) but he would remind the Committee that the Vote was founded upon an arrangement which was come to when Sir R. Peel founded the Queen's Colleges and suppressed the academical institution at Bel- fast, which had enjoyed a grant of £3,900 and in which the Presbyterians had previously educated the young men intended to enter the ministry of their Church. Under these circumstances he trusted Parliament would not now interfere with the definitive arrangement which had been entered into with the General Assembly.

observed that he did not see how they could vote money for a purpose so entirely contrary to the original intention.

said, he had voted against all grants for theological purposes; and if the House would get rid of them entirely it would be a great saving of time. If the object was to teach divinity, he would ask were they to teach Presbyterianism, Unitarianism, or the Roman Catholic religion? He should like to know of what religion they were.

, on rising to move that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged said, he quite agreed with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening, that the course of this measure through Parliament was an instance of the way in which upon great questions party feelings and party differences were made to yield to the wishes of the nation. The late Government, after mature consideration, had proposed to Parliament a measure of great importance, to transfer the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown. That measure when first proposed met with resistance from the leading members of the then Opposition and now of Her Majesty's Government. When the change of Government took place the present Administration, not insisting upon the opinions which they had formerly entertained, yielded to a sense of public duty, and handsomely and creditably adopted the measure which their predecessors had proposed. They had certainly proposed certain alterations in its machinery, and those alterations had been modified from time to time, and the Bill which had now passed that House with the exception of that portion relating to the Council, contained many clauses which were word for word the same as in the measure be now asked leave to withdraw, and many which, if not literally copied from it, were still substantially the same. He might say that this great measure for transferring the Government of India from the Company to the Crown was a legacy of the late Government. Their executors hod somewhat altered the details of the Bill, but he still hoped the bequest would be conducive to the order and tranquillity of the Indian empire.

said, he rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill to declare and define the respective rights of Her Majesty, and of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, to the mines and minerals in or under land lying below high-water mark, within and adjacent to the county of Cornwall, and for other purposes. The object of it was simply to give effect to the judgment pronounced by Sir John Patteson on the subject.

opposed the Motion, and proposed an Amendment that leave should be given that day three months.

said, the question was simply one between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, upon which Sir John Patteson pronounced his award, and this measure was only to give effect to that award.

stated, that the form in which the Amendment was made was not correct; the Motion must be met by a direct negative.

said, he would move that the House do now adjourn.

said, that Motion was too late. The only question he could put was, that leave be given to bring in the Bill.

, having brought up the Bill, moved that it be read a first time.