said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee appointed for the revision of the Standing Orders. It was unnecessary, however, for him to enter into the details as the Report was in the hands of hon. Members, but he wished to state that the recommendations of the Committee would have the effect of lessening the expense of private Bill legislation, and of shortening the time devoted to inquiries before private Bill Committees. He would not say but that the labours imposed upon hon. Members by the private business of the House were extremely severe and onerous. During the present Session they had amounted to a positive grievance, and the object of the Committee had been to provide a remedy for the future. They had altered almost every stage through which a private Bill had to pass, putting forward the preliminary stages a week, and shortening the period between the first and second readings, and between the second reading and the time for going into Committee. Private Committees would be appointed earlier in the Session, and the House of Lords had agreed to take a portion of the private business shortly after the meeting of Parliament in each year. It was proposed, also, to diminish the number of tribunals. The general opinion was, that the number of Committees on railway Bills ought not to exceed five, and he was glad to state that already three of their best Chairmen had expressed their willingness to devote themselves next Session to carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee in this respect. The railway Committees had hitherto been so numerous that any uniformity of decisions was utterly impossible. The Committee, however, had not been able to carry out all that they had desired, having found in some matters insuperable difficulties. This was the case, for instance, in respect to the presentation of Reports from the public departments to Committees. The Reports of public departments did not frequently come before the Committee till they had almost concluded their business. He thought these Reports were highly important, and a Standing Order had been framed that every Committee that rejected a recommendation of a public department should report that circumstance with the reasons. They had, however, been unable to frame any Standing Order to meet the evil arising from the delay in presenting the Reports, from the extreme difficulty of doing so without trenching on the privileges of the Crown. It would, therefore, be necessary to bring the matter before the House next Session, and in effecting this and other requisite changes they hoped to receive the assistance of the Government, without whose concurrence they would be unable to do anything. He had only further to state that the Standing Order moved at the early part of this Session, that any Member taking his place at prayers should retain it through the sitting, would now be incorporated with the other Standing Orders. He moved that the House agree with the Report of the Committee, and that the several other Standing Orders relating to private Bills, as amended by the Committee, be agreed to.

said, he thought it was impossible to exaggerate the extreme onerousness of the labours which Committees on private Bills imposed upon hon. Members. He regretted that the Committee on Standing Orders bad not proposed more sweeping changes in the present system of transacting private business, and recommended that hon. Members should be relieved from duties for which they were, for the most part, unfit. The objection stated by experienced witnesses was, not that private Bill Committees were too numerous, but that they were too fluctuating and too weak, rendering impossible anything like fixity or uniformity of decision; and this was only what was to be expected from tribunals composed of men who were in many cases totally inexperienced in the conduct of investigations, such as were carried on by Committees of that House. Litigation before a private Bill Committee was described by Mr. Hope Scott, the eminent counsel, as an absolute lottery. The Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company recommended that the private Bill jurisdiction should be taken out of Parliament altogether, and, although Mr. Serjeant Wrangham and Mr. Scott did not go quite so far, they agreed in thinking that permanent Chairmen ought to be appointed. He regretted to say that a proposition to that effect was rejected by the Committee on Standing Orders. He did not believe that the proposal of the Committee to reduce the number of tribunals for the investigation of railway Bills to five would be found to answer the purpose intended. It would be necessary for five Chairmen to sit fifty days in every Session for four hours a day—an amount of work which Members could not be expected to perform gratuitously. Yet the Committee on Standing Orders had refused a proposition for the payment of Chairmen, though it was difficult to say why. The refusal was chiefly rested on the "constitutional objection," but for his part he wished that the "constitutional objection" was either better defined or else altogether laid aside. One evil to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not alluded was the double examination of witnesses before the two Houses. He was sorry that the Committee had declined to make any recommendation upon that subject. He felt convinced, upon the whole, that the alterations proposed by the Committee would not meet the case, and that it would be necessary three years hence to have another revision of the Standing Orders.

said, he hoped that in any change that might take place on this subject the enormous and extravagant remuneration paid to Members of the legal profession would be revised. The fees on consultation were the same each day as for the attendance, and both were fixed at a scale extravagantly high, and altogether disproportionate to the services rendered.

said, it was a great hardship that an hon. Member who attended for a couple of hours at the most interesting part of the evening, and then went away to dinner, should be enabled to return at a later hour and turn out an hon. Member who had borne the whole brunt of the debate. He considered that Members who attended the whole of the evening should he secured in their seats to the end of the sitting, and he would propose to move a change in the Standing Orders to that effect next Session. He would also move certain alterations in the Standing Orders regulating the proceedings in Committee of Supply. He thought much of the private business which now came before the Committee on private Bills might be more satisfactorily and more economically transacted by county boards.

said he had objected to the Resolution of the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) in the Committee on the constitutional ground that he proposed to give to a certain number of permanent Chairmen—Members of that House—salaries of £1,000 a year each. One of the propositions of the Committee, which would much facilitate the business and lessen expense was, that the evidence taken before a Committee of the one House should be available in the Committee of the other House.

said, he was sure the House must be deeply sensible of the valuable labours of the Standing Orders Committee, and particularly of those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman. The recommendations of that Committee were of an extensively remedial character, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not but believe they would in practice remove many of the objections urged by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil). The acuteness and attention to business of the Committees of that House had long been recognized, and as they advanced in experience many objections would disappear. The suggestions of the Standing Orders Committee with reference to the reports of public departments would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he thought he might assure the House that the inconvenience complained of by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel W. Patten) would not arise in future.

Sir, to put myself in order with respect to the observations which I shall address to the House upon the Lords' Amendments to the India Bill, I shall conclude with a Motion "That the Amendments be read this day three months." Sir, the acceptance of those Amendments would put the seal to the final extinction of that glorious Corporation, which ought to have secured the lasting gratitude of our country, by having added an empire to the Crown of England which would have excited the envy of Alexander the Great and Augustus Cæsar—and that, too, without the cost of a shilling to the Home Exchequer!—a Corporation, Sir, the narrative of the exploits of whose armies will constitute some of the brightest pages in our annals, and the names of whose servants, military and civil, will rank amongst the most illustrious of those of which our country is proud. Sir, the progress of the debates upon the several India Bills has only tended, to strengthen and confirm the opinion I expressed to the House on the proposed introduction of the first India Bill by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, of the impolicy of any change in the Government of India until the existing lamentable mutiny and rebellion had been entirely crushed, and the country restored to complete tranquillity. Sir, this opinion was plainly in unison with that of Her Majesty's present Ministers and their supporters, as was evidenced by their having gone to a division, when in Opposition, upon the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. Sir, Her Majesty's Government are now promoters of a measure which, in its introduction, they vigorously opposed; but I do not attach blame to them for so doing, considering that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton's Bill has been continually suspended over them like the sword of Damocles; they had no alternative but to produce their own measure, backed as the noble Lord's Bill had been by a large majority in a division—a majority produced, however, by some mendacious newspapers, which had misled Parliament into a belief that the popular voice was in favour of immediate legislation for India. Now, Sir, the British public are not slow to make their wishes known, nor to enforce those wishes by public demonstrations, and more particularly so, by addressing petitions to Parliament. The House must learn, therefore, with some surprise, that up to this day 481 petitions have been addressed to the House of Commons upon matters re- lating to India during the present Session; and out of that number, approaching to 500, only four petitions have asked that the Government of India should be transferred from the East India Company to the Crown! It was utterly untrue, therefore, as had been repeatedly asserted, that the popular feeling had been expressed in favour of either the India Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton or that of Her Majesty's present Government; and Liberal Members who support the Bill must bear in mind that they are not only destitute of popular support, but they are violating popular feeling, in crushing the old Saxon principle of representation, which is an essential element in the constitution of the East India Company. Moreover, those hon. Members who clamour for the ballot are, nevertheless, extinguishing the ballot, to which every member of the East India Company has a right in voting, whether in his capacity of an elector or while sitting at a Court of Directors. In closing, also, the Quarterly and Special Courts of Proprietors of the East India Company, the Princes and Natives of India who have hitherto made their wrongs, or supposed wrongs, known to the public through the medium of those Courts, will be driven to appeal to Parliament, to find their complaints neglected, from the constant pressure of public business, or only to be taken up for party purposes. Sir, the withdrawal of confidence from the East India Company, and the consequent introduction of the India Bills, is attributed by a party to a system of mismanagement which has resulted. in the mutiny of the Bengal army; but for that atrocious outbreak the East India Company are no more responsible than they are for the rising at the "Sicilian Vespers," or the massacre on the eve of St. Bartholomew at Paris, under Charles IX. To the Court of Directors and the Governments in India the mutiny was an overwhelming surprise. It commenced in local circumstances, and its immediate cause was the refusal of some soldiers to obey orders which they considered as opposed to their religious convictions; and they preferred death to dishonour, and, unhappily, their spirit and example spread to the Bengal army at large. There is no justification, therefore, for fixing upon the Home Government the responsibility for the mutiny, and crushing the Company for events over which they had no control. Sir, if rumour be believed, there would not have been an India Bill at all, had the universally-expected Reform Bill been prepared, or even intended to be produced, and the occurrence of the mutiny in India permitted of public attention being diverted from a subject of intense interest at home to one of intense interest abroad. But, Sir, no circumstances justify the present measure; for in no point whatever has the East India Company failed in the efficient execution of their great duties. Although taken by surprise, no operation has failed in India, nor has any failed in the hands of the Home Government. Before reinforcements arrived in India, Delhi was stormed and won by a comparative handful of men; and since then the Court of Directors have transmitted from England reinforcements to the extent of 58,399 men, in fifty-five steamers and one hundred sailing vessels, without accident or loss, and with the greatest expedition; manifesting that the efficiency of the Company has continued to the last. Sir, I, who have passed the best years of my life in the military service of the East India Company, should despise myself did I not at the last moment of the existence of that body bear testimony to the uniform liberality and justice with which their servants have always been treated by the Court of Directors; and my position as a member of the Executive Home Government of India for the last eighteen years, enables me further to bear witness to the paternal, just, and forbearing views of the Court of Directors. That body has always been animated by a desire, as their despatches show, to discourage wars—their policy has been one of abstinence from aggression, and it ever has inculcated the maintenance of the rights of the people of India. Wars and annexations have been caused, not by the East India Company, but by successive Governor Generals, whose powers of self-action have always been too great and unchecked, and who, supported by the Board of Control, whose nominees they were, left the Court of Directors the only alternative of acquiescence or fruitless remonstrance, an acquiescence, however, which has exposed the Court during the debates upon the India Bill to the invectives of the hon. Members for Radnor (Mr. Cornwall Lewis), Birmingham (Mr. Bright), Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), and to undeserved odium in England, and particularly on the Continent. Sir, what is the present state of India? There are no armies of rebels in the field to contend with, no fortresses to be besieged and taken; nevertheless, resistance springs up on all sides. In our conflicts we have crushed our opponents; but the results are like the attempt to place the finger upon a globule of quicksilver; we think we have it under the finger, but it is only to find it in numerous globules all around: and such is the present state of our warfare. And why is this? Because that which was a mere military mutiny is converted into an infinitely more formidable danger, by the recent universal distrust of the people of our intentions in the change of Government with respect to religious questions; and by the animosity engendered by the manifestations of our vengeance. We have, therefore, now more dangerous enemies to deal with than the mutineers, namely, a distrustful and exasperated people. Nor are the grounds wanting for distrust. 481 petitions have been presented to this House upon matters relating to India. 126 of those pray for the removal of the system of caste in India; eighty-nine are against idolatry; and 145 are for the extension of Christianity; so that 360 petitions pray for some action of the House of Commons or of the new Government of India touching religion. Now, the notices of these petitions, the phraseology of which admits of but one construction by the people of India, however harmless may be the views of the petitioners, find their way into the hundreds of Native newspapers, and touch the deepest feelings of the people of India, whether Hindoos or Mahomedans, and excite their alarm. This alarm has been increased by the numerous proclamations of the disaffected, who have asserted that the British Government propose to make the people of India Christians by force. Incendiaries, too, are fanning the flame of distrust in districts where there has hitherto been little disquiet. We read in the Calcutta Englishman, received by the last mail, an article headed "Eastern Bengal:—

"There can be no doubt that rebel emissaries are scouring all the districts of Bengal, north and south of the Ganges, which have hitherto remained quiet, and with these scoundrels have originated the different reports, calculated to discontent the Natives, which have been in circulation for some time past. The Natives generally have all been told that Government intend taking away their caste; some probably believe it; nearly all fear it. A few days since, in the Furreedpore district, a Mussulman Fakeer was overheard to say that he had been through Burdwan and Rungpore; and when at Burdwan, he met another Fakeer, who, accompanied by many people, came from upcountry, and remained about fifteen days consulting his book, with a view to discover when and where it would be advisable to fight for the faith. In the Jessore district, very lately, a gentleman's servant told the children that they would soon all be killed."

Another cause for distrust is the remarkable fact, that in all the discussions which have taken place in Parliament respecting the transfer of the Government of India from the India Company to the Crown, the feelings, wishes, and rights of the twenty nations who were to be transferred from one authority to another, have not only not been paramountly considered, but have not been discussed at all. The people, therefore, may well think that they are out of sight; and that a scramble for patronage between conflicting political parties is a more important matter than their interests. The people also see that in the present India Bill there is an omission of that clause or those clauses which characterized all former India Bills—namely, legislative protection for their rights, usages, and religion; an omission which they may construe as significant of the future. One of the chief features of the hon. Mountstewart Elphinstone's proclamation on assuming the sovereignty of the Deccan, was the guarantee to the people of their rights, usages, and religion, as far as was reasonable and just. But another great cause of the present distrust of the people is the European cry for indiscriminating vengeance. The able correspondent of The Times, in his last letter, says, the cry is "Kill, kill, kill! blood, blood, blood!" and I read in last Saturday Review the following passage, which chills one's blood with horror:

"A Baptist up-country newspaper elaborately demonstrates the lawfulness of taking away life, and adds, the reason why we have attempted to show that the shedding of blood is in itself no sin, except where it is expressly forbidden is, that a contrary opinion leads to that wishy-washy policy which produced the Rohilcund proclamation. Does Lord Canning ever reflect that by his tenderness to murderers he is actually disobeying the commands of God? Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,' is as much a precept of God as 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.'"

Again, the up-country editors argues—

"That 1,000 Hindoos ought to be put to death for every Englishwoman killed. Are the lives, he asks, of 1,000 of those beings, whose life is mere sense, to be compared with the agonies of mind of a delicately nurtured and educated woman condemned to such a fate?"

Are not such statements, Sir, sufficient to produce permanent and ineradicable feelings of animosity and dread in the minds of the people? and would ten times the amount of the European troops England could possibly supply be sufficient to keep in subjection peoples justly exasperated against us? No, Sir, a very different policy must be pursued. Let missionaries pursue their praiseworthy objects unostentatiously. There are now 460 of them, of various denominations, labouring in various parts of the country to which they have unrestricted access; but let them be kept free from Government patronage or association; for working with the suspicion in the Native mind of official prestige, they would prove the greatest enemies to the holy cause they are advocating. Let Native education be vigorously pursued and extended, and the edifice of superstition, which now obstructs progress, will be silently and unsuspectingly undermined and fall, without damage to our Government; let all religions be tolerated and, their ceremonies uninterfered with, where they do not offend public decency and propriety; let the chiefs and gentry of India be maintained in their estates and immemorial rights—for there can be no safety to a Government where the most important links of the social chain are wanting; let the usages, feelings, and prejudices even of the Natives be respected as far as may be reasonable and just; and then, with the introduction of the Queen's name and authority let there be a discriminating amnesty for the past; and, under Providence, the disposer of kingdoms and empires, we may hope that there will be a restoration of that mutual confidence and goodwill between the rulers and the ruled, which has charactized the prosperous government of the East India Company for the last hundred years, and without which confidence and goodwill there can be no peace in India, and no safety for our dominion there. Sir, I move that the Lords' Amendments to the Government of India Bill be taken into consideration this day three months.

said, he was satisfied that anything he could now say against the principle of the Bill would not have the smallest effect, but as it was probably the last opportunity he should have of addressing the House he was anxious to vindicate the character of that Government with which he had been so long connected, first as a servant, and afterwards as a master. He was especially anxious to vindicate the character of that noble service of which he had been a member—the Civil Service; for it had been spoken of in that House with a disrespect which men of high honour acutely felt—and he could not but regret that those hon. Members who had brought the charges were not present to hear his reply. The finances of India had been referred to as not being in a sound state, and the amount of the debt, approaching to £60,000,000, had been instanced as a proof; but it was hardly fair for Englishmen, with a debt of about £800,000,000, to taunt the East India Company on that point. Then it bad been said that there was a chronic deficiency in the Indian finances. The Company, however, had been urged for years to expend large sums in improvements, and having clone so, they ought not, in justice, to have this imputation of a chronic deficiency thrown out against them. During the last four years, eliding in 1856–7, if no public works had been undertaken in India, there would have been, instead of a deficiency, an aggregate surplus of more than £1,000,000, and in 1856–7, the deficiency, after paying £1,500,000 for public works, was only £240,000. Many of the works so undertaken would add greatly to the wealth and prosperity of the country. The landed revenue had been characterized as an oppressive system of taxation; but he maintained that, with partial exceptions, the landed revenue could be proved to be a moderate tax. Excessive landed assessment in India was the exception, and not the rule. The assessments in Bombay and Madras had been revised and lowered, while in the Presidency of Bengal and the North West Provinces there was no case in which the landowner did not derive from his land double the amount of the assessment which he paid to the Government, or, in other words, that the man who paid 500 rupees to the Government received 1,000 from the land. The late disturbances in India had been assumed as a proof of the unpopularity of the Company's rule, but the rising in India was a military mutiny, and not an insurrection of the people, though the worst portion of the population of some large towns might participate in it from love of plunder. Where there were no Sepoys there was no insurrection, and except in Oude the whole of the Hindoo population not connected with the military service was in favour of British rule. A very large portion of the more respectable Mahomedans also had, during the insurrection, shown themselves well disposed, and in more than one instance had rendered very important services to the Government. It had been said that the people had been driven by the exactions of the Company to general rebellion, but, had that been the case, we could not have held our position there for an hour. Turning to the civil service, he must express his regret that that service should have been spoken of so unjustly in that House. That service was most efficient, and all connected with it were most devoted to their duties. The existing system in that service was to begin from the bottom—that was, that the officer should begin at the lowest position and rise according to merit. That system had been the salvation of India, and he trusted it would be continued. It had been alleged that large salaries were thrown broadcast over India for the civil servants, and that they were paid on the same scale as Cabinet Ministers at home. Now there were only two high officers in India—the Governor General and the Commander in Chief excepted—who received salaries equal to those paid to the Cabinet Ministers in this country. These two were Sir J. Lawrence and the Resident of Hyderabad, and the latter was not a civil but a military officer. But when they spoke of the high salaries received by the civil service of India they must take into account the nature of the service and of the climate in which it was to be performed. They had to give higher pay to the troops while serving in India, the men engaged on the railways received double what they did here, and it was the same in all departments. They could not expect men to be content with the same salaries in India as in this country. The mutiny admittedly came upon us by surprise, and yet the right men were everywhere in the right places. There was Sir John Lawrence in the Punjab, Sir Henry Lawrence at Lucknow, Colonel Edwardes at Peshawur, Colonel Treen at Scinde. Were not all these men in the right places? It was marvellous what these, Major Chamberlayne, and others, had achieved, considering the nature of the difficulties with which they had been surrounded. The highest praise was due to our troops, who had with such valour and determination vanquished immense numbers of rebels in the field. But ought not equal credit to be given to these men, who, against fearful odds, had succeeded in conquering our enemies in remote stations before our army arrived? Indeed there was not a single instance of failure on the part of any one of the Company's servants, civil or military, throughout the whole of these trying events. Another question was whether the East India Company had done their duty in regard to the religious question. In his opinion it was not the duty of a Government to take a missionary part. Nothing could be more dangerous in a country like India for it to be supposed that the Government itself undertook the task of proselytising. Their duty was to hold the scales even, to protect the Christian against the Mussulman and the Hindoo, to place all religions on a footing of equality, and to support them in that position—leaving Christianity to make its way by the labours of the missionaries, aided by the support of charitable persons, and by its own inherent merits. In India the Natives had a great respect for the missionaries; and as a general rule, he thought there was no danger whatever of religious disturbances so long as it was believed that those who were engaged in disseminating the principles of Christianity were doing so independently of the Government. Stories had been raked up of what occurred when he was in the nursery to show that the Directors were hostile to Christianity; but at all events in recent times, the Government of India never mixed themselves up with, or supported Hindoo worship. All they had done was to maintain religious toleration. He might refer to the authority of Sir J. Elphinstone and Sir J. Lawrence in proof of that statement. Circumstances might occur which would render that the last time he should have the honour of addressing the House; and he thanked hon. Members for the attention with which they had heard him on the present occasion. He earnestly trusted that the new Government for India would prove even more beneficial for that country than the one now about to tease; but he thought that the step taken by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was an unwise concession to a popular outcry. The noble Lord fancied, no doubt, that he would long have the popularis aura swelling his sails, but he must by this time have found how mistaken he was. And he believed that if all that had passed could be sunk in the waters of Lethe, not a majority, not even a minority, would desire to interfere with the government as it had been for 150 years so successfully carried on. They had found how much easier it was to pull down than to build up. He expressed his conviction that there was a great future in store for India, but that could only be secured by the new Government of that country following as closely as possible in the footsteps of the old.

said, that unwilling as he was to interfere at a moment when the House was evidently bent upon discussing the details of the Bill before it, yet as this was the last opportunity he should have for waking any general observations on it, he wished to do so. He thought he had earned a right to be heard, for a few moments, by having been present at and listened attentively to every discussion on this and the other Bill, and voted in every division. He was equally responsible therefore with every other Member of the House for the proper character and future well-working of the Bill. It was one of unspeakable importance, involving as it did the construction of a system of Government for so vast a section of the human family. The welfare of India, ever since this country had undertaken to be responsible for it, ought to have been cared for in moments of the calmest and profoundest consideration it could bring to bear on such a subject. Yet, how stood the fact? A sort of fatality had seemed to attach to our Indian legislation, as far as related to the times when it took place. Let the House glance back at five periods of it, beginning with the year 1784 and ending with the present year. In the first-mentioned year the existing system was established amidst, so to speak, the red-hot heat of faction, the remarkable contests between Pitt and Fox and their respective partisans. Let any one refer to the debates of that day, and he would be greatly struck by the character of them. The next period, was the year 1813, when after a thirty years' interval, the system was again under the consideration of Parliament, which gave it a twenty years' longer lease of existence; and we were then in the convulsive excitement and agonies of the war then raging in Europe. The third period of interference was in the year 1833, when this country was still agitated with the great revolution effected in the Parliamentary constitution of the mother country the year before. The fourth period was in 1853, happily a fitting one of peace and quiet; but the fifth and last was in 1857–8—in the very midst of that fearful outbreak and hurricane of rebellion and insurrection still raging around us; for the vast intended change in our system of Indian Government, on which we were at that moment engaged was absolutely announced to the country in a leading article of The Times of the 27th of November last, and he (Mr. Warren) well recollected the astonishment with which the announcement was received. Having anxiously watched the course of discussion in that House, from the period when the noble Viscount oppoposite, then at the head of the Government, introduced his Bill, he (Mr. Warren) begged to say that he had heard speeches delivered by some distinguished Members of that House which he should not be afraid to place by the side of some of the greatest efforts of modern Parliamentary times; there was, however, one Member to whom the House and the country were under incalculable obligations for having interposed at a critical moment to withdraw the discussion of this momentous question from the disturbing forces and blinding mists of party and faction, and bringing to bear upon it the whole combined intellect, sagacity, and experience of Parliament—he meant the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. From the moment that most important and timely suggestion was adopted by this House, the course of Indian legislation appeared to him (Mr. Warren) to run comparatively smoothly and satisfactorily. And there was another hon. Member of that House entitled also to the lasting gratitude of the House and the country—he meant the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control (Lord Stanley). Between the noble Lord and him (Mr. Warren) there at present existed grave differences of opinion on certain political and social questions of the highest importance, but that should not for one moment prevent him from bearing willing testimony to the unvarying firmness of purpose, the unruffled temper, the clear-sightedness, tact, and courtesy, and the fertility of resources, with which he had conducted thus far the Bill before the House. He (Mr. Warren) most ardently hoped for a prosperous issue of their present legislation; that the system they were constructing would work long and well, and might be administered by wise and experienced men, so as to promote the welfare not of this country only, but of the vast multitude of those whom it would soon bring under the direct government of the Queen. The responsibilities attending the assumption of that government were already felt and seen to be growing greater and greater the more closely the future was scanned; and the noble Lord and the Government might depend on every movement of theirs being watched by the country at large with unsleeping vigour—he might say a stern solicitude—in which he (Mr. Warren) himself so largely shared, that he could not resist rising to utter what he had now taken the liberty of submitting to the House, and he begged pardon for having occupied even so much of the time and attention of the House at that stage of the Bill.

said, that being desirous that they should proceed to the consideration of the Amendments as soon as possible, he would postpone the questions of which he had given notice till Friday next, on which day he understood from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control he would be prepared to make a statement. These questions were:—"Whether the 17,000 men sent to India since January last included any troops requested to be added to the establishment in India by the Directors of the East India Company? Whether he will state the terms and objects of the Commission to inquire into the reorganization of the Indian army? What is the amount borrowed under the Indian Loan Act of this Session, and whether the amount allowed to be borrowed under the act will cover the expenses of the current year, or if Bills are now drawn upon India in the usual method? And whether any instructions have been sent, or will be sent, to proclaim Her Majesty's name and authority in India, and to announce the intentions of the Government as to non-interference with the religion of the Natives?" If this was to be the last time they were to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Guildford in that House, though he was sure there could not be a more efficient member for the new Council, yet he should be sorry to lose him from the House. But with regard to his statement that blame had been cast upon the civil servants of India, and that the late Government had brought forward the Bill with the sole motive of obtaining popularity, he was bound to say that great praise had been given to the civil servants of the East India Company, and that the late Government had not not been influenced in any way by a desire to court popularity when they brought forward the first India Bill.

suggested that it was not desirable to prolong a debate on the general government of India, and that it would be desirable to proceed with the Lords' Amendments. He had the speech of the hon. gentleman the Member for Guildford with much pleasure, and he regretted that his acceptance of a seat at the Indian Council would deprive him of his seat in the House. They bad often received from him valuable information on Indian questions, and it was in that respect he (Lord J. Russell) continued to think the Bill was defective.

considered the choice of the present moment for this change to be well described by a popular writer as "a crowning madness," to be paralleled only by that of the ship-captain who should choose the moment of a gale of wind at sea for shifting his lower masts; and he hoped the mover would go to a division, that he and those who held the same opinion might have an opportunity to record it. He believed that if there was any chance of preserving India, what would have more effect than 20,000 men, would be to bring a Mohammedan Indian to the table of the House, as was done yesterday with a Hebrew. This would be something like a guarantee to the 180,000,000 of British subjects an hon. Member (Mr. Fox) had named on a late occasion. He had himself talked theology with a sovereign Prince, and at Jidda with the Legate of the Sherif, and knew of personal knowledge that the well-informed Mohammedans were more tolerant than most Christians. In the Crimean war, when there was an interest in conciliating the Mohammedans, a Bishop had declared that Mohammedanism was an offset of Christianity, or words to that effect; and it was indeed true, if stripped of the prejudices of ignorance, that the difference was not greater than between the Established Church and the Unitarians, or perhaps the Catholics. Among other offers of service himself bad made at that time, one, as known to officers present, was to go to the Sherif of Mecca, the Mohammedan Pontiff, and negotiate for what might be called a Concordat to authorize the enlistment of Mohammedans under British officers in Turkey; and he was persuaded it might have been done. The cry of Mohammedan intolerance was an invention of the enemy; the vulgar were everywhere intolerant. For his part he would with great pleasure accompany a Mohammedan friend to that table if he would take the oath "on the true faith of a Christian;" which he knew no reason why he should not.

said, he wished to propose an alteration in the words introduced by the Lords into Clause 27. The clause provided that orders, which were now sent to India through the Secret Committee, might in future be sent by the Secretary of State, without communication with his Council; and the words inserted by the Lords were,—

"But no such order shall be sent without being previously communicated to the Vice President and one other member, to be from time to time selected by the Secretary of State'

Now, he doubted whether this Amendment would provide the security wished for, and he would therefore propose to strike out the words "the Vice President and one other member," and substitute "a committee consisting of the Vice President and four other members," adding the following words to the end of the sentence," and the opinion of the committee in respect of such order shall be recorded in writing." Amendment proposed, to insert after the words "communicated to," the words "a Committee consisting of Four."

said, he must oppose the alteration proposed by the noble Lord, which would have the effect of dividing the responsibility of the Minister, besides imposing upon him a very invidious duty of selection. He could not defend the Amendment of the Lords, for his own opinion was either that absolute secrecy should be secured to the Secretary of State, or that he should be allowed to communicate with the whole of his Council.

said, he objected to the Lords' Amendment, and would support his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) if he moved that the House do not agree to that Amendment. He had supported the principle that all secrecy should be at an end, and that all despatches should be communicated to the Council; but, failing in that, he could not support an Amendment which would confer secret powers upon five members of the Council, as he saw no alternative between an open Council and complete secrecy in the Secretary of State.

said, that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet could not be carried out, unless the noble Lord the Member for the City consented to withdraw his Motion. He thought, for his own part, that the original b arrangement of the House of Commons was the best; and if the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment, he should not be prepared to press the adoption of the Lords' Amendment.

thought the Amendment of the noble Lord was an improvement on the Amendment of the Lords. It was better to have two, and still more to have five, members of the Council who should be responsible, than to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister. There never was, however, a more preposterous humbug than this Secret Committee, and why it was to be continued he could not conceive.

said, the Secret Committee, if there was to be one, should be selected by the Council itself, and not by the Minister.

remarked, that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord was an improvement upon that adopted by the other House, though the number of the committee was perhaps too large.

said, he must object to the Lords' Amendment. The Lords said that they would not trust the Secretary of State, and what did they do? They compelled the Secretary of State to consult two gentlemen nominated by himself. At the same time, he could not conceive any arrangement more embarrassing to the Secretary of State than the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not support the Lords' Amendment, if that of the noble Member for London was withdrawn, for both Amendments would have the effect of re-establishing the Secret Committee—and a very bad Secret Committee—to record their protests against every act of the President of the Board of Control.

said, he would rather have the Secretary of State restrained by the words in the Bill than not restrained at all; but lie should desire that the members selected by the Indian Minister should have the power of recording their opinions.

said, he also thought that, if those persons were to have the power of recording their opinions, it would he a great improvement; but it would be a greater improvement to make the whole Council a Secret Council when necessary.

said, he could unde rstan the argument that there should be a responsible Minister, and that all should be left to him; but when they gave to that Minister a Council specially selected for their knowledge and information, he could not understand why they should not be consulted, the more particularly upon questions of peace or war, or questions involving important points of policy. On the other hand, there was a reason why they should adopt some such limitation as that proposed by the House of Lords. Up to a certain stage of the Bill in that House, it was understood that bankers and other persons in trade should not be appointed to the Council. However, since then, all that had been changed. Bankers and traders were now eligible to seats on the Council, and therefore he could not think it advisable that the whole Council should be included in the Secret Committee. If they had had a Secretary of State for India this spring, who was bound to communicate with a Council or a Committee of a Council, did anybody believe that the Ellenborough despatch would have gone out? If they were to have a Council, surely that Council ought to be consulted on those questions which, in their character and results, were of the greatest importance. Under these circumstances, he would support the Amendment of the noble Lord, which limited the number of the Secret Committee, though not to so great an extent as that of the House of Lords; but, in case his noble Friend's Amendment was not adopted, he would support that of the House of Lords, as better than no limitation or than undivided responsibility on the part of the Minister.

said, he confessed that he was surprised that his noble Friend the Member for the City of London, who had been so long connected with official life, and who knew so well what were the duties and responsibilities of those in high office, should have proposed such an Amendment. He apprehended that the foundation of the measure assented to by Parliament was, that the government of India should be transferred from the double organization of the East India Company and the Board of Control to the single responsibility of the Minister of the Crown. A great deal of the mistakes and confusion which had occurred on this part of the subject arose from the circumstance of hon. Gentlemen using the word Secretary of State instead of Ministry of the day; for although the power would be given nominally to the Secretary of State for India, the fullest responsibility would be shared by the whole Cabinet of which that Minister was a member. If he wanted an illustration of the correctness of this view, he might refer to a case which had lately taken place, in which a Minister of State, having acted without his colleagues, had resigned his seat in the Cabinet, and the Government to which he belonged had accepted that resignation in atonement for their colleague having violated what might be termed the strict line of official duty. The real object of the Lords' Amendment, and of that proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London, was that, instead of leaving the entire responsibility with the Secretary of State and with the Cabinet—and who alone were responsible for declaring peace or war—that responsibility should be shared with other persons who were not in the same position, who were not appointed by the Crown, and who were not responsible to, or dependent upon the support of Parliament, but held their offices for life, and were not even bound by an oath of secrecy like the Secret Committee. If this principle were once adopted, the same obligation might be imposed upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, upon whose acts might depend the question of peace or war. He (Viscount Palmerston) utterly denied the logical conclusion of the argument that if this Amendment were not carried the Secretary of State would be precluded from communicating with his colleagues at the Council in all the more important matters which would occupy his attention. There was nothing in the Bill to preclude the Cabinet from consulting any person in the Council or out of it from whom they might be able to derive information or advice. But what he objected to was, that it should be defined in the Bill that the Secretary of State for India should consult any particular individuals. Then it was said that those persons were to record their opinions; but suppose they did, and that the Cabinet declared war and the Secret Committee agreed with them, was it to be said that the Cabinet was to shelter itself under that sanction. Or, on the other hand, if the Secret Committee did not approve, was it to be said that a Government was to be impeached because the secret Committee had recorded an opinion against them? In his opinion, the House was bound, having decided upon abolishing the double Government, to do so unconditionally. Holding these views, he should vote against the Amendment.

said, he could well understand the whole of the patronage of the Indian Government, after that Government was transferred to Her Majesty, being vested in Her Majesty. But the terms of the clause, as amended by the Lords, vested that patronage entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State for India in Council. Clause 23 would show what the power of the Secretary of State in Council was. The Secretary of State moved any matter before the Council; but the Council could not contradict him whatever might be their opinion; the decision in all cases remained with him. As the clause went up, the patronage was in the hands of the Secretary of State it was true, but with the concurrence of the majority of the Council. The words struck out were material. He was in favour of leaving the patronage in the hands of the Secretary of State, under the control of the majority of the Council, or in the Crown, upon the responsibility of the whole Cabinet. He considered that this patronage was far too large to entrust in the hands of any Minister, that Minister not being the chief of the Government, and as he thought the Lords' Amendment objectionable in a constitutional point of view, he should move that the House do reject the Amendment in this clause.

said, he concurred with the right hon. Baronet in thinking there was a constitutional anomaly in the clause as it then stood, and he should not consequently feel justified in asking the House to agree with the Amendment of the Lords.

Sir, the Royal Commission having shown the necessity for a General Military Hospital and Medical School, and a new Hospital being about to be erected at Aldershot, will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration whether this Hospital might not be used for the purpose contemplated by the Royal Commission.

Sir, in reply, I have to state that the question of erecting a General Military Hospital and Medical School is now under the consideration of the Government, and at some future period no doubt it will be necessary to erect a Hospital at Aldershot, to which a Medical School might very properly be annexed. But no money bas been taken for the purpose in the Estimates, and the matter is still under consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of any vacancies occurring in the Sheriffships in Scotland to effect the full accomplishment of the object of the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 92, for diminishing the number of Sheriffs in Scotland, by transferring any of the Sheriffs of the Counties to be united into one Sheriffdom to such other Sheriffdoms as may become vacant by death or promotions, and thus save to the Public Revenue the Salaries payable to the former, as was contemplated at the passing of the Act 16 & 17 Vict, c. 80, by which the Salaries of all the Sheriffs in Scotland were increased?

Sir, I am not aware that any such expectation has been held out as has been referred to in the question of the hon. Gentleman. The Act of Parliament is quite clear, its provision being that with reference to fourteen Sheriffdoms held by fourteen different Sheriffs, whenever a vacancy occurs in one, the holder of the office in another should take the duties on himself, so that the number of Sheriffs may be gradually reduced from fourteen to seven in the smaller Counties in Scotland. Some vacancies in the smaller Counties have occurred since the passing of the Act, and in six out of the fourteen smaller Counties one Sheriff is discharging the duties of two Counties, which makes a reduction of three out of the fourteen Sheriffdoms. The question which I suppose the hon. Baronet wishes to put is, whether if a vacancy occurs in one of the larger Counties, the Sheriff of one of the smaller ones shall be put into the office, so as to enable that small County to be united to others, with a view to the diminution of the number? In any case where a Sheriff Of a small County is of such known ability as to render it advisable to promote him to a larger one, that course may be taken; but I could not advise the Crown not to select the best man to appoint to the larger County merely to facilitate the reduction of the number of Sheriffs in the smaller Counties.

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General which involved a question of the Breach of the Prileges of that House. It was his intention to have brought the matter forward at length, but he did not wish to stand between the proceeding with the India Bill, and he should content himself with asking a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and bring the matter before the House on Friday. He would therefore beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether in his capacity as Attorney General, and in the discharge of his duty to Her Majesty, he has received any fee in reference to any Bill in the discussion of which in the House he has taken part, and on which be has voted on a division?

Sir, it has been the practice from very early times, whenever a Bill is brought into Parliament, whether it is brought forward by any Department of the Government, or is a Bill brought before the House at the instance of an individual Member, which involves any question of the rights of the Crown to any property of any description, to submit the Bill, or the clauses which relate to the rights of the Crown, to one or other, or both of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. That practice is well known—must be well known to the Members of every Government who have sat in the House in the present century, and must be and is known to the hon. Gentleman who put the question. During the present Session two Bills, one of which was recently before the House, directly affected the rights of the Crown to property of considerable value. Those Bills, in conformity with ancient practice, were submitted to the Attorney General, and I believe to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, under the usual circumstances and with the usual fees attached to them; and certainly and undoubtedly in the discussion on that Bill the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, as they felt bound in duty to the Crown to do, did take part, and on one, two, and, I believe, three divisions, I myself, and I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General divided in support of the particular views they bad taken respecting it.

said, that he entertained great objections to this Amendment. The clause provided for the competitive examination of the civil service and the medical service. By the Amendment the latter was passed over, and the medical service became nominative. At present, although theoretically there was a system of competitive examination in the medical service, practically there was none at all. Thus, in the May examination, though there had been twenty-five appointments to fill up, there were only seventeen candidates, and of these only ten passed. In the last month there were forty medical appointments, but only thirty-seven candidates, of whom thirty-one had passed the minimum examination. In reality, therefore, there was not a competitive examination; the candidates only passed a minimum examination, as was done previously under the system of nomination. What led to the small number of applications for these appointments he did not know; perhaps the remuneration was considered inadequate, or perhaps this particular service was unpopular. At the same time, he presumed that the House would wish the system of competitive examination to be maintained in the medical as well as in the civil service, and he himself was quite in favour of that system.

said, with regard to the system of competitive examination generally, he had not the least desire to avoid discussion upon that subject, and he should be prepared at the proper time with an explanation respecting it, as he thought what had passed elsewhere had been greatly misunderstood.

I trust the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control will, before the House disposes of this Amendment, give us that explanation which he has just been good enough to promise. It was my wish, as well as the wish of many other Members of this House, that the principle of competitive examinations should be more generally sanctioned in this Bill, and that it should be extended beyond appointments in the Civil Service and in the scientific branches of the army. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Control has frequently declared himself to be in favour of that principle, and has assented to the insertion in this Bill of a provision sanctioning its adoption. He has, however, at the same time stated it to be his opinion that to introduce such a principle in the case of all appointments in the army in India would be premature; that such a proceeding would be open to the charge of being precipitate legislation; and that it was, therefore, expedient to confine the system of competitive examination to admission into the Civil Service and into the scientific branches of the army,—namely, into the artillery and engineers. Now, I confess it appears to me that that was a very fair view of the question to take, although the proposal of the noble Lord does not quite go to the extent which I should desire. That proposal, however, affords, I think, some earnest that her Majesty's Government would not be found averse hereafter, should experience be found to establish the success of the competitive system, to its further extension. But while in this Bill the other House of Parliament have left in the clause all the words which relate to the maintenance of the principle of competition in certain cases, they have struck out all those words under the operation of which persons undergoing an examination of this description should, as a matter of course, receive the reward which they might be entitled to expect; the result being that the power will be practically vested in the Minister of the day to put an end to those examinations altogether or not as he may deem expedient. Now it is obviously of no value that it should be enacted that a certain system of examinations should be established unless the young men who may happen to compete at those examinations obtain those rewards, which, if successful, they were led to suppose they would receive. Under these circumstances it is, I think, absolutely necessary that we should restore the words which have been omitted from this clause in the other House of Parliament, inasmuch as it would be, in my opinion, most objectionable that the discretion to which I have adverted should be left altogether in the Minister of the Crown. The noble Lord at present at the head of our Indian Administration is, it is true, favourable to the principle for which I contend, and would, I have no doubt, carry into effect the clause as it stands in a fair and liberal spirit. Another Secretary of State for India might, however, entertain entirely different views upon the subject of competitive examinations. He might say that he required practical men for the public service in that country, and that he would not adhere to a system under which young men had merely shown themselves to be proficient in certain departments of learning. To prevent the possibility of such a state of things as that hereafter arising, it is, I think, our duty to disagree with the Lords, Amendment.

Sir, I hope the noble Lord has done me no more than simple justice in the observations which be made in reference to myself personally—observations which are equally applicable to the other Members of the Government, when he said that he believed me to be favourable to the principle of unrestricted competition. I supported that principle five years ago, at a time when it was far less popular than I am happy to say it is at present, and when a strong feeling in opposition to it prevailed in more than one quarter. I have not since altered with respect to it the views which I then entertained; and nothing, I may add, during the progress of this measure through Parliament, afforded me greater pleasure than the circumstance that I was placed in the position of one whose duty and privilege it was to extend that principle of which the noble Lord is to-night the advocate to the scientific branches of the army in India. I therefore can assure the noble Lord that if the alteration which has been introduced into the clause under our notice were in my mind calculated to have the effect of destroying or impairing that right of free competition which we in this House have asserted, I would rather resign the office which I have the honour to hold than give to that alteration my assent. I do not, however. believe that the Amendment will have any such operation, and I may, perhaps, be permitted to state to the House in a few words the circumstances under which it was introduced. In the first place, the clause as it now stands, or rather as it will stand, if this alteration be agreed to, will leave the question of competition for the civil service upon the same footing as that upon which it has stood ever since 1853, when the right hon. Gentleman, who was then President of the Board of Control, introduced a Bill which was understood, and rightly understood, to sanction the adoption of the principle of competition in the case of appointments for the civil service; but which still does nothing more than give to the Crown the power to establish the system of competitive examinations by means of an Order in Council. If, therefore, the Amendment under our consideration should be agreed to, no existing right would be impaired under the operation of this clause. The change which, during the progress of this measure, I proposed to introduce with respect to the principle of unrestricted competition was simply to recognise in an Act of Parliament instead of in an Order in Council the right to admission into the public service which might be thus acquired. When that change was proposed, we were told that it would be quite opposed to constitutional practice, inasmuch as its effect would be to give to administrative and executive appointments the sanction of a Parliamentary title. There is, as far as I can ascertain, no precedent for adopting such a course. We therefore felt ourselves obliged to admit that the objection was a valid one. Then arose the question by what other provision could we secure the adoption of this competitive principle? The clause under consideration was passed as affording the best means of attaining that object. The noble Lord, however, says that if this alteration which has been introduced into it in the other House of Parliament be assented to, it will altogether depend upon the discretion of the Minister of the day whether the system of competitive examinations is or is not carried into effect. Now, I do not think that the matter stands precisely upon the footing which the noble Lord seems to suppose. It must be borne in mind that the regulations under which those examinations are to be conducted must be laid down by means of an Order in Council. That Order in Council may, it is true, be subsequently altered or modified by another, but then you will always have this check upon the action of the Minister, that that subsequent Order in Council must, within the shortest possible time, be laid before this House, which will thus be challenged to express its opinion with respect to it. Now, knowing as we do that the great majority of the Members of this assembly—as will, I have no doubt, be the case in every successive Parliament—is favourable to the principle of unrestricted competition, we may, I think, confidently trust that the feeling which pervades the present will animate every future House of Commons, and take that feeling as a sufficient guarantee that no Order in Council will be sanctioned, the object of which may be to modify or repeal the principle of unrestricted competition. Let me suppose, for instance, that the Minister should, by means of a new Order in Council, attempt to sweep away that principle, and to return to the old system of nomination, without or without an examination test. What, I ask, would be the result? The Order in Council would be laid upon the table of this House. The propriety of issuing it would be discussed. A Motion would be made expressing the views of the House on the subject, and a division would be taken upon the question; and how, I should like to know, could it be possible that any Minister would have the power to carry his own views in favour of the principle of nomination in opposition to the feelings and wishes of the House of Commons? If, by any possibility, any future Minister should possess such a power, how, I ask you, will the rejection of this Amendment afford any additional security against its exercise? You have now, it is said, the security of an Act of Parliament. But such an Act can always be repealed, if Parliament should change its mind. The practical guarantee for the maintenance of the principle of free competition rests now, as it has done hitherto, in the known feelings and opinions of the House of Commons upon the subject. I may also be permitted to remind the House that when a system of this kind is once established it cannot be swept away at a moment's notice by any Minister, however desirous he may be to dispense with it. When you have the system in operation, and men are undergoing a process of training with the view of availing themselves of the advantages which it presents, no change subversive of it could be introduced without a notice of at least twelve months, or more probably two years. A challenge would thus, as it were, be thrown out to this House which would be thus afforded an ample opportunity of asserting their opinion in respect to the question which it may happen to entertain. The House will have that opportunity, and whether its opinion be expressed in one form or another appears to me to be quite immaterial. The clause was drawn to meet the difficulty of constitutional law, and it is a great difficulty. But I must state my firm belief that whether these words be omitted or retained, the principle of unrestricted competition is equally safe, and equally certain to be maintained. Upon no other understanding could I be induced to consent to the Amendment that has been made in the clause.

said, that in his opinion the House ought to insist on some further safeguard for the continuance of unrestricted competitive examinations than a mere Order in Council. No doubt if they could have the assurance that the noble Lord would always be at the head of the Indian Government, they might trust to his support of the principle of unrestricted competition. But suppose the noble predecessor of the noble Lord who had so recently attacked that system in so strong a manner, were restored to office, what would be the value of such assurances in that case? He should, therefore, vote for the retention of the clause.

If the noble Lord the Member for London divides the House upon this point, I shall feel it my duty to divide with him. I have the utmost confidence in the assurance of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control, for I well remember the vote which he gave in 1853, when I had the honour of voting with him when this principle of open competition was not, as he has truly said, nearly so popular as it is at present. I ventured last night, on another question, to say, that this was the age of progress, and I was told by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that I should have said an age of change. Now, this Amendment of the Lords is certainly not progress, but it is change. It is really and substantially a reversal of the decision which this House, after full discussion, has adopted. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had very correctly described what took place in 1853. It was considered by the Government of that day that the civil service of India should be opened to direct competition; but no such provision was inserted in the Bill itself. It was given effect to by an Order in Council issued in the following year. But after full deliberation on this question, it was thought expedient to give a statutory recognition to the principle, which did not before rest on statute. The noble Lord, however, says he can see no difference as concerns civil appointments, of which alone we are talking at present, between an Order in Council to be laid upon the table of this House and a statutable recognition such as was contained in this Bill when we sent it to the House of Lords. I must differ with the noble Lord upon that point. To repeal an Act of Parliament which confers a statutable recognition is a long and serious operation; but by a single vote depending upon the presence of hon. Members and a variety of accidents a decision may be given upon an Order in Council. I believe the principle of unrestricted competition embodied in the Bill as we sent it to the other House, at all events as regards civil appointments, was a sound principle. I do not think it would be safe to depart from that principle; but it would be an act of retrogression upon a most important point—the management of the civil patronage of India. I have the highest confidence in the success of the competitive system. We have the opinion of Sir John Lawrence, the highest authority in India, whose recent experience of these civil appointments, which have taken place under a system of open competition, has been, I am told, so favourable, that he earnestly desires, in conformity with the gallant General below me (Sir De Lacy Evans) that that principle may be extended to the scientific branches of the army. Thus we have experience, authority, and the decision of this House in favour of the system, and I can see no reason for the alteration that has been made by the other House, for I cannot conceive the reason that has been suggested—that it was supposed the sons of the middle classes were not so well fitted for the appointments as the sons of the nobility and gentry. Upon these grounds, therefore, I shall certainly give my vote with the noble Member for London.

said, he thought there would be no controversy between his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) and the Government on one or two points; especially would there be no controversy between him and them as to the last point he mentioned—that the sons of the middle classes were fully as much entitled, if they were found equally qualified, to these appointments as the sons of the nobility and gentry. That was a point on which there could be no controversy whatever. Another point on which there would be no controversy between them was that the competitive system, which was first introduced by regulations prescribed under the Act of 1853, though not by the Act itself, was intended by the Government to be as fully and fairly acted upon for the future as it was at the present moment. The question that was raised between them was this, whether they were to tie up the operation of that system within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, or whether they were to allow the Government a liberty, under certain circumstances, of subjecting that system to alterations and modifications. The danger of inserting a clause of that kind in the Act was, that it tied up the matter altogether and left no latitude to the Government, however important or necessary it might be, to effect any modifications in the system or in the mode of carrying the principle into effect. He took leave to say that such a power had never been taken in any Act of Parliament yet. But the security they had already for the continuance of the competitive system was as great as it well could be short of the objectionable system of inserting it in the Act; for by the words of the clause itself the regulations made upon that question by the Secretary of State in Council must be laid upon the table of the House within a month, so that the House had the most complete power to pronounce an opinion on the alterations that might be made, while they retained to the Government the additional power of considering whether under certain circumstances it might not be expedient to alter or modify the system. His right hon. Friend said this was an age of progress, while the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield called it an age of change. Well, his right hon. Friend was a great constitutional authority; and if he were sitting on that (the Ministerial) bench—as he heartily wished he was—he would say that nothing could be so unadvisable as that the Crown appointments should be made in such a way as to deprive Ministers of the responsibility in making those appointments. But if they restored the words which the Lords had removed, that responsibility would be, to some extent, taken away; and, therefore, in his judgment the omission of these words was better than their insertion, not because the omission did away with the principle of competitive examination, but because the insertion deprived them of the power of regulating it afterwards.

said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman necessarily led to the conclusion that the principle of competitive examination was to be given up altogether. It reserved a discretion to the Crown, leaving that discretion as wide as any Minister chose to make it, and the whole object of the clause would be lost. He could understand that the Government should wish to abandon the principle of competitive examination, but he could not understand why the whole world should be invited to compete, as they were in the opening of the clause, if there was to be no security that the successful candidates should be appointed. But if any person were not appointed after being successful in the competition, it would give rise to a charge of unfairness and partiality against the Government, which ought, above all things, to be avoided. He would, therefore, give his vote for restoring the clause to the shape in which it had left that House.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) hardly appreciated the measure which the Government had presented to the House. His objection was, that if the clause as amended by the Lords were passed in this House, the result would be, that there would be no security that those who were successful in the examination would be appointed. Now, they had this security, as his right hon. Friend had explained; they had the security of the existing Order in Council, until that order were revoked or modified. But it could not be revoked or modified without the modification being laid on the table of this House, so as to invite the opinion of the House upon it. Therefore, any person who was successful in open competition had this double security for his appointment—first, the Order in Council; and second, the veto of the House of Commons upon any change in that Order; and he ventured to think that that was a security which all the candidates for examination would consider perfectly satisfactory for the future, as it had been considered satisfactory in the past. The House was quite agreed about the principle of competitive examination; and, as he believed, quite satisfied with the declaration of his noble Friend that he was prepared to carry out that principle to the utmost. But then there stepped in this objection to the Bill as it left that House, that they first declared in the Bill that all appointments were vested in the Crown, and then they had a Parliamentary declaration that such persons only should be appointed as fulfilled certain conditions. It was a mockery first to give the appointments to the Crown, and then to say that those appointments should be conferred solely by a Parliamentary title altogether independent of the Crown. That was a constitutional objection, of which he thought hon. Members opposite would feel the force; and it was on that ground that his noble Friend had proposed that the Amendment of the Lords should be assented to.

said, he wished to remind the House that the question was in a very different position now from what it was in 1853. They had now changed the Government of India, and one of the chief dangers that had always been apprehended by those who had seriously considered that question was, that which might arise from placing of the Indian patronage wholly in the hands of the Crown. Now, in 1853, if the competitive system had been abolished, the patronage would have fallen back into the hands of the Directors of the Company, where it had always been; but if it were abolished now, it would fall into the hands of the Crown. He did not feel much confidence in the duration of the Council which was about to be established, and it was against the abuses of future Parliaments that they had to guard. If in future times Parliament should relax its vigilance—and he had no great confidence in their watchfulness—the same danger would arise which had for so many years made successive Governments shrink from abolishing the system of double Government which had hitherto existed.

said, he had never been a great enthusiast for the competitive principle, but having had some experience of the competition in the civil service, he was bound to say the young men who had been selected for offices in that service were admirable specimens. He thought that, having agreed on that principle, no one could hesitate to say that an Act of Parliament would afford the strongest security for carrying it out, now that an issue had been raised as to whether its operation could be best secured by that means or by an Order in Council. An Order of Council might be overlooked or be left to sleep on the table of the House; but once having got the principle within the four corners of an Act of Parliament, it could only be set aside by an Act of the Legislature; and there would be then no risk of the system of competition being destroyed without such an examination of its merits as would show that its destruction was due to a manifest change in public opinion. He would, therefore, urge the House to adhere to the Bill in this respect as it was sent up to the Lords.

said, that the system of competitive examination was as good for the scientific branches of the army as for the civil service; and he had a Motion to submit with regard to the scientific arrangements of the army. He therefore proposed to reinsert the words omitted by the other House after the word" examination," as follows:—

"And the candidates who may be found entitled under such regulation shall be recommended for such cadetships according to the order of their proficiency, as shown by such examination."

said, it was clear that the principle involved in the former discussion was equally applicable here, and after the expression of the opinion of the House in the recent division he would not contest it further. In taking leave of this subject, he could only express his hope that, though the House had preferred one mode of establishing this principle to another, they would not believe—what, certainly, was not the case—that it was the intention of the Government to abandon a principle that had been so frequently and so distinctly affirmed.

said, he was extremely unwilling to raise slight objections to any portion of this Bill, which he was ready to acknowledge had been conducted through the House by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and the Government with remarkable fairness and candour; but it appeared to him that the insertion in this clause of the words "preventing or" would constitute a very great difference in its meaning. He approved the spirit and object of the clause as it left that House, because, as it then stood, it gave no encouragement to unnecessary wars. All the aggressive wars that had taken place in the history of India had been carried on under the pretext of repelling threatened invasion. He need only allude to the, Affghan war in illustration of this statement. He was quite confident that if these words, "preventing or" were allowed to remain, the clause would be rendered altogether nugatory. Take the case of Nepaul. The Governor General might raise the question that in his opinion invasion was intended on the part of that State, and with the view of preventing such threatened invasion hostile proceedings might be undertaken at a great cost to the revenues of India. It had been said, however, that these words were a solecism, as if it was absurd to send troops out of the country to repel an invasion when the enemy must be actually in the country. He had to state that the clause was drawn by a skilful dialectician, and one too that had no mean skill in logomachy, and these were the terms that occurred to him to use. He did not say that in repelling invasion they ought not to take troops beyond the external frontier. This was done on the very last occasion on which their Indian provinces were invaded. The Sikhs crossed the Sutlej, thereby invading our territory. Lord Hardinge repelled the invasion, and drove them across the Sutlej and carried the troops beyond the external frontier. This was a sort of operation which it would not be desirable to prevent, for to meet invasion by going beyond the frontier was a legitimate mode of carrying on hostile measures. On the other hand, taking hostile measures to meet threatened invasion was precisely the course of proceeding which had led during the last century to the most offensive, profligate, and aggressive wars, and it was most de. sirable that every precaution should be taken, as far as enactment could do so to prevent recourse being had to such a policy. On these grounds he objected to the introduction of the words "preventing or" by the Lords.

said, he thought that when the Governor General had reason to believe that preparations for the invasion of our Indian territory were being made near the frontier, he ought to have the power of sending beyond the frontier a force sufficient to frustrate the designs of the enemy, because by so doing he might, by a speedy blow, prevent that expenditure of blood and treasure which would be occasioned by an actual invasion. Every man at all acquainted with the art of war must know perfectly well that nothing could be more foolish than to wait until an enemy who contemplated invasion had completed his preparations before you attacked him. The hands of the Governor General ought not to be tied up in such matters by an Act of Parliament. Lord Hardinge was disinclined to believe that the Sikhs intended to invade the empire, but had he been certain of that he would have crossed the Sutlej, and brought that war to a much speedier end.

said, there could be no doubt that our Indian army would be placed at a great disadvantage if it were not permitted to cross a river for the purpose of attacking an army that was making preparations to invade our territory. An attack of that nature might be the best mode of defending our territory.

said, that with all deference to his right hon. Friend, he did not think that the words "preventing or repelling actual invasion" would have covered such a case as that of the Affghan war, because that war was carried on at a great distance from our then frontier in India for the purpose of establishing a safeguard, not against actual invasion, but against a nation that at some future time might have attempted to invade our territory. He had reason to believe that the intention of inserting the words objected to was to remove the objection of some persons who said that there was a contradiction of terms in saying that you were not to cross the frontier except for the purpose of repelling invasion. Speaking strictly, there could be no invasion to repel until the enemy had crossed the frontier. But the truth was, that the clause was more a declaration of the intention and opinion of Parliament than anything else. The words "except in case of urgent necessity or actual invasion" were, in fact, so wide that a court of law would construe them so as to make them cover everything which could possibly be imagined. He believed that if the Governor General could establish the fact that in directing the Indian army to cross the frontier his object was bona fide to prevent invasion a court of law would hold that he was justified in acting upon his own judgment. It would be impossible to hold him guilty of a breach of the clause if he could establish the honesty of his intention. He thought the first part of the clause was such as to render it superfluous for the House to criticise minutely the legal effect of the other part, and therefore he should recommend the House to adhere to the clause as it stood.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Carlisle that the word "preventing" would cover almost any military operation in India. The words "urgent necessity" would meet the case of an army assembled on the frontier for the purpose of invasion. He was in favour of adhering to the original words, as he thought it desirable to impose every restraint on a Governor General, in resorting to the dreadful alternative of war.

observed that he was afraid that the phraseology of the words of an Act of Parliament was not likely to prevent wars in India. Past history told them that every Governor General somehow or other found himself engaged in a war, and the Home Government always felt themselves compelled to support him.

said, he should like to have some further explanations from the hon. and learned Attorney General respecting this Bill, because when the Bill was in its last stage a question was asked as to whether it was intended by this Bill to enable Sir T. M. Wilson to enclose Hampstead Heath, and the Attorney General said there was no intention. Since then, however, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Rolt), had given notice of his intention to move the omission of a clause, the omission of which would have the effect of depriving the public of the enjoyment of that heath. He thought before they went into Committee they ought to have an assurance that the Government would not lend their support to any attempt to carry out that object. If that question were brought on now, it would take the House by surprise.

observed, that he had already stated with perfect sincerity, that he had no intention, in carrying this Bill through the House, to make any important alteration whatever in the law beyond that which was expressed in the Bill itself. It was not a Government Bill. It had come down from the other House, and understanding that Lord Oran-worth desired the Bill to pass, he had moved the second reading of it. He had attentively considered the clauses, and was of opinion that they were not only expe- dient but necessary to remedy the defects in the former Act, With respect to any clause of which notice might have been given, he had to remind the hon. Member that he had no control over any hon. Member in such a matter. All he could say on the part of the Government, who, however, had nothing to do with the Bill, was, that they knew nothing of any such clause as that referred to.

said, that their objection was, not to the Bill itself, but to the proposition of which notice had been given by an independent Member, the effect of which would be to permit the enclosure of Hampstead Heath. They wished for an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman to the effect, that neither he nor the Government would support such a proposition. Many hon. Members who had depended on such a clause not being brought forward with the support of the Government were absent from the House.

said, he had no authority from the Government to offer any assurance on the subject. As for himself he had stated on a former occasion that he had no intention of supporting any clause which, by leading to discussion, might, impede, if not prevent, the passing of the Bill.

said, he must protest against any attempt to take the House by surprise by a proposal such as that of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire. Not that he objected to the proposition in itself, but there were circumstances under which not even a good thing ought to be done.

said that, as there seemed to be a general feeling that it would be a breach of faith to press on this occasion the Amendment of which he had given notice, he would consent to withdraw it.

said, that from the reasons he had already given, he should not now take the sense of the Committee on the rejection of the 21st clause of the Act of 1856, the effect of which was to preclude the Act from applying to those cases in which an application had been made to Parliament; but he should bring it before the House on the first opportunity next Session, feeling satisfied that it was impossible to justify an enactment which, pretending to be founded on general principles, was aimed at a particular individual.

said, he thought that exceptional legislation of this kind was in- jurious to the character of the House, and be would therefore assure the hon. and learned Gentleman of his support on such an occasion.

denied that the clause was aimed at a particular individual.

said, that the framers of the Act had not the courage to say expressly that the clause applied to Sir T. M. Wilson, but there could not be the slightest doubt that the 21st clause was aimed at him. Such a clause, excluding a particular individual from the benefit of a general measure, not by name, but by a sort of sidewind, was most unjust.

said, he might refer to the Earl of Derby as an authority, to show that when Parliament had once decided a question of this kind the Court of Chancery ought not to be allowed to upset that decision.

said, he should be quite prepared, whenever the hon. and learned Member raised the question, to go into the whole subject, in order to show that they were justified in insisting in retaining the clause in question.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the competition relative to the Monument to the late Duke of Wellington. He was induced to do so, not because he placed any presumptuous reliance upon his own authority as a judge in matters of taste, but because he believed considerable mistrust prevailed among the public with respect to the arrangements into which it was supposed the Government had entered in reference to the erection of that monument. He had no desire, in submitting the matter to the notice of hon. Members, to embarrass his noble, Friend the First Commissioner of Works in the difficult position in connection with, the subject in which he was placed; neither, in the course of the observations which he was about to make, did he wish to say a single word which might be supposed to be depreciatory against any of those artists—some of them men of great distinction in their profession—who had upon a late occasion unsuccessfully com- peted for the execution of the proposed monument. In using the word "unsuccessfully," he simply meant to imply that no one of the designs which had upon the occasion to which he referred been exhibited had been of so high a character as to have at the time been selected as a fitting model for the great work which was in contemplation. On the contrary, he conceived that he was vindicating the cause of those artists since, if he had rightly understood his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works, it appeared that he now proposed to commit the execution of the Wellington Monument, not to the person who had obtained the first prize at the late Exhibition, but to an artist who had obtained a prize, and that he was about to take that course notwithstanding that since the competition had been entered into the site upon which it was intended to erect the monument had been completely changed. It was under those circumstances perfectly open, he thought, to those artists who had already sent in designs to say that they had been cramped with respect to the extent of the space which it was proposed to allot for the erection of the monument, and that under the more favourable circumstances in that respect now presented they would have produced better models than those which they had previously exhibited. Now, in the case of those models which had been previously exhibited, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) had wisely guarded himself against being compelled to take any one of them as the design in accordance with which the proposed monument was to be constructed; while his (Mr. S. Wortley's) noble Friend the present First Commissioner of Works seemed to be of opinion that he was bound to employ in its construction some one of the artists who had already competed. He had not, however, taken the design of Mr. Marshall, which gained the first prize, but had (no doubt with able assistance) selected that of Mr. Stevens, which did not stand higher than sixth in the list of prizes, and then, either not being entirely satisfied with that, or not being convinced that Mr. Stevens could execute it, he had called on Mr. Marshall to execute some of the sculpture round the monument; and, moreover, apparently with the view of giving it an architectural character, he proposed, in addition, to obtain the assistance of Mr. Cockerell and Mr. Penrose, the official architect of St. Paul's, to superintend the execution of the monu- ment. That was a course which appeared to every one to be inconsistent with the original notice given to artists, and also inconsistent with the ordinary course adopted upon occasions of competition upon other subjects. If a prize were held out for the best essay or the most valuable agricultural implement, the writer of the one, or the inventor of the other, whose production was deemed by the judges to be the best, received the prize. That had not been the case in the present instance, and the departure from the usual course had created great dissatisfaction, if not disgust. He did not in the least desire to undervalue the model of Mr. Stevens. He had had the pleasure of being introduced to that gentleman since this subject had been mooted. He had also communicated with the judges who acted upon the competition, and also with several of the leading artists, in order that it might not be supposed that he had anything to do with the selection of a particular artist for the execution of this work. He might say, however, that he agreed with his noble Friend in his estimate of Mr. Stevens's model, and when he first saw it, before any decision upon the point had been made known, he was of opinion that it was almost the only model in Westminster Hall that could be chosen. He did not say that Mr. Stevens was neither an architect nor a sculptor, for that gentleman had informed him that he had studied both those branches of art, but certainly he had produced no great work—had erected no great building to which he could point as evidence of his capabilities. That was no disparagement to Mr. Stevens, who was a young man doubtless destined to achieve future fame, but to take a model solely because it was graceful and elegant, standing in advantageous contrast with some of the little creditable models exhibited in Westminster Hall, without knowing whether the designer was able to execute the architectural and sculptural portions, was acting with a great degree of uncertainty. Some parts of the model had been pointed out as showing a want of knowledge of the human form, and opinions were entertained by good judges very adverse to Mr. Stevens's model. In those opinions, he (Mr. Wortley) did not concur; but, in a pamphlet written by a gentleman of great attainments, and who was engaged to instruct the students at the South Kensington Museum in some branches of study closely connected with art, it was stated that Mr. Stevens's monument was the least worthy of any of the nine selected. That proved that there were those who did not approve the selection which had been made. He (Mr. S. Wortley) had also made it his business to consult the opinions of the judges. The opinion of the chief of the judges, the Marquess of Lansdowne, was known, because that noble Lord, in his place in Parliament, had declared that, with respect to the designs sent in, "there was not one of such commanding merit as to induce the Commissioners to recommend it for adoption." He (Mr. S. Wortley) was authorized by every one of the judges with whom he had communicated to say that their opinions were in complete accordance with that of the noble Marquess. It had been, in fact, intended to state so much in the Report, but consideration for the artists induced them to refrain from doing so. Every hon. Member who mixed with artists or the lovers of art must be aware of the difference of opinion which existed as to the propriety of the selection that had been made. As far as his own observation had gone, the proposed arrangements of his noble Friend were regarded with dissatisfaction and mistrust. Having changed the site and selected Mr. Stevens's design, the next step of his noble Friend was to place the whole business in the hands of Mr. Stevens, who, with the help of Mr. Marshall and the assistance of Mr. Penrose, was, under the authority of his noble Friend, to decide what sort of a monument should be erected in St. Paul's Cathedral. He did not think, however, that either that House or the country would consent to leave the erection of the monument to an irresponsible committee of three, however eminent they might be. But, unfortunately, none of these gentlemen were much known. Of Mr. Stevens he had already spoken. Mr. Penrose was an able, accomplished, and efficient man, but being still a young man, his talents had not as yet become universally acknowledged. He had no wish to be understood as expressing any doubt as to the wisdom of the change of site. The original site was under one of the arches of the north aisle of St. Paul's, but that arrangement would have destroyed the beautiful architectural balance of that edifice unless there was a monument to be placed under each of the other arches. The public generally agreed in the change of site, and the one now chosen was admirably adapted for the purpose. The Consistory Court was of a shape similar to those large chapels Roman Catholic cathedrals which were selected for the monuments of great men. It was a noble position, and had the recommendation of being spacious enough to receive other monuments, and he hoped that in time there would be within it memorials of such men as Nelson and Collingwood. There was one much injured man, to whom the nation owed a heavy debt of gratitude, who sacrificed his life in the Crimea in the cause of his country, and at an age when he might well have refused to engage in active service—Lord Raglan—whose monument he should wish to see in that place. He had no doubt his noble Friend had been actuated by the feeling that he was bound to give something to the prizemen who took part in the general competition. He might have supposed that they had a moral claim on the Government, but looking at the terms of the contract, he (Mr. S. Wortley) contended that not a single word was used in it signifying an intention of carrying into execution any one of the prize models. The only passage in the contract from which such an intention might possibly be inferred had to his mind a directly contrary meaning. He referred to that in which it was stated that if the artist to whom the highest premium was awarded should be employed to execute his design, he would not be entitled to receive any premium. Therefore, so far as the contract went, and indeed, having regard to the general feeling among the artists themselves who competed, he believed no complaint of injury could fairly be made on the ground of none of the prize models having been carried into execution. The Marquess of Lansdowne, moreover, who had acted as the chief judge, had stated in the other House that the judges did not feel bound to recommend the competitors for employment, nor had he ever, except in one pamphlet, seen it contended that the Government were bound to do so. It was important to trace the history of this competition. So long ago as the funeral of the Duke, in 1852, the idea of a monument was propounded. The Earl of Derby was then in office, and his (Mr. Wortley's) noble Friend (Lord John Manners) was First Commissioner of Works. The first thing that was done to give effect to the suggestion was, after a change in the Government, when the late Sir W. Molesworth, who had then succeeded to the Board of Works, invited four of the principal artists in this country to furnish models of a monument to the Go- vernment—namely, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Foley, Mr. Gibson, and Baron Marochetti. The first two gentlemen accepted the invitation; Mr. Gibson refused, but gave no reasons for so doing, except that he made it a rule not to expose himself to competitions of that nature; Baron Marochetti also declined, assigning as a reason that in such a competition it would be scarcely less painful to succeed than to fall. Mr. Foley and Mr. Bailey each sent in a model to the Government, but neither was deemed satisfactory. They then endeavoured to ascertain from the Chief Commissioner what was wanted, so that they might, if possible, modify the models they had sent in in accordance with the views of the Government; but that was denied them, and eventually £50 a piece was given by this great nation to those two eminent men for all the trouble and expense they had been put to in the matter. He believed that if Sir W. Molesworth had at that time entrusted this great work to those distinguished men—Mr. Bailey, one of our oldest sculptors, and Mr. Foley, the author of the magnificent statue of Viscount Hardinge—they would have executed a monument in every way worthy the illustrious subject of it, and satisfactory to the country. That course, however, was not taken, and when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Benjamin Hall) became First Commissioner of Works he came to the determination to submit the matter to public competition, which it was universally admitted had failed. The judges could find no work of sufficient merit to recommend for adoption, and it was necessary to restrict the competitors so closely as to size that the judges could not look at a model sent in by one of our most distinguished artists because it was half a foot too wide. He (Mr. Wortley) did not regret that competition, however, though it had failed. The principle of competition in such cases had recently been discussed before a Committee of that House on the erection of a Foreign Office, and there was a paragraph in the Report of that Committee in which they gave a decided preference to the principle of limited competition, on the ground that where the competition was limited the highest class of artists might be expected to compete, and where it was otherwise the probability was that such men would not come into it at all. The principle of unlimited competition, on the other hand, had this advantage, that it sometimes elicited talent which might otherwise re- main unknown and unappreciated. He believed the public were little aware of the hardships which it inflicted on many artists. When the public looked at an exhibition of models of any great work of art, they little knew that many of the poor artists from whom they emanated had been obliged to borrow, and almost to beg, in order that they might be enabled to execute them. A good model of some great works of art could not be made for less than £200 or £300, and any one could imagine the grievous disappointment that ensued when, besides failure, the artist received no remuneration for all the labour, money, and time he had bestowed on his work. The necessary consequence was, that men who had an established reputation refused to come into a general competition, and, instead of attracting the best and greatest minds of the country, the competitors in such a case were men, generally speaking, of inferior experience and skill. The principle of open competition was not applied to any other profession. No one expected thus to get the best work from a lawyer or a physician. What would be thought of a Sovereign Who, when ill, threw open his case to public competition, and offered a fee to the physician who gave the best advice? Or what would have been said if the Earl of Shrewsbury had attempted to select counsel by open competition? The fact was, artists felt that this mode of dealing with them was an insult, because it was one pursued with respect to no other liberal profession. See what had been the result of open competition in the case of the Nelson Monument. At the time that monument was built the principle of open competition was newer, and more artists of reputation competed. But a builder got the prize, who on the death of Mr. Campbell, the artist, had had the good fortune to pick up, among the many valuable remnants of his studio, a magnificent design for a Nelson monument with four beautiful lions. He turned out, however, to be incapable of executing anything but the masonry. Other persons, therefore, had to be called in, and the result was that they had a pillar which everybody abused, and a statue of Nelson which no one could see, The monument had been raised at an expense, besides subscriptions, of £30,000 or £40,000; and such was the manner in which the work had been done, that some of the bas relievos had been filled with lead or zinc. If they had had high artists who had been responsible for their work, this would not have happened. He begged leave to subscribe entirely to the opinion of the Marquess of Lansdowne, that the Wellington Monument should be considered not a departmental but a national work, for which the Government should be responsible. In his opinion, the principle by which rivalry should be guided for this great work should be emulative, not competitive—that principle which had produced some of the greatest works of the sixteenth century. This was the principle in which originated some of the greatest works of Italy—St. Peter's, and most of the great pictures and statues of that age. The Transfiguration itself was the result of competition in that sense. The rivalry between Michael Angelo and Raffaelle led to the production of the Raising of Lazarus by Sebastian del Piombo—not the competition of a lottery, but competition in the sense of a noble and a generous emulation—a principle which he thought, if judiciously applied, would do much towards developing the artistic taste and genius of this country. His noble Friend might with justice refer to the difficulties with which this question was surrounded, and ask what it was he proposed. He fully appreciated the difficulties which his noble Friend had to contend with, and could assure him that it was in no hostile spirit he had taken up the question. On the contrary, lie had done so in the hope that he might be able to render him some assistance by eliciting opinions in the House that would be of use to him in arriving at a conclusion on the subject. But if the noble Lord had great difficulties to encounter, he had also great facilities in forming a sound opinion. He had shown that he need have no difficulty in finding capable artists, and he might acid that he had also abundance of money. We had —20,000 of the sum granted for the funeral of the Duke of Wellington. The highest estimate he (Mr. Wortley) had yet heard of the expense of a statue was £l0,000, and the remainder might be spent in architecturally ornamenting the site of the statue or in purchasing models. The noble Lord should call in the most eminent artists to give him the best designs they could produce, without tying them down to so many feet, and all classes of artists should he invited. It was of the very greatest importance that architecture and sculpture should go together as sister arts, without which success in the production of high works of art could not he expected. They all knew that in old times artists were not merely statuaries, or sculptors, or architects, but often combined all these together in their own persons. There was no jealousy of sister arts. The artist consulted the architect, and often studied that branch for himself, and it was in this way those works were produced which had astonished the world. Michael Angelo was a great painter, a great architect, and a great sculptor. Raffaelle was, as well as being a great painter, an architect, and was, indeed, appointed architect of St. Peter's. In our day, however, there was among artists an unworthy jealousy of architects. Some, indeed, were themselves architects; but, generally speaking, it was the vice of the artists of this day to confine themselves too exclusively to their own professions, and to regard with jealousy that of the architect. He trusted that state of things was passing away, and the sooner it did the better for the progress of high art. He could not look on this as a departmental question. It was one for which the whole Government was responsible, and not the Board of Works alone. They must be held responsible for the manlier in which the whole of this duty was discharged. It was of the utmost importance that a high tribunal should be appointed, for the higher the tribunal the less chance was there of favouritism. Of course, the Government would have to be assisted, and he could not see any real objection to artists themselves having a share in naming a tribunal, whatever it might be, to assist the Prime Minister in the selection he might make or the course he might take. In the Resolution which he was about to move, he had embodied the proposition that the best way of creating emulation would be to employ a certain number of the most distinguished artists, and remunerating them for the labour, time and attention they devoted to the subject, and thus making it worth their while to produce the best models in their power. One point which had been started was whether the competition should be extended to the artists of foreign nations? The occasion was peculiarly a national one, and a great deal was, therefore, to be said against giving opportunities to foreigners to compete, though, as far as he was concerned, he should be inclined rather to take the opposite view, and throw it open to the whole world. He would suggest that, putting aside all that had hitherto been done, and as they had a plenty of money at command, £300 a piece would amply compensate every one of the artists for the models or designs they sent in; and it should then be the duty of the Government to select one or more artists to carry into execution the design upon which their choice had fallen. If they took that course they would call out all that was grand and noble in the genius and artistic taste of the country, and he had not so bad an opinion of the artists of England as not to believe that, if they were selected for the work they would give their whole soul to it; for it was a matter which was calculated to stir men's blood more than an ordinary subject—the memory of the Duke of Wellington being still fresh in the hearts of the people, and no class feeling it more strongly than artists themselves. In conclusion, he thought if they acted upon the suggestions thus humbly and respectfully put forward, they would not have a mere statue but a noble monument in the greatest sense of the word—an ecclesiastical and architectural monument, worthy of the hero whose memory it would celebrate, and of the country to whose glory he had so largely contributed.

(after a slight pause) said, he should not have risen so early in the debate if he had seen his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works rise, but as his noble Friend seemed disposed not to rise so early, and as his right hon. Friend had pointedly alluded to the Report of the Committee of which he had the honour to have been Chairman, he trusted the House would excuse a few words from him on this subject. His right hon. Friend dealt with that Report, a condemned unlimited competition. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) could not so understand it. That portion of the Report was indeed written by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) except the last sentence, which he had called upon his right hon. Friend to read, and which he had himself drawn up; but he would not have accepted that paragraph if he had considered it to bear that signification; and he considered that the sentence last referred to, proved that such was not its meaning. No doubt, for his own part, his right hon. Friend appeared to condemn unlimited competition, but it would be strange if the House, after having voted at an early hour that evening in favour of unlimited competition, should now, at the instance of his right hon. Friend, virtually condemn that vote and decide that unlimited competition ought not to be sanctioned. His right hon. Friend had asked why they were more likely to produce good work by competition in the fine arts than to obtain a sound opinion upon a legal question by submitting it to the competition of lawyers. His answer might be very trite, but it Was not the less true—

"Segnius irritant animos submissa per cures,

Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."

Competition for a work in architecture was a very (Efferent thing from the contention of lawyers upon a legal question. A Judge could hardly adjudicate between the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury, by keeping them standing on their legs, perpetually putting forth contrary opinions; but, on the other hand, the work of the artist remained quiescent and unchanged until the arbitrator pronounced his decision. There were, no doubt, cases in which competitions in art were not successful; a notable instance occurred some years since in a competition for the statue of Wordsworth in Westminster Abbey, at which he assisted to adjudicate, when one of the competitors requested the early return of his model, in order that he might take off the head and replace it with one of Sir Robert Peel for a competition for a statue to him. This very year, too, the bathos of competition was attained on the collection of designs for the monument of the Exhibition of 1851 proposed to be erected in Hyde Park, where one architect sent in a sketch, a huge glass globe rising out of a piece of water like a gigantic soap bubble in a saucer, and another depicted two illustrious persons seated in a degagé way on the top of a mass of sham rock work. He made his right hon. Friend a present of these instances of the failure of competition, but in the face of them the great and wholesome principle of free art was now being established. Perhaps our great artists would still refuse to compete. They hung back very often as they did in this case. But why? Because a clique was naturally opposed to a republic of free genius and free intellect nobly competing for the highest excellence. In the present instance, then, he concluded that something must be risked in order to ensure great results for the future, and to make good that principle. The worst that could be said was, that there was something common-place about the models sent to Westminster Hall for the Wellington monument. If that were true, it was the duty of the State to foster and encourage those artists who stood out above the rest in it, in order that by the improvement of the designs they submitted something might be elicited more worthy of the Duke of Wellington. By the confession of all sides, Mr. Stevens's model had great comparative excellence. He objected, then, to the modified censure which the Motion would cast upon the artists who sent models to Westminster Hall. Why, at the end of July, when there were scarcely sufficient Members to make a House, should his right hon. Friend propose a very expensive and questionable third competition for one and the same work? What guarantee was there that such a third competition would be more successful than the two former ones, or than the course proposed by my noble Friend? They had Mr. Stevens's model to give the idea. They had Mr. Marshall, if they liked, to make the figure (thus rewarding the first-prize man); they had the approval and superintendence of Mr. Penrose, the eminent architect in charge of the cathedral, who would ensure the harmony of the work and the structure, and they had that excellent site which had been selected in the old Consistory Court. If there were to be a fresh competition, all the artists who went in would have to conform themselves to the idea of Mr. Stevens's model; and after the experience they had had, what likelihood was there that the leading sculptors would submit to this restriction? It was urged that the new competition was necessary, in order to ensure the anatomical correctness of the effigy itself. He (Mr. B. Hope) would suggest an easier and cheaper way of attaining this object. What objection could there be to the employing of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Marshall to make full-sized models in clay of the effigy of the Duke, and then calling in all the other jealous and envious sculptors, all the anatomists and all the amateurs, or those who fancied they were, to pick holes in the models? They might thus pretty well ascertain, without the trouble or expense of en additional competition, how far Mr. Stevens and Mr. Marshall were qualified to execute the effigy, the main element in the whole competition. It had been said, diet Mr. Stevens was an unknown man; but he had produced a design which, although perhaps rather roughly modelled—because a poor and struggling artist could not afford the outlay which was required to give it greater finish—exhibited true genius; he had grasped the right idea, and in his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) opinion they ought to hold out to him a fostering and friendly hand. Mr. Stevens was a prizeman in the competition; the excellence of his design struck all observers; and he thought that, under all the circumstances, his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Works had arrived at a very wise decision. The site in the Consistory Court was exceedingly fine and appropriate, and He hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but would be satisfied with having brought the subject under the notice of the House, and with the very able exposition he had given of the philosophy of art in its various relations. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) trusted that, under the auspices of the First Commissioner of Works, a monument would be erected in memory of the Duke of Wellington to which our countrymen might hereafter point with satisfaction and with pride.

said, he was at a loss to understand what were the precise views of the right hon. Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) who commenced by emphatically approving the monument which had been selected, who then found fault with the principle of competition, and who ended by proposing a system of universal competition which should be open to all the artists of the civilized world.

was understood to say that he had not proposed an universal competition, but a limited competition, in which Mr. Stevens might himself take part.

said, he had cer- tainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to purpose a further competition. It was true that the design selected by the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works was the production of a young artist, but he thought any one who had examined it must have been struck with its superiority in point of conception and execution. It was originally intended that the monument should be placed in one of the arches of St. Paul's, but it had since been proposed that it should be transferred to the Consistory Court, which was the same height as the arches of the cathedral. The latter site would have this advantage, that the monument being what was termed pervious—that was to say pierced—and intended to be placed where the light could be seen through it, there would be a better opportunity of viewing the effect. He did not think there could be any ground of complaint on the part of those artists who had been invited to become competitors, but who had declined to avail themselves of the opportunity. It was useless to talk of the middle ages, and of such artists as Michael Angelo, Raphael, and Donatelli; for if men possessing similar genius could be found in this age they would be selected for such a work as was now contemplated, and might at once be entrusted with its execution. Most unfortunately, the erection of our public monuments had hitherto been entrusted to very incompetent persons, but he had great pleasure in congratulating the noble Lord on the selection he had made in the present instance. From what he had seen and heard that evening, judging by the model which Mr. Stevens had produced, and which he hoped they might see in the full-sized scale on the Site appropriated to it, and understanding that there was the most hearty and friendly cooperation on his part with Mr. Penrose and Mr. Cockrell, the architects, he (Mr. Coningham) could not but anticipate that from their joint consultations and united efforts the happiest results would ensue. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.

said, he had heard with much gratification the views which had been expressed by lion. Gentlemen whose opinions were far better entitled to weight than his own upon questions of art. He thought that, after the observations of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Hope), and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), his right hon. Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) must be satisfied that whatever support he might have received in the views which he was desirous should receive the sanction of the House, there were Gentlemen who were at least as competent as himself to form a judgment on this subject, who approved the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government. He was, however, happy to find that upon several important points he agreed with his right hon. Friend, and that they only had the misfortune to differ upon matters of minor importance. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wortley) had said that he thought the selection of a site was most fortunate; that, so far as the prize designs were con corned, he conceived that the Government had chosen the best—and that they had taken the most valuable advice they could obtain. Now these were three most important admissions and he (Lord J. Manners) put it to the House whether they would now take the matter out of the hands—feeble as he admitted they were—of those who were responsible for its conduct, and erect themselves into a committee of taste to upset all the arrangements which had been made, and to defer for an indefinite period the erection of a national monument to the Duke of Wellington. It was true his right hon. Friend had mentioned some particulars in which he thought the judgment which had been arrived at was an unsound one; but he (Lord J. Manners) was almost at a loss to know on what grounds his judgment was founded. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that out of the eighty-three designs submitted to competition the best had been selected, but he said that the terms on which competition was invited were such as could give the competitors no reasonable hope that any one of them would be selected. He (Lord J. Manners) certainly did not put the same construction upon the terms of the notice, which were as follows:—

"The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings give notice that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to erect a monument in St. Paul's Cathedral, London, to the memory of the late Duke of Wellington, and that they are prepared to receive designs for the same from artists of all countries."

His right hon. Friend might, however, rely upon the concluding paragraph of the notice:—

"If, however, the artist to whom the highest premium may be awarded shall be employed to execute his design he will not be entitled to receive any premium."

His right hon. Friend had put upon this sentence the interpretation of a lawyer, and said that it excluded any one whose design did not receive the first premium from being selected to execute the monument, but he (Lord J. Manners) believed its meaning was that if any artist, who had not received the highest prize, was selected he would be entitled to a premium in addition to the cost of his design. He said that a great country had no right to invite the artists of all the world to compete for national monuments unless they were resolved that that competition should lead to some substantial result, always provided that among the designs sent in there was one or more which were worthy of adoption. It all turned upon that question. Now, who was to decide this point? Was his right hon. Friend or anybody else in this House to say that out of eighty-three designs sent in not one was worthy of being executed? [Lord ELCHO: The judges said so.] They said no such thing. They did not, indeed, declare that any one of the designs was worthy of erection; but though they left this point in the dark, they added:—

"We cannot at the same time forbear suggesting that before any design is finally adopted by the Government, it would be desirable, considering the peculiarity of the situation contemplated, and that it essentially differs from that of all the other monuments now existing in the cathedral, the opinion of some experienced artists should be called for, who would be better, judges of the local effect than we consider ourselves to be; more especially as Mr. Cockrell, the only one of the appointed judges professionally connected with the arts, though we have derived from him valuable assistance and information in the progress of the examination, has declined on that account taking a part in the ultimate decision."

It was quite clear that this, the only recommendation made, authorized the consideration of the local effect which would be produced by the design selected, and suggested that the Government should confer with those persons most competent to give advice before arriving at a final decision. Now, this was exactly the course he had taken. In the first instance he had satisfied his own mind, as well as he could, that some one design was worthy of adoption, and having done so he invited the gentleman to whom reference had been made in terms of such deserved commendation carefully to examine the prize designs. He (Lord J. Manners) had not indicated the bias of his own mind, but. Mr. Penrose informed him that design No. 18, which he had previously selected; was the one which, in his opinion, best suited the locality, and was most deserving of erec- tion, He thought he should have grossly neglected his duty if he had not availed himself of Mr. Penrose's assistance; and if his right hon. Friend meant to say that he had any previous knowledge of the opinion of that gentleman he laboured under a complete mistake. His (Lord J. Manners's) knowledge of Mr. Penrose was, if he might use the term, purely professional; but he felt that the recommendation of the judges was a sound one, and he knew he could not act upon it in a more satisfactory manner than by calling for the valuable advice on which he bad acted. Now, he was authorized by Mr. Penrose to say that he should view it as a great misfortune if the House were in any way to put a stop to the proceedings instituted with respect to this monument. He put it to the House, therefore, after all that had transpired, considering, as his right hon. Friend had pointed out, that six years bad elapsed, and that yet no monument had been erected, whether they would take the course of throwing the whole matter into inextricable confusion by adopting the proposal now made. The right hon. Gentleman had, to a certain extent, sketched the proceedings which had taken place, and he would venture to describe the steps by which they had arrived so slowly and unsatisfactorily at their present position. In 1854 the then First Commissioner of Works invited a limited competition for this monument, and selected four sculptors of undoubted eminence—Mr. Bailey, Mr. Foley, Baron Marochetti, and Mr. Gibson. Of these gentlemen two declined to enter into the competition, and Baron Marochetti returned this answer to Sir William Molesworth:—

"I am flattered that my name has been placed on the list of sculptors from whom it has been proposed to select one to execute the Monument to the Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral. I hasten to express to you my thanks for the honour thus conferred upon me, but I must decline to engage in a competition in which success would be only less painful than failure. If, however, the proposed competition should not produce the desired result, and if in such an event I should be judged worthy of employment on this work, I should with pride bestow on it the utmost efforts of my art, no less on account of the man who is to be commemorated, than of the place the monument is to occupy."

Mr. Gibson, writing from Rome, sent an answer much more curt in its terms:—

"I have the pleasure to acknowledge the honour of your communication to me respecting a monument to the memory of his Grace the Duke of Wellington. I beg to say that I am always ready to undertake any work of importance for my country, but decline to send designs in competition."

Did his right hon. Friend propose to ask those two eminent men again to compete? [Mr. S. WORTLEY: Not to compete!] Then, in the name of common sense, what were they to do? [Mr. S. WORTLEY: To emulate!] To emulate! Well, he was a plain man, and could not apprehend these nice distinctions, nor did he think the sculptors would be less puzzled by them than he was. Did his right hon. Friend mean to say that the offer of £300 a piece would make all this distinction between competition and emulation? He (Lord J. Manners) did not think so badly of those eminent sculptors as to imagine that the certainty of a small sum of money would induce them to enter into a competition which the invitation of the Government had not induced them to enter. But Mr. Bailey and Mr. Foley, both sculptors of great eminence, did not decline this invitation. They entered into the limited competition proposed; but what was the result? The Government of the day, no doubt rightly, decided that neither of their designs was worthy of being erected in St. Paul's, as a monument to the Duke of Wellington. Now, in the office of the First Commissioner of Works was a most valuable and important reply from the pen of Mr. Bailey to the letter which announced this decision to him. Mr. Bailey pointed out all the evils which must result to art if, when a limited competition was entered upon, none of the designs sent in were selected for execution. He (Lord J. Manners) wished he had found it possible to present to the House, prior to this debate, Mr. Bailey's letter and other papers relating to this subject; but, as they were rather in the nature of private letters than of public papers, he hardly felt justified in so doing. The whole tone and tenor of Mr. Bailey's communication, however, were such as would make him very reluctant to invite any limited competition without a clear decision beforehand that, whatever might be the merits of the designs sent in, one or the other should be selected. Mr. Bailey pointed out that by inviting artists to enter into such a competition, and then throwing their designs over and instituting an unlimited competition, you gave to the second competitors the inestimable advantage of pilfering ideas from those who had first sent in designs. But now apply the objection taken with so much force by Mr. Bailey in a case where only two designs were in question to this new proposal of a second limited competition after no less than eighty-three designs had been submitted in competition. Was it not clear that those whose designs had thus stood the test of public criticism might fairly say, "You have no right now to hand over the competition to a limited number of gentlemen, selected by the favouritism of the Government of the day, when there is a possibility that they may pick here and there from the designs which have cost us so much thought, labour, time, and money, expended by some of the poorest and most struggling artists in the world?" He had heard that sentence of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure. It was just, and he asked the House of Commons to act in accordance with it. His right hon. Friend pointed out what these struggling artists were called upon to do—what sacrifices of time, labour, and money were entailed upon them; and he asked that, in return, the House of Commons should not, without the most weighty considerations, set aside their designs. He asked his right hon. Friend whether he thought he had assigned any satisfactory reason for departing on this occasion from what ought to be the general rule. They bad not heard his right hon. Friend say that he was himself of opinion that the design which had been selected was unworthy of being completed. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he had privately canvassed all the judges, and that they had all told him they signed their Report without intending to have their approbation of any one of the designs acted upon. All he could say was, that, if such were the case, it was the duty of the judges to have made that clear before all the world. He could find no such declaration in their Report. On the contrary, after reading the Report with the most minute care he could bestow, he had arrived at the opposite conclusion. In private the judges had not told him anything of the sort, and he thought the House of Commons would do well not to act upon these private recommendations, which those who made them declined to put in print. As he understood the Report of the judges, he felt fully justified in the course which he had taken; and the more be gathered the opinions of those who were able to speak with authority upon the subject, the more he was fortified in the decision at which he had arrived. He believed that the opinion us rich he had already quoted of Mr. Penrose was shared by men in the highest position in artistic circles. He be- lieved that if the House of Commons did not now interfere Her Majesty's Government would be able at no distant period to afford the gratification to the people of this country of seeing, in the noblest site which St. Paul's Cathedral presented, a monument erected worthy alike of the great man whom it commemorated and the building in which it was placed. But if at the fag-end of the Session, in a House so thin as that which he was now addressing, his right hon. Friend induced the House of Commons to pass this Resolution, it would paralyze the hands of the Executive and of the artists as well, and trace over again the unfortunate history of so many of the public monuments of England. The Government would be reluctant, under those circumstances, to take upon themselves any responsibility in those thorny matters of art, and artists would be disgusted at the manner in which they were treated in being asked to enter again into a limited competition without any certainty that any one of the competitors would be employed. They had been invited to a limited competition with no result; they had been invited to an unlimited competition, with what result depends upon the fate of this Motion; and it was proposed to invite them to a second limited competition with no certain prospect—he would say, with no hope—of any fortunate result. His right hon. Friend indulged in a dream if he supposed the Prime Minister, burdened as he was with affairs of State, would undertake to go from studio to studio, attended by a jury of artists, all differing in opinion, all anxious to carryout their own views, and some very possibly biassed by personal considerations in favour of one or other of the competing sculptors. The Prime Minister must from necessity devolve the responsibility upon the Minister whose duty it was, from the nature of his office, to make the selection in a nature of this kind; and he trusted and almost believed his right hon. Friend, whose whole speech was characterized with so much kindness and courtesy to himself, did not intend to press his Motion to a division. He thought the House would be ill-advised if they passed the Resolution, and he entreated them not to agree to it, but to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible Ministers of the Crown, who, after two competitions, felt themselves in a position to arrive at a final decision, which they believed would be satisfactory to the country. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) had alluded to the expediency of placing on the proposed site a model of the full size of the monument. The proposal was most admirable, and should he be intrusted with the future prosecution of the task, it was his intention to propose to Mr. Stevens that a model of that character should be erected in the Consistory Chapel, with free access to it for all, so that before anything was finally decided those who took an interest in the question might have an opportunity of examining it. If the result of that exhibition should be to show that Mr. Stevens was not competent to execute the chief figure of the design, it was the wish of Mr. Stevens that Her Majesty's Government should only leave to him the execution of the design, and appoint some other artist to execute the figure. Frankly, he had no fear himself that a man of genius, as Mr. Stevens had shown himself to be, would fail in that particular; but, in justice to the modesty and good feeling of a young and rising artist, he mentioned that Mr. Stevens had expressed no objection to the proposal, and that it met with his entire approbation. If the House thought him unworthy of the position in which Her Majesty had been pleased to place him, he should, of course, bow to their decision; but he thought he had shown that the course which he had adopted was consistent with the views of those who had the best means of forming a sound opinion. He was satisfied himself that if no interference now took place, and if the Government were permitted to carry out those intentions which they had indicated, the result would be success; but if, on the other hand, impediments were thrown in the way, there would be interminable delay, constant bickerings, and their successors would say there had been a complete mistake in the management of that which ought to be one of the greatest monuments of a great nation.

said, that the reasons which the noble Lord had given for the course which he had taken had not been satisfactory to his mind. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that, when a competition was resolved upon, a preference ought to be given, in the selection of the artist, to those who had competed. But the noble Lord had omitted to add that the monument to be erected was not, properly speaking, the monument competed for. In the best times of art, sculpture was viewed more in relation to architecture than it had been in later days; and what- ever might be the abstract beauty of a piece of sculpture, it was dependent for general effect on harmonizing with the building and its architecture. In the present case, when the competition was announced, the site determined upon was specified as being under one of the arches of the nave of St. Paul's, and the artists who competed produced a work which they believed to be suitable to the place. The site, it must be admitted, was not a good one. The monument would have been seen by spectators on four sides, and on two sides the light would have come upon it direct from the windows. The artists, therefore, naturally fell into the pyramidal form of design, and presented one central figure surrounded by smaller figures, none of them being of such a character as to allow of their being placed against a wall. From this reason, perhaps, it was that so many of the designs provoked a comparison with the work of the silversmith or the confectioner, when they prepared central ornaments for a dining table. One of the artists, however, proposed the design of an equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington, placed upon storeys of arches, the only precedent for which was the equestrian statue of the Duke at Hyde Park Corner. He agreed with those who thought that the Consistory Chapel was a better situation than the nave; but in that chapel there was only a single window, and the light would only fall upon the monument from one side. The best place was against the wall, in an alcove which was well suited for the monument. The proper design for such a monument was mural, and it followed that all the designs were different from those which the same artists would have sent in if they had known of the new site. In the Consistory Chapel the work need not be allegorical, and might resemble more nearly the great monument of Italy, the tomb of the Medici. Whatever might be the merits of Mr. Stevens's design, it would, in his opinion, be much better adapted for the former site under the arch than for the Consistory Chapel. He trusted, therefore, that it would not be hastily selected, but that the sculptors of the highest professional acquirements and skill in England would be afforded an opportunity of giving their opinions as to the general effect which a particular piece of sculpture would be likely to produce in the proposed site. By taking that course there would be a much better chance of securing a monument worthy of the age and of the coun- try than by the adoption of the plan which the noble Lord proposed. For his own part, he could not help thinking that it was extremely inexpedient to commit the erection of the monument to three persons who were apparently to possess equal authority as to the manner in which the work was to be carried into execution. Let him suppose that those three persons should not coincide in opinion with respect to the work, who, he would ask, was to decide between them? If the framing of the general design of the monument were intrusted to one of the number, and that to the other two was confided merely the execution of the details, to such a proposal he should entertain no very strong objection. So far, however, as he understood the proposal of the Government, each of the three gentlemen in question was to possess an equal share of authority with his colleagues. To Mr. Marshall, it seemed, was to be committed the execution of the sculpture connected with the work. [Lord J. MANNERS: I never mentioned Mr. Marshall's name.] He had understood the noble Lord to say, upon a former occasion, that the figures were to be executed by Mr. Marshall. [Lord J. MANNERS: Not in that monument.] Well, at all events, in the chapel, and the result would, in all probability, be a want of harmony in the whole work, owing to the circumstance that those figures would not be in accordance with the rest of the work, and that there would thus be a conglomeration of various styles. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would see the propriety of not persevering in the course which he had indicated, and that he would afford the artists of England an opportunity of framing a new design for the new site. Some of the ablest of the artists residing in this country—Mr. Gibson and Baron Marochetti, for instance had not competed upon the last occasion; and it was but right that, before any further steps were taken in the matter, the Government should have the advantage of being aided in the conclusion at which they might arrive by men of such high eminence. The site being changed, them was the less necessity for confining the selection to any of the models which had been produced at the competition. He thought the noble Lord desired to do what was right, but he could not help feeling that he had assumed a responsibility which it was not wise in him to assume. Mr. Stevens had not hitherto produced any work which should induce them to trust blindly in his hands a national work, such as this monument to the Duke of Wellington ought to be; and he trusted the noble Lord would not sanction the placing of an equestrian statue on the top of the arch, inasmuch as that form of monument was open to strong objection, as was demonstrated in the case of the statue at Hyde Park Corner, Having made these observations, it remained for him simply to express a hope that the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend would receive the support of the House.

said, he thought the House owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having introduced the subject under discussion to its notice; but he must at the same time observe that the arguments which lie had adduced in support of his Motion did not seem to him (Mr. Stirling) sufficiently cogent to induce hon. Members to support the proposition of which he was the advocate. The great argument against that proposition was, he thought, to be found in the circumstance that there had already been two instances in which competition for the execution of the monument in question had taken place, and that both instances had been marked by failure. The same result might occur again. It was quite true that the noble Lord when he came into office found the subject in a very difficult position. The failure of the late competition was not owing to any want of care on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who then had charge of the department, but rather to the ignorance of the public as to what it was they really required. Sculptors were invited to send in designs adapted to a site which subsequent reflection had shown to be unfit, and thus the labours of those artists were thrown away. The noble Lord had to decide upon his own responsibility whether there should be a fresh competition, or he should select from those who had been already chosen. The noble Lord had adopted the latter course, and had selected Mr. Stevens, with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Penrose. With respect to the latter gentleman it was not quite the fact that he had produced no great work by which a judgment could be formed of his abilities. The beautiful sepulchral chamber in which the remains of the Duke of Wellington now rested, was the production of that gentleman, and that sarcophagus was one of the most remarkable works of modern times. He (Mr. Stirling) was disposed to support the decision of the noble Lord, believing that it was intended Mr. Penrose should make a mural design in the Consistory Court, to be filled in with sculpture by the two other gentlemen. He had however, been alarmed to hear the noble Lord state that Mr. Penrose approved the design of Mr. Stevens as the one that should be adopted, for the erection of a monument consisting of a dome and canopy, and a horse on the top, in the cathedral of St. Paul's, would be a most disastrous artistic exploit. He hoped therefore that the noble Lord had not selected Mr. Stevens's model as the one to be erected, but that he had chosen him as a man who having displayed so much talent in the execution of that design ought, in his opinion, to be entrusted with the execution of a new design to harmonize with the new site in which the monument to the Duke of Wellington was to be placed. Upon that point he hoped to receive some further information from his noble Friend.

said, the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works on a former occasion had expressed a hope that there would be no dogmatizing upon art; and that evening he warned the House against resolving itself into a Committee of Taste. The present was not a question of taste so much as of common sense. The object in view was to erect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington the finest monument that the sum at their disposal (£20,000) could procure, and the question was, whether the course adopted by the noble Lord was the best that could be taken. Upon that point he differed from the noble Lord. There had been two competitions, the first of which was an undoubted failure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir B. Hall) then invited an unlimited competition, upon which the noble Lord said the judges gave no opinion. That was true so far as to any pointed award, but the Marquess of Lansdowne had expressed his opinion in Parliament that not one of the designs was of sufficient merit to induce the Commissioners to recommend its adoption. Such, too, he was informed were the opinions of the other judges, and thus the second competition had also been a complete failure. And without giving any opinion of his own, he might add that public opinion had confirmed the judgment of the Commissioners. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Hope) had advocated the course taken by the Government, and admitted that the results of the competition were not ridiculous but common-place, notwith- standing which admission, he proposed that one of the competing designs should be erected. The hon. Gentleman did not desire that any of the designs so condemned should be erected, but seemed to fancy that if "we," whoever "we" might be, were to sit upon the models, something might result from the process of incubation which would be satisfactory. With that process he (Lord Elcho) would have nothing to do. The noble Lord condemned his own scheme by not wishing to erect any one of the designs, and instead of giving the commission to the first prize man, giving it to the sixth, under the superintendence of an architect, with the aid of another competitor, to execute some figures suitable to the monument and the site. That might be a wise course, but if unity of design was desired, the work should be intrusted to one alone. If they wished that this monument should bear the impress of the genius of the gentleman of whom they had heard so much (Mr. Stevens), let them confide the monument entirely to him, and let him be responsible for it. There was an old saying, that too many cooks spoiled the broth, and he was afraid that this might be the result in the present instance. He believed the truth to be that his noble Friend was fond of a quiet life, and was therefore anxious to conciliate as many artists as he could by employing as many of them as possible; and he could hardly wonder at that feeling of his noble Friend, for he had himself had opportunities of knowing that artists were people whom it was very difficult to satisfy. But he hoped his noble Friend would show that he could resist that influence. The designs which resulted from open competition had certainly not stood the test of public criticism. On the contrary, they had been condemned by the public, and he contended that the Government was in no wise bound by the terms of the competition to confide the erection of the monument to any one of the competitors. The terms of the competition for the Wellington Monument and the Foreign Office were precisely similar. In the case of the Foreign Office, as in that of the Wellington Monument, there was nothing in the terms of the competition which necessarily bound the Government to select the architect from the successful competitors. It must be clear to the House that when the principle of unlimited competition was adopted the object was to attract talent from all quarters, with the view to obtain the best possible design; but when that principle was adopted no one could foresee the result of such a competition. It remained to be seen, in such a case, whether or not artists of the highest class came forward; and, therefore, it would be foolish in the last degree if the Government were to be bound necessarily to accept any one of the designs that resulted from a competition which was unlimited. He was strongly in favour of competition, but he as strongly objected to the Government of necessity giving the execution of the work in a case like the one in question to one of the persons who had taken part in the competition. If the Government were to be so bound, and the work, when executed, should turn out a failure, the public would point to it as the result of unlimited competition. He ventured to think that the Government would act more wisely if they were to select one or two of the most eminent artists which England, or, if necessary, the world could produce, and confide the execution of the work to him or them, The object the House had now in view was to erect a monument worthy of the illustrious Duke and of the country; but his opinion was, that the course the Government meant to pursue was not likely to lead to that result, and the House had, therefore, better be satisfied with the sarcophagus and save their £20,000, than consent to the erection of another monster perhaps as startling as that which was to be seen at Hyde Park Corner.

said, when he held the office of First Commissioner of Works he suggested to the Government that they should have recourse to unlimited competition with regard to the monument proposed to be erected to the memory of the Duke of Wellington. There had previously been a limited competition, as stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wortley). Four artists were selected—Baron Marochetti and Mr. Gibson had declined to compete, but Mr. Foley and Mr. Bailey had sent in designs which were not deemed worthy of adoption by the Government. Then it was that he (Sir B. Hall) proposed to resort to unlimited competition; and, looking at the object in view, and the large sum of money that was to be expended upon the work proposed to be executed, he thought that the best principle on which the Government could act, and the House of Commons had sanctioned his proposal. Allusion had been made as to the terms of the competition issued from the Office of Works, and to their being strongly guarded. They were peculiarly guarded, because he felt, where the competition was absolutely unlimited, it might be possible in a case of this kind that persons might be capable of sending in very pretty designs, calculated to strike the eye, but who might be incapable of carrying out those designs in marble or any other material which might be decided upon. The suggestion he had made resulted in the exhibition of designs which were seen in Westminster Hall. They had two exhibitions of designs in the same place last season, and he never saw so great a contrast as that between the designs exhibited for the public offices and these for the Wellington Monument, whilst the talent displayed in the designs for the new public offices, and for laying out the ground in the neighbourhood of Downing Street with a view to the concentration of the public offices in that locality, was so great that the exhibition elicited universal approbation. He was bound to admit that the exhibition of designs for the Wellington Monument was a failure. That opinion was confirmed by the judges, and, he believed, by the public at large. His right hon. Friend had referred to the Report recently presented to the House by the Committee which sat upon the reconstruction of a new Foreign Office and other matters relating thereto, and in allusion to the principle of unlimited competition had read only that part of the Report which just suited his special purpose, and had wholly omitted to bring under the consideration of the House that portion which showed the benefits resulting from unlimited competition. He (Sir B. Hall) was a member of that Committee, and he would read to the House the words which concluded the paragraph on the subject of limited and unlimited competition. They were as follows:—

"The principle of unlimited competition has the advantage of giving an opening for the recognition of real, though unknown talent, which patronage, however wisely exercised, or even limited competition, may fail to call forth."

In a competition of that nature he thought it was the duty of the Government to give the execution of the design to one of the successful competitors, provided—and he wished that to be understood—there was the conviction on the part of those who had to decide, that the talent displayed in the competition and the known practical experience of the competitors, afforded to the public a sufficient security for the suc- cessful and proper execution of the work in the event of its being entrusted to any one of them, and in this view of the case he was fortified by the opinion of the Committee which was that—

"In now recommending that a preference should be given to the successful competitors in the erection of the new Foreign Office, your Committee have been induced to do so from a conviction that the talent displayed in their designs, and in most cases their known practical experience in the construction of buildings, afford to the public all needful security for the successful and proper execution of the work."

It would be a question for the noble Lord to determine whether all those who had gained the premiums for the Wellington Monument were capable of executing the work, or which of the successful competitors was most capable, supposing that the noble Lord was of opinion that any of them ought to be employed. With regard to the site, he begged to remind the House that at first the only site that could be procured was under one of the arches. Since that time the Consistory Court, in consequence of recent legislation, had become vacant, and it had been placed at the disposal of the noble Lord. Now, it had struck him very forcibly that the design which had been prepared for one part of the building could not with any propriety be put up in another part of the building for which it was in no way adapted. An equestrian figure, the horse standing upon arches seemed an extraordinary design for the site now selected, and he believed it would be extremely difficult so to alter the design as to make it suitable for the Consistory Court. The noble Lord had stated that before anything was done he would have the model exhibited on the proposed site; he hoped that in the meantime he would reconsider the whole subject. With that understanding he thought they should leave the responsibility with the Government. He knew the extreme difficulties which the noble Lord had to undergo in his department in regard to matters which were termed matters of taste, and he would be the last man to do anything to increase those difficulties. He entreated him, however, to consider fully this subject, and if he should see that the model as now designed really could not be put into the chapel with effect, then let him communicate either with the successful competitors or with other artists, so that the monument might be put up as speedily as possible, and might harmonize with the locality for which it was destined.

said, he was afraid they must all admit, however painful it might be to many excellent gentlemen, that the exhibition in Westminster Hall had been a failure; and, having come to that conclusion, the next thing was to see if anything could be done out of the sphere of that competition. The best course for the Government to pursue would be to call into their counsels all the artists who were thought capable of performing the work required, whether they had joined in the competition or not. His noble Friend would do well if he put aside altogether his present proposal, and next year asked the artists of this and other countries to exhibit their models, not under any regulated form of competition, but simply for the purpose of showing to the Government and the country the best possible statue that could be produced. He thought that by a plan of that kind they would ensure the exercise on the subject of the talents of the most distinguished artists of the age, for there was no danger of the pride or self-esteem of the distinguished exhibitors being in any way offended, and that if there was next year an exhibition of this kind, accompanied with no conditions whatever, it would prove successful. Better have no statue at all than one that would be unworthy of the country.

remarked that there was no instance of a man on horseback having been allowed to enter a temple.

said, in answer to be hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Stirling), that what he proposed to do was to authorize Mr. Stevens to erect a model, with such modification as might seem requisite, on the proposed site in the consistory Chapel of St. Paul's, so that they might be able to judge of its fitness and of the effect.

said, he understood that under no circumstances would the authorities of St. Paul's allow a figure of a person on horseback to be erected in St. Paul's. He did not undervalue Mr. Penrose, but he did not think he was so well known that the public would like to have the management of this great national monument committed to him and Mr. Stevens. Throughout this debate he had been represented as recommending a second limited competition. He recommended no such thing. What he recommended was, that they should, as his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) said, set aside all that had taken place at the competition, which had utterly failed in producing any worthy design, but that they should excite emulation by employing the principal artists who were known in Europe to send in designs, making it certain that the best design would be adopted, and then he had the best reason for believing that there was not one of them who would not produce a design.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would take into consideration the unfavourable position of the subalterns of the army, with a view to affording them relief. The present scale of pay for subalterns was adopted no less than a century ago. The pay was so very inadequate that many officers were obliged to quit the army, because they could not support themselves by their professional emoluments. The various items of a subaltern's necessary expenditure, amounted altogether to £157 5s. per annum. Against this sum had to be set a twelve' month's pay, or £95 16s. 3d.; thus leaving the unfortunate officer at the end of the year £61 8s. 9d. in debt. This, however, was not all; because subalterns were also frequently put to heavy expenses of different kinds by being removed from place to place, which the extra allowances they received were wholly insufficient to meet, and it should also be recollected that in the majority of instances they had been obliged, to pay no less than £480 for their commission. He adduced the authority of The Times to show that the maxim that the labourer was worthy of his hire was as applicable to the army as to any other profession, and that men of talent ought not to be excluded from that service because they were not possessed of wealth. He cited individual instances of the privation and hardship to which subalterns were exposed, chiefly owing to the insufficiency of their remuneration. The struggle in which they were continually involved to maintain the style and appearance of gentlemen upon the scantiest pittance rendered their position far less enviable than that of the non-commissioned officer whose pay was more in keeping with his rank. The number of ensigns that had resigned at the close of the war was fifty-two, irrespective of the number of lieutenants, and this he believed was owing to the inadequacy of the pay and other causes. It might be asked, why should the income of subalterns be increased when there were so many candidates for entrance into the service under the existing scale of pay? To that it might be answered that the excitement of a military life, and the comparatively easy road which it was supposed to offer to personal distinction, led many young men to seek admission to the army. And after they had been in the service some time their parents were unwilling to interfere with their future prospects, and often submitted to severe privation and even to debt to support their sons until they were entitled to promotion. Again, the low pay of the subaltern officer militated very much against the promotion of non-commissioned officers, which he thought was very desirable. He would suggest that an augmentation of 1s. 6d. per day should be made in the pay of the ensigns and lieutenants, and that there should be some addition to their present allowance of furniture, which consisted only of a table, two chairs, and a set of fire-irons. He proposed that an iron bedstead and a chest of drawers should be added, and thus the officer by being enabled to go into barracks at once be saved the expense of previously staying at an inn. The extra pay would amount to £82,826 a year. No doubt that was a large sum; but he was sure that neither the House nor the people at large would wish that these young men, who were ready to shed their blood in defence of their country, should be compelled to live in a state of comparative beggary. It might be said that the subalterns of the continental am-my were not better paid than our own; but they were not by any means in the same category, for they had no mess fund, and they had not to find themselves in clothing or rations. That great financial reformer, the late Mr. Hume, had told him that he would support a Motion of this nature if it should be introduced; and he trusted that the appeal which he now ventured to make to the gallant General opposite as an old soldier would be responded to in a generous spirit. He begged to move the Resolution which he read.

seconded the Motion.

said, the Motion had his hearty sympathy. He agreed with the hon. Mover that it would be a great boon to subalterns if some good plain furniture were put into the rooms allotted to them, for one of the greatest items of expense to which they were put was in moving their furniture from place to place. At present all that they found in their rooms supplied by Government was a poker, tongs, and fender of oldest fashion, two chairs, and an old table, with a board containing a list of these articles, and a warning—usually a very superfluous one—against damaging them. Three removes, it was said, were as bad as a fire—so that at the end of three marches a subaltern's furniture entirely disappeared. It was a great hardship, too, to call on the subalterns to pay for the band, which they had generally few opportunities of hearing, and which in most cases was more a source of pleasure to the people in the neighbourhood of headquarters than to them. It certainly was to be regretted that they could not return the hospitality which they received from the gentry in their neighbourhood without being put to a great expense. There was no messing in the French army, which he thought was a great disadvantage, since the system of messing contributed more than anything else to keep up the gentlemanly tone which distinguished the officers of the English army; and he thought their pay ought to be such as to enable them to afford the expense. He was sorry that the Motion had been brought on in such a thin House, and so late at night, and he would suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should renew his Motion at a more favourable occasion, when it could be more fully discussed.

said, he would not yield to any one in a desire to improve the condition of the officers of the army, but as he thought that the Motion could not be so fully discussed now as its merits demanded, he should move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he would support the adjournment of the debate, because it was impossible, under existing circumstances, to do justice to the subject, to which he was sure the Secretary for War would direct his attention during the recess. At the same time, he felt convinced the nation would not grudge a proper amount of remuneration to the British officer.

said, that as an hon. and gallant Member had moved the adjournment of the debate, he hoped that the hon. and gallant General (General Peel) would at least give him an assurance that the subject would receive the attention of the Government during the recess. Perhaps the Government would consent to appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject.

said, he could not but regret that no intimation of the intentions of the Government had fallen from the right hon. and gallant General. He was anxious to state his opinion as to the utter inadequacy of the pay given to subalterns in the British army. It was ludicrous to suppose for a moment that that pay could cover the expenses to which their position necessarily exposed them. Each subaltern ought to be supplied by the Government with an iron bedstead, a chest, a bookcase, and one or two more chairs. All those articles of furniture might be of the commonest description, but they ought to be substantial.

said, he wished to express his regret, that owing to his unavoidable absence, the hon. and gallant Colonel was on two occasions prevented from submitting his Motion to the House at an earlier period of the Session. It was perfectly impossible at the present period of the Session to enter into the question, which could not be prejudiced by its postponement until next Session, inasmuch as all the Estimates for this year had been agreed to.