said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to sanction the altered regulations ordered by the Earl of Malmesbury for the examination of Candidates for the Dilpomatic Service; or whether he contemplates the re-establishment of the regulations which were settled by the Earl of Clarendon in 1855, and were approved of by the Civil Service Commissioners as calculated to secure the aid of well-qualified persons for the Public Service?

said, the regulations ordered by Lord Mamesbury did not require any sanction from him; but in the ordinary course they would come into operation without any interference on his part. He had looked into the regulations of Lord Clarendon, and he confessed he did not see that there was any good reason for making the alterations that had since been made. There were, however, some of the observations of Lord Malmesbury that were worthy of attention; but he (Lord John Russell) would consider the whole subject with a view to see whether the regulations of Lord Clarendon should be restored.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is true that Mr. Churchward, junior, a third class clerk in Deptford Dockyard has been recently appointed Store Receiver of Chatham Dockyard; what were the services which led to so great a promotion; and what are the salaries of the two offices alluded to?

said, it was quite true that Mr. Churchward, a second class clerk at Deptford, had been appointed to the Store Receivership at Chatham. The salary of his former office was £225 per annum; and that of his present one was £450. With regard to what Mr. Churchward's services had been to-lead to so great a promotion he (Lord C. Paget) thought he had better leave that question to be answered by the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French or Austrian Government have communicated to the British Cabinet the conditions of the Peace concluded at Villafranca, and the mode in which it is proposed to give effect to them; and whether the co-operation of England and the other Neutral Powers have been invited for that purpose?

I have to state, Sir, that the French Government have communicated to the Government of Her Majesty the conditions of the Peace concluded at Villafranca. They are not, however, as yet in a fit state to be laid before the House. In respect to the communications which have been passed between the two Governments, I think it would be better to name some day next week for making a statement on the subject. I shall, therefore, on Thursday next, if possible, or at all events on Friday next, state to the House what the precise conditions of the Peace are; and in what position we stand in respect to France in relation to the late Treaty of Peace. I do not think it necessary to enter further into the question now.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to remit or reduce the Stamp Duty on the Diplomas for Licence or Fellowship of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, and the Degrees granted by the Universities of Scotland?

said, it was proposed to reduce the Stamp Duty on the Diplomas for Licences of the Royal Colleges referred to; but it was not proposed to in- terfere with the Stamp Duty for Degrees granted by the Universities of Scotland.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the Settlement of the Government and Constitution of the Danubian Principalities will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, he did not think that any Papers had been asked for with regard to the Settlement of the Government of the Danubian Principalities. In fact the Settlement had not yet been made. There had been communications with the Government of the Sublime Porte, and an answer had been returned; but there had not yet been any final Settlement made on this subject. He trusted, however, that not more than a week would elapse before there was a final Settlement; and if so, he should have no objection, if his noble Friend moved for them, to lay the Papers on the Table.

said, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation of the following paragraph in the Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery to the Lords of the Treasury, dated April 15, 1859:—

"Her Majesty's Government have offered to the collection, and the Trustees have, with thanks, accepted the great picture of the House of Commons at the opening of the First Reformed Parliament in January 1833, as painted by Sir George Hayter, and as recently secured to the nation by a Vote of the House of Commons."

Hon. Members were aware that the picture in question had been placed in one or other of the rooms of that House during the last four years, but in the course of last year a proceeding of a most unusual character took place —a circular letter being sent, he believed, to every hon. Member in that House by the artist enlarging upon the merits of the picture, and stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to move for a grant of £5,000 for its purchase with the view of adding it to the National Portrait Gallery. Feeling that, whatever the merits of the picture, it was not a fit object for the expenditure of public money, and feeling the impropriety and indecorum of canvassing letters being sent to Members asking them to vote for grants to be paid to the writer of those letters, he had watched the matter very closely. No grant was proposed, and he was therefore greatly surprised at the Report he alluded to, for if it was the fact that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to move such a grant there was no reason why he should not have fulfilled that promise. The grant was never proposed, and he now understood from the Secretary to the Treasury that it would be found in book No. 7 of the Miscellaneous Estimates. This being so, he could not help expressing his regret that in this instance the present Government had not agreed to walk in the path "chalked out" by their predecessors. If the noble Lords at the head of the Government and of Foreign Affairs—if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the India Board and the descendants of those who were Lord Grey's colleagues at the time of the passing of the Reform Bill, chose to associate themselves together for the purpose of presenting this picture to the nation, he had no doubt that the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery would receive it with thanks, but he was surprised that the Trustees, four of whom were Members of that House, should be parties to a statement which was incorrect, inasmuch as no Vote had been asked for. Considering that at any time the purchase of such a picture was not a proper outlay of a large sum of public money, and considering that at the present moment the Minister for War had stated that every sum of money that could be spared should be devoted to the advancement of the national defences, he trusted that if this grant should be proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury, the House would refuse to sanction it.

said, that as the sum, not of £5,000 or5,000 guineas, but of £3,000 had been, on the recommendation of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, agreed to be paid for the picture in question by the late Government he did not think it proper to strike the sum out of the Estimates. The Vote would come on during the consideration of the Estimates, and he thought that the proper time to decide whether the Vote should or should not be sanctioned would be when it was asked for.

said, that he had not entered the House in time to hear all that had fallen from the noble Lord, but from what he had heard he thought it would not be unbecoming in him to make a short statement. The picture which was the subject of discussion was recommended to the late Government by a memorial signed, he believed, by more than two-thirds of the late House of Commons as being one which ought to be purchased by the nation. He could not well call to mind the sum that was asked for it, but probably it amounted to £5,000. When the memorial was placed before him, he thought it best to consult several gentlemen of great eminence, one or two of whom had occupied the highest posts in the counsels of Her Majesty and were Members of that House, and he requested their opinion as to the course it was desirable to take. After having well considered the subject, they recommended that the picture should be purchased at a much more moderate sum than that which was originally asked. It being then determined to purchase the picture, which was one of great historical interest, and which a great majority of the House was anxious should be purchased, it became necessary to decide where it should be placed, and the late Government considered that the new Gallery of Historical Portraits, which had been managed with signal success and was of great interest and value, was the proper place for it. The picture could not have remained in the House of Commons, as there were objections to retaining it there, and the late Government, therefore, took the course indicated by the noble Lord. When the Vote should be brought before the House, he could not doubt but that the House would approve it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour of consulting him as to the purchase of the picture. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) were also consulted on the matter. They all reported in favour of the purchase of a picture of great merit, and which represented one of the great land-marks in our history, and the late Government acted upon their advice. He was one of the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, and was certainly under the impression that the money had been voted.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the recent appointment of Justices of the Peace for the Borough of Great Yarmouth; and to inquire of Her Majesty's Ministers whether it is their intention to introduce any measure for regulating the appointment of Justices of the Peace for Boroughs in England and Wales. He became a candidate for the borough of Great Yarmouth in 1857, and in the course of his canvass he found that several persons declined to promise to vote for him on the ground that if they did so they would not be able to obtain any licences for the public-houses they were erecting. He made inquiry into the circumstances, and he found that there were eighteen acting magistrates for the borough, fourteen of whom were Tories, or Conservatives, only three Liberals, and one neuter. It was represented to him that in consequence of this state of things there was great dissatisfaction, and a great sense of insecurity and uncertainty with respect to the integrity of the decisions which might he come to on licensing days, and on matters connected with the licensing system. It turned out that on licensing days magistrates who never attended on other occasions came down, and by a large majority refused to give licences to houses which did not belong to persons of their party, and that with respect to overseers, the practice was to appoint three Tories to one Liberal. The consequence was that great suspicion was entertained as to the way in which the Parliamentary registry for the borough might be got up. He presented a memorial from the inhabitants to the Government on the subject, and Lord Chancellor Cranworth thought that the mere preponderance of one political party was not a ground to induce him to interfere, but on receiving a further statement, and on the three Liberal magistrates declining to attend the bench unless fortified by some addition to their number, as they felt that under the circumstances it was useless to attend, and after notice was given to the Town Council and Mayor, and every inquiry had been made, Lord Cranworth added six additional magistrates to the bench, making nine Liberals to fourteen Tories, or Conservatives. The announcement of this addition caused great excitement in the town, and the Town Council and Mayor made a re- presentation to the Lord Chancellor to induce him to withhold the appointments. This led to further inquiry, which induced Lord Cranworth to feel that it was his bounden duty to make the appointments. Thereupon a petition was presented to the House of Lords complaining of Lord Cranworth 's conduct. A memorial was also presented, in which it stated that these magistrates were all of one party, and had been appointed because the majority of the bench did not vote for the Liberal candidate at the last election. It was also alleged by the Conservative body in the borough that the bench of magistrates was already too numerous, and that no necessity existed for any addition to the number. The answer of Lord Cranworth was, that it had been represented to him that Sir Edmund Lacon, now a Member for the borough and one of the magistrates, was not only a banker but a brewer, and the proprietor of a large number of public-houses, and that he had great influence with his brother magistrates. Lord Cranworth also said that in consequence of the complaints made to him that justice was not properly administered in connection with the granting of licences, he had thought it right to appoint the six new magistrates. On a licensing day, subsequently to the presentation of the memorial, a division of sixteen to eight took place on the bench. Under these circumstances, and after the remonstrances of the then Mayor and Town Council in 1857, on the ground that there were too many magistrates in the commission, and that there was no complaint of inattention to their duties on the part of these magistrates, what was the astonishment of the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth on the 13th of Juno, three days after the defeat of the late Government on the Amendment to the Address, to find that three new magistrates were added to the commission of the peace for that borough. A complaint had been previously made that the influence of Sir Edmund Lacon was too great in Yarmouth, but one of the gentlemen added to the commission was a partner in Sir Edmund Lacon's bank, and might therefore be supposed to be to some extent under his influence, and another was a gentleman who came up to town to remonstrate against the appointment of six magistrates by Lord Cranworth, and the third was a gentleman of whom he (Mr. Mellor) knew nothing except that he held the same political views. What reason, then, could there be for appointing three additional magistrates on the 13th of June? It was clear there was no deficiency in the number of magistrates, and the object could not be to correct a preponderance of Liberals over Conservatives, for there had previously been on the bench fourteen Conservatives to nine Liberals. Some clue might perhaps be found to the reason for these appointments in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on a recent occasion, when a number of noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen assembled to condole with and to encourage one another on the position and prospects of the great Conservative party. At that meeting that distinguished speaker is reported to have said, "There is a party in the country—which is the best security for public liberty and good government —a party whoso policy has been to maintain the institutions of the country—to uphold the prerogative of the Crown—to support the privileges of Parliament, whether hereditary or elective—to maintain the national Church in alliance with the State, and not dependent upon it—to sustain that great principle of local government which has guaranteed liberty throughout the land, and which has been mainly supported by independent corporations and by independent bodies of magistrates." He (Mr. Mellor) could only suppose that the appointments to which he had referred had been made with the view of increasing independent bodies of magistrates. It appeared from returns which had lately been laid before the House that from 1854 to March, 1858, the number of magistrates appointed in the County Palatine of Lancaster was seventy-six, while in the subsequent sixteen months no less than 122 magistrates had been appointed for that county. In the borough of Ipswich there were, up to 1851, only four magistrates; on the 25th of September, 1852, when his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) was a law officer of the Crown, there was an addition of six gentlemen to the commission of the peace; and on the 14th of April, 1859, nine other names were added to the commission, thus malting in all fifteen new appointments. It appeared from these returns that in many places the number of magistrates had been very suddenly doubled, or more than doubled. Lord Cranworth had only put six new justices upon the list at Yarmouth, under the supposition that amongst the Conservatives there would always be a certain number who would give conscientious votes, and that therefore six would be enough; but the result of the division, when sixteen voted on one side and eight on the other, showed that the noble and learned Lord's experiment had proved a failure. He (Mr. Mellor) wished that the present system, by which the duty of applying to the Lord Chancellor was thrown upon Members of Parliament, might be abolished. He could assure the House that when he canvassed Great Yarmouth, he had been quite disgusted at the suggestions that he would be expected to make or to support recommendations to the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of borough magistrates, and he at once came to the conclusion that the system of such appointments required investigation and amendment. Lord Cranworth had also communicated to the Town Council his intention to increase the number of the bench of magistrates, but in the case of the recent appointments he believed that no such communication had been made, and that no opportunity had been afforded of remonstrating or of making any representations as to the character or fitness of the new magistrates until the appointments had been made. He begged to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for regulating the appointment of justices of the peace for boroughs in England and Wales?

said that, as one of the representatives of Great Yarmouth, he felt it due to his constituents to endeavour to make some reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Of all men in the world, he would submit with the greatest deference the hon. and learned Gentleman was the very last who ought to have come forward to make such allegations. He had in his possession a statement published by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Norfolk newspapers which seemed to him to justify that opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he had lately presented a petition from Great Yarmouth. It had been made to appear as if the inhabitants of Yarmouth were opposed to the appointment of these three gentlemen. He had, however, taken the trouble to look at the petition, and he found that it contained the signatures of just five persons, and those of no great social standing, out of a population of between 35,000 and 40,000 of whom 1,300 were electors. He doubted whether any other Member, except the hon. and learned Gentleman, representing a borough of equal magnitude, would have had the hardihood to present such a petition. The hon. learned Gentleman complained that there were thirty-one magistrates for Great Yarmouth; but how had that number been created? Why, at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham, who had waited upon Lord Cranworth and obtained from him the appointment of six new magistrates, all of one political feeling. But that was not all. The hon. and learned Gentleman had recommended nine to Lord Cranworth, from whom the six were chosen, and yet, though he had sought to get three more than that noble and learned Lord consented to appoint, he now complained that thirty-one were too many for the requirements of the town! In 1858 the Yarmouth bench consisted of twenty-five magistrates, the six added made thirty-one; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had had his way there would have been thirty-four. But what would the House think when it was told that, while the hon. and learned Gentleman modestly acknowledged to having got six new magistrates made, he had kept altogether in the back ground the fact that he had actually brought up a list of fourteen names? If the hon. and learned Gentleman disputed that, it could be substantiated from a statement that he had made apparently in his own justification, in consequence of the jealousies which existed between him and other portions of the Liberal party in Yarmouth. In that town, as in that House, the Liberals were divided into various sections, which were named after their respective leaders, and called Macullaghites, Youngites, Watkinites, and Mellorites. In securing six new Liberal magistrates the hon. and learned Gentleman had only acted in conformity with the promises made by the gentleman he had succeeded, that gentleman being the hon. and learned Member's own relation, who was unseated on petition. Two of the Liberal candidates had undertaken, if they themselves were returned to Parliament, to have a certain number of Liberal magistrates elected. Being, however, unseated on petition, they had not an opportunity of making their application to Lord Cranworth, but the matter had, instead, been taken up by the hon. and learned Member, who, if he could not get his whole fourteen names appointed, at least got six of them. Whether that was not carrying out what had been promised to the voters if they would only return two Liberal Members the House might be left to determine. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the partiality shown by Conservative Lord Chancellors in giving the Conservatives a preponderance on the Yarmouth bench. Now, if certain of the Yarmouth magistrates finding out the error of their ways had thought fit to change their politics, that was entirely their own affair. Certainly two Members of the bench, who were Liberals when appointed, and had for years consistently supported Liberalism, had subsequently left that party. On the passing of the Municipal Reform Act in 1836 a batch of ten magistrates was given to Great Yarmouth, every one of whom without exception was chosen from the ranks of the Liberals. In 1840 an addition of five members was made to the bench, only one of whom—having property in the town, but living sixteen miles from it, and seldom or ever attending the justices' room—'was a Conservative. In the following year four more were appointed, every one of them being Liberals, thus making eighteen Liberals to one Conservative. The Conservatives, naturally dissatisfied at having but one, and he an absentee, representative on the bench, made a remonstrance, and seven Conservative magistrates were accordingly created. In 1846, Lord Lyndhurst being Lord Chancellor, application was made to him for the appointment of six new magistrates. Having satisfied himself that the increase was necessary on account of vacancies having occurred, Lord Lyndhurst refused to create a mere party batch, and he therefore nominated four Conservatives and two Liberals. In 1852 another application was made to Lord St. Leonards, who, following the same equitable rule, also appointed four Conservatives and two Liberals. Up to that time it was clear, then, that the Conservative Lord Chancellors had displayed a more impartial feeling than the Lord Chancellors of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own party. The hon. and learned Member had said that he made the application in 1858 to Lord Cranworth which ended in the creation of six Liberal magistrates, in consequence of the representations made to him by his party, He maintained, therefore, that the existing number of magistrates in Yarmouth was caused by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. Lord Chelmsford, it was true, upon application being made to him, appointed three magistrates, but that was done solely for the purpose of filling up two actual vacancies and one prospective vacancy. He could assure the House upon his own personal responsibility, that the gentlemen appointed by Lord Chelmsford were all eligible for seats on the bench, and, although he could not pretend to possess the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he had no doubt the House would accept the word of a country gentleman as readily as it would that of any lawyer.

said, that in the absence of the Home Secretary, he had to state that it was not the intention of his right hon. Friend or of the Government to propose any measure to Parliament to regulate the appointment of magistrates. It would be difficult, indeed, to lay down, by Act of Parliament, any precise rules upon such a matter, but at the same time he could not help saying that nothing could be more prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of justice or the confidence which the people at present felt in such an administration than the practice of appointing magistrates with a view exclusively to their political opinions. That an attempt should be made upon each change of Government to introduce new magistrates without reference to the existing number was deeply to be regretted. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham had referred to Lancashire, but that county occupied an exceptional position. Complaints did not often arise with respect to the magistracy in counties, because county magistrates were appointed upon the recommendation of the lords-lieutenant, who generally exercised a sound discretion. In the case of Lancashire, however, some check seemed to be wanted. In that county magistrates were appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy without any reference to the Lord Lieutenant, and during the last sixteen months more than 120 magistrates had been placed upon the bench in that county, and he understood that at the present moment there were more magistrates in Lancashire than policemen. It would be his duty to ascertain whether any rule could be laid down, not in an Act of Parliament, but in his own office, for the purpose of putting a check on the existing practice in Lancashire, or, at all events, of insuring that before gentlemen were placed upon the bench there should be some inquiry as to the necessity for any addition to the number of magistrates.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to an Order issued from the Horse Guards materially affecting the organization of the Corps of Royal Engineers. He was sure, when the House recollected that it was to this corps they committed the scientific shore-defence of the empire, hon. Gentlemen would extend their courteous indulgence to him for a few minutes. The Order was addressed to the Deputy Adjutant General of the Royal Engineers, and was thus worded:—

"Sir—The Inspector General of Fortifications having been relieved of his military duties, I have the honour to signify to you the desire of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, that you will report to the Adjutant General of the Forces on all matters relating to the corps of Royal Engineers. General Sir John Burgoyne has been apprized of the arrangements on the subject. A. G. WETHERALL, Adjutant General."

If it were possible that any Order emanating from the Horse Guards, and bearing the signature of the Adjutant General, could be wanting in regularity, he should say this Order came under that category. It was irregular because it was contrary to the rules of the service to communicate with an inferior officer, excepting through the channel of his superior officer. Now, until the Inspector General of Fortifications was denuded of military command, which could not be until after the promulgation of this Order, he was to all intents and purposes in command, and therefore none of his subordinates could he communicated with excepting through his medium. This fact lay within the official knowledge of the Adjutant General, and, knowing this, the course he adopted was irregular. He would not say it was more irregular, because the Order was directed against a high military position occupied by a general officer of high rank; he would not say it was more irregular, because the Inspector General of Fortifications chanced for the time to be one of the most distinguished soldiers of the day—a soldier who has seen more battles and sieges than any living man; for he did not approach the subject on special but on general grounds. This Order had given great dissatisfaction to the officers of the Royal Engineers. They did not understand what was meant when it was said that the Inspector General of Fortifications, still being Inspector General, was relieved of his military duties. They had yet to learn that fortification was not a military duty. If it were not military, what was it? Was it a civil duty? Was it architecture? Was it building? Was it the greatest science of war presided over by military officers of rank, or was it a mere heaping together of bricks and mortar, which could as readily he ruled by an eminent contractor as by Vauban himself? Recent events in Italy had answered that question. When the so-called victorious armies of France and Sardinia, after the battle of Solferino, stood paralysed on the banks of the Mincio, they were checkmated by the four fortresses which it was the fashion to call the quadrilatêre. That proved that fortification was a military duty. Now, you could not cut the corps of Royal Engineers in two; you could not divide their duties under the different heads of bayonets on the one side and brickbats on the other; you could not deprive the Inspector General of Fortifications of the military control over the military officers under his command without sacrificing the service. In the Royal Commission which sat in 1836, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Henry Hardinge, and Sir James Kempt (then Master General of the Ordnance), gave it in evidence that the duties of the officers of Engineers were so blended that it was impossible to separate them. If you destroyed the unity of the corps, you destroyed the esprit de corps; if you destroyed that, you destroyed the corps altogether. He had said this Order was irregular. He went further; he demurred to its legality. When the office of Master General of the Ordnance was abolished, the duties of the office of the Inspector General were defined by an Order in Council and by Royal warrant, and he doubted the power of any department to make any alteration in this without an Order in Council. The officers of the scientific corps, both Artillery and Engineers, saw with much dissatisfaction that there was a growing disposition to set aside senior officers and to rule both services by junior officers, inferior in position, inferior in rank, inferior in experience. This gave great umbrage to a large body of officers, and he ventured to warn the Secretary for War that the setting at nought the very first clause in Her Majesty's Regulations for the Army—that command belonged of right to the senior officer—was invidious in practice and vicious in principle, because it was subversive of discipline. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any objection to lay on the table the correspondence which had taken place on this subject?

said, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Officer had thought it necessary to bring this question before the House. The change referred to was, after much consideration, made some time ago (not by the present Government) for the purpose of carrying out the recommendation made, that there should be a division between the personnel and matériel of the army, the former being placed under the Commander-in-Chief and the latter under the Secretary for War. He would not now express an opinion as to the wisdom of such an arrangement, he would merely state that the subject was referred—at all events, it was a part of the subject referred—to a Select Committee now sitting upstairs, under the presidency of his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) who were inquiring into the whole question of the organization of the military department. Probably, the hon. and gallant officer was not aware of this fact. [Captain VERNON: "Hear!"] At all events, as the subject was under consideration, he hoped the Question would not be pressed.

said, he had given notice that he would ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will lay on the table of the House, Copies of the Despatches which have passed between the noble Lord and Lord Cowley and Sir James Hudson, since the announcement of the Armistice between France and Austria. After the discussion of last night, however, and the Motion of which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had given notice for Monday week, he thought he should exercise a wise discretion in refraining from pressing the question. There was, however, one point connected with foreign affairs on which great misapprehension seemed to exist, and respecting which, it was necessary that the real state of the case should be known both here and abroad. In the Journal des Débats of yesterday there was a most violent attack on this country, and from it he would read one sentence.

"England, who inquires about a vessel more or less at Brest, and who votes 300 millions for her navy !—England, who counsels so loudly the Continent to disarm !—is she going to set the example, and withdraw from her order of the day this programme of menace and fear, the fatal effect of which we have been obliged to notice, keeping in view the alliance we should wish to preserve?"

Now, he wished to point out the great exaggeration which prevailed as to the present state of our navy, compared with its position in former years. He found that in 1793 we had eighty-three ships of the line, ninety-nine frigates, and the grand total, including sloops and corvettes, was 531; in 1794, we had eighty-nine ships of the line, 113 frigates, and altogether 624 pennants; in 1795, 102 ships of the line, 133 frigates, and a total of 744 pennants; in 1796, 108 ships of the line, 145 frigates, and a total of 834 pennants; in 1801, 112 ships of the line, 147 frigates, and altogether 1,070 pennants; in 1803, eighty ships of the line, ninety-nine frigates, making 1,770 pennants; in 1804, eighty-six ships of the line, 200 frigates, or altogether 1,874 pennants. He believed that the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) hoped to have in the year 1860 about forty-four sail of the line, making 307 vessels altogether. [Lord C. PAGET: We expect to have fifty sail of the line afloat at the end of the financial year.] What, then, became of the outcry of the extent of our naval armaments when we contrasted our present force with the 1,700 pennants flying in 1804? He thought that people were ignorant of the vast naval armaments kept up fifty years since. It was not his intention, however, to draw the House into a discussion on foreign policy, as the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had announced that it was his intention on Thursday next to make a statement to the House.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to propose to the House, during the present Session, any measure with a view to the encouragement of the formation of Harbours of Refuge on the coasts of the Kingdom, in conformity with the Report of the Royal Commission of last year upon this subject. It was proved before the Commission, that there was no part of the coast which so much required harbours of refuge as the east coast, and there was no part of that coast which offered such facilities as the bay of Tees, in the county of Durham.

Everybody is aware of the great importance of harbours of refuge upon those points of the coast especially to which the hon. Member refers, and the Report of the Commissioners confirms his views. But their calculation of the expense of forming the harbours of refuge recommended by them is £4,000,000 sterling, and those who are acquainted with the adaptation of the cost to the estimate in works of that description, will say whether the expense is not likely to be much greater than the estimate. I have, therefore, to state that Her Majesty's Government have no intention during the present Session of making any proposal on this subject.

said, that a one of the Commissioners, he wished to remind the noble Lord that the Commissioners did not recommend an expenditure of more than £200,000 per annum. When the House recollected that 800 lives per annum and a vast amount of property were lost for want of harbours of refuge, it was not unreasonable to expect that the Government would turn their attention to the subject. The estimates of expense had been gone into with the greatest care by-civil engineers, and as he had himself revised them, he could venture to say they exceeded the amount that would be required. Considering that only £200,000 would be wanted per annum, he hoped that the Government would propose a Vote for that sum in the next Session of Parliament.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communications have lately been received from the Peruvian Gevernment on the subject of the reduction of the price of Guano. Guano was now an article of such primary necessity in Ireland, that any reduction in the price of it would be of the greatest benefit to the small farmers of that country. By the instrumentality of the Earl of Malmesbury, a reduction, amounting to £1 per ton, had been made to the English consumer, who was now placed on the same footing as the American. He had, however, been given to understand that a still greater reduction might be ex- pected, if proper representations were made to the President of the Peruvian Government by our charge d'affaires in that country. In July, 1858, the Earl of Malmesbury wrote to Mr. Jerningham to ask the President of the Peruvian Government to consider the propriety of making a material reduction in the price of guano. Mr. Jerningham took up the task with alacrity, and a discussion upon the doctrines of political economy thereupon ensued. The President appeared to think that it was better to sell a small quantity at a high price, and that the Peruvian bonds might thus be kept up, while Mr. Jerningham endeavoured to convince him that by selling a larger portion at a smaller price, a portion of the bonds might be paid off, and the remainder capitalized for the benefit of the State. In September, 1858, the correspondence was still going on, but at that date the Peruvian Government were not ready to recommend a reduction in the price of the article. The present was a proper time to press the matter upon the notice of the Peruvian Government, as there was a large stock of guano on hand. People would not purchase at the present price, and a great deal of ingenuity was at work to discover an article at a lower price. He trusted that the Government would continue to press a reduction of the price of guano upon the Peruvian Government.

said, he was not aware that any very late communication had been received on this subject. The subject was one of importance, and he regretted the course pursued by the Peruvian Government, but of course if the Peruvian Government refused to listen, our Minister was powerless. He believed that at present there were 300,000 tons of Peruvian guano in store in this country of the estimated value of £3,000,000. The Peruvian Government appeared to be satisfied to sell a small quantity at a high price; but there were so many artificial manures in use that they were not likely to obtain the high price they demanded. If anything more could be done, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to make a fresh representation to the Peruvian Government, but it was in the power of that Government to withhold the guano from the English market if they thought proper.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he had any objection to lay upon the table a Return of the name of the Captain of Her Majesty's ship Princess Royal, who ordered 2,141 lashes to be inflicted on fifty-three of the crew of that ship who were flogged in the year 1857, as stated in a Return presented to this House. He had received a letter from an Admiral expressing his concern lest the public should imagine that this amount of flogging was inflicted by Captain Bazley, the present Captain of the Princess Royal, and requesting him (Mr. Williams) to state the fact in the House. He was glad to find officers high in station taking that opinion of this degrading punishment. He could see no objection to giving the name of the Captain in question. If he had done right, there could be no object in concealment; and if he had done wrong, it was a public duty to know who he was. He hoped that the Lords of the Admiralty would take the matter of flogging in the Navy in hand, and make some stringent changes. If they did not, it would be the duty of the House to interfere in order to obtain the proper manning of the Navy.

said, he rose to put the question of which he had given notice relative to the Treaty of Villafranca. In his opinion the time had arrived when our diplomacy should cease to bear the characteristics of secrecy. Diplomacy in the present day was conducted so well that it did not need to be protected from public observation, and he thought it would be greatly for the advantage of the country if the public were allowed the opportunity of knowing what was going on. There were many occasions upon which public opinion could have interfered with salutary effect, and without desiring to make any personal attack, he might specify the case that occurred ten years ago. Ten years ago an offer was made by Count Hummelauer, on the part of Austria, to the noble Lord opposite, to cede the province of Lombardy to Sardinia, but that offer the noble Lord had declined to accept. In the interval Italy had suffered countless miseries, and at this moment, so far as her future prospects were concerned, she was in no better position than when the offer was made, although her plains had been deluged in blood. Now he was firmly convinced that if the system of secrecy had not been adopted, and that offer had been made known at the time, public opinion would have been so decidedly expressed that the offer of Austria would have been acceded to, and that Italy would thus have been spared the frightful carnage we had so recently witnessed there. Another instance might be found in the evil which had resulted from the secrecy observed with regard to late events. Great injustice had been done to the Earl of Malmesbury on the subject, and which was only corrected when the blue-book which contained the correspondence relatinig to Italian affairs was published. That the noble Earl had been subjected to great misrepresentation there was no doubt, and he must say that he felt much surprise at the boldness of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), when, with an utter want of consideration for the danger which the Government had escaped in consequence of the withdrawal of Lord Elcho's Motion, he ventured to say that the early communications of the Earl of Malmesbury with Austria showed an undue leaning in favour of the preponderance of that power in Italy—the fact being that the noble Earl had condemned the proceedings of Austria from the first. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and others sometimes said that the power of this country really resided in the House of Commons, that no important transaction could take place to which this House were not parties; but how were these transactions generally concluded? Not by that House, but in the Cabinet, in a room in some public office, by a half-dozen gentlemen, who were not more able to form a correct opinion upon the question at issue than the Members of that House. He contended then, that it was a complete anomaly that this House, which had to find the sinews of war by scarifying the population with heavy taxes, should have no voice whatever in the settlement of those matters, and that Ministers who, when carrying on negotiations, were entirely under the authority of this House, should, when peace was concluded, be removed from all influence on the part of the House. The late war in Italy had begun with hopes of independence that had excited the whole population of that country; but as he understood the treaty which bad just been agreed upon between France and Austria, one of the stipulations was that the late rulers of Tuscany, Parma, and Modena should return to those countries. Now, if they did so with the goodwill of the people no one would be more delighted than he (Mr. Griffith) should be; but if it were meant that foreign Powers were to interfere for the purpose of reinstating these Princes in their former possessions, surely that was not the way to promote Italian independence? He did not presume that even the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had all the information upon the subject that was satisfactory to himself. On the contrary, he dared say the noble Lord was very much in the same position in that respect as the rest of the world; but he should like the noble Lord, as far as he was able, to answer the question of which he (Mr. Griffith) had given notice, namely, whether he has reason to believe that there is a provision or understanding in the late Treaty of Villafranca that the late Dynasties of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma are to be restored to those possessions, if necessary by military force, and if so, whether her Majesty's Government are prepared to take part in any Congress or other diplomatic negotiation having that object?

—I understand from the Government of the Emperor of the French that there is no provision or understanding that the dynasties of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma are to be restored by military force. I further understand that it is not the intention of the Emperor of the French to use force for the purpose of restoring those dynasties.

said, he rose to move "That it is the opinion of this House that the system of management which now exists at the National Gallery is highly unsatisfactory, and is detrimental to the public service." The increased expenditure in all departments of the Government was matter of general observation. There was a growing feeling also among the people that they did not get value for the money expended, and they were discontented. The expenditure was so great and the system, as a whole, was so colossal, that no Member could deal with it in its entirety. But with regard to the expenditure on the National Gallery he trusted in a brief statement to be able to show that in that department a bad system had too long prevailed, and that it ought to be abolished. It appeared by the return which he held in his hand that during the last twelve years there had been an expenditure of £90,000 for augmenting our national collection of pictures, and he would boldly assert and appeal to those who had a knowledge of pictures, whether the National Gallery as it now stood, compared with what it was before the advent of its present administrators, had not positively deteriorated. It was not by the quantity of pictures, but by their quality that the value of a national collection was to be judged. So large a number of inferior pictures had been purchased for the National Gallery, that the masterpieces which adorned the walls were lost sight of in the mass of rubbish that had been collected around them. In 1857–8 the expenses for the National Gallery amounted to £29,000, but the Vote of this year was reduced to £9,000. In entering into this question he was not actuated by any personal feelings towards Sir C. Eastlake, by whom he had always been treated with courtesy; but a sense of public duty compelled him to set forth the errors of that gentleman's administration. Since 1845 Sir C. Eastlake had been attached to the National Gallery in various capacities. First of all, he was appointed keeper of the gallery, at a salary of £200 a year; but from that office he was soon driven by the censures of the press and the constant attacks which were made on his administration. His purchase of the Holbein portrait implied not only a want of knowledge of the master, but a want of knowledge of art, for that portrait was doubly a counterfeit. During Sir C. Eastlake's first administration, the last picture purchased was "the youthful Saviour embracing St. John," ascribed to Guido, but which was a disgrace to the National Gallery. When Sir C. Eastlake retired from the office of keeper, he became President of the Royal Academy, and as President he appeared at the board of the National Gallery as trustee, and while he was trustee there were various inferior and spurious pictures purchased, among which was "the Tribute Money," ascribed to Titian. In confirmation of the opinion he now expressed as to the maladministration of the National Gallery he might refer to articles in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, and the Westminster Review. The Examiner, which paid a great deal of attention to questions of art, said the national collection was not in fit keeping under Sir C. Eastlake, and that it had come to that opinion not hastily, but advisedly, on due and careful consideration of the facts. But he need not go further on the subject than to the testimony of Sir C. Eastlake himself. In the evidence from which he had quoted he found, under date 12th November, 1852, that gentleman saying, "I approve of the result of the cleaning of the 'Queen of Sheba.'" Again March 31, 1853, "The 'Queen of Sheba' has been ill and tastelessly cleaned. It is now out of harmony, and I could not positively say that time will restore it. Dirt has the effect of glazing, and is quite as good sometimes." That was very different from the opinion of one who must be admitted to be a master on these subjects—Hogarth. That great master's words were, "It is absurd to talk of pictures being improved by time or dirt." In May, 1853, Sir C. Eastlake recommended that "The Annunciation" should be left without the glass that it might be improved by the dirt. He says, "Dirt gives gusto." That was Sir C. Eastlake's opinion of the cleaning process. As a specimen of his taste it was only necessary to quote his remark that "early German art was corrupted by the introduction of a classical taste." Even Punch assailed the system; he said, "Pictures carefully removed. Apply to the Director of the National Gallery." [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was their duty, as guardians of the public purse, to look after this large source of expenditure. He would next call attention to the pictures stated in the report to have been purchased this year. During that period eight pictures had been purchased, most of which were of a very inferior description, and did not deserve a place in the gallery. The first was an Antonio Moro, purchased from Mr. Nieuwenhuys. That gentleman was one of the most experienced dealers in London, and it would have been easy to get a good picture from him instead of giving £200 for such a wretched vamped-up specimen. The next was a Moretto, purchased for £360; then a Lippi and a Marco Zoppo, purchased for £200. The next was a Marco Basaiti, purchased in Florence for £640. This was one of the results of the £650 paid to a travelling agent whose approach was the signal for an immediate increase in the price of such works on the Continent. There was not an inch of the original surface picture left. The next a Zelotto, for £216; and last, was one called a Palmezzano, which was nothing but a coarse, common-place picture by some tenth or fifteenth rate artist. The same system of management still went on, except that the destruction of the pictures by cleaning had stopped—an admission that the system was wrong. The management made this country an object of ridicule on the Continent. When the agent arrived in any place the price of pictures at once went up 500 per cent, and he never got anything but the most indifferent specimens. £12,000 or £14,000 was paid at Venice for the Paul Veronese; and, shortly after an English amateur went over and purchased from the Manfrini gallery several Titians and Gior-gionis, each of which was worth an acre of Veronese. The Paul Veronese was bought to cover the purchase of "The Adoration of the Magi," which after being hawked about for £400, was sold to the National Gallery for £2,000. This subject was one which would test whether the Government were in earnest in their promises of retrenchment and economy; and if he had made out his case, the noble Lord at the head of the Government was bound not to oppose his Resolution.

said, before the House goes into Committee, I am desirous of calling attention to the principle on which the grant for promoting public education in Ireland is administered, and of pointing out circumstances which I think justify me in expressing an opinion that the principle in question has not been practically successful. I shall confine my remarks to a statement of simple facts. I shall be contented with showing that the system of Mixed Education in Ireland has failed, and with indicating the natural causes of that failure. In the presence of some Members of this House who have had the experience of a quarter of a century of educational progress, and who worked at this very subject before I was born, it would approach presumption to do more. The delicate and difficult task of initiating a course of action, and of sketching the details of a new system, I shall not venture to undertake. Even if I possessed the experience and the administrative skill which such a task would demand, there are ample reasons to be found in the present state of Irish politics, and, above all, in the fact that the Bishops will shortly consider the whole question, why I should shrink from doing so. The Estimate for public education amounts this year to £1,328,000, of which £836,920 will be appropriated to England, and about £250,000 to Ireland. The principles upon which the money is distributed in the two countries are not only different but contradictory. In England the Vote is administered upon the denominational, religious, and separate system; whereas in Ireland it is granted on the principle of a Mixed Education. So distinct—or, indeed, it may be said so antagonistic—are these two systems, that what would constitute a natural and ordinary claim for aid towards a school in England would be a total disqualification in Ireland; and what constitutes a qualification in Ireland would be a disqualification in England. Public education in Ireland is divided into two great branches—first, the academical instruction given in the Queen's Colleges, and, secondly, the ordinary elementary instruction of the people in the National Schools. The Queen's Colleges have been in practical operation for ten years, and since their establishment they have received, in the shape of endowments and annual Votes, the sum of £266,516. To this must be added £100,000 as the cost of building the colleges, and £13,041 for ordinary repairs. That is, they have cost altogether £379,557. It is difficult to ascertain with perfect accuracy from the Commissioners' Report the number of individuals who have completed their education in these institutions and taken out degrees. It appears, however, that this number, up to the year 1858, docs not much exceed 200. So that each graduate most have cost the country something over £1,500; or, if we exclude the original cost of building the colleges, something over £1,000 a-head. That is a fact unparalleled in the history of public instruction. The machinery employed in those colleges was not only the best for its purpose, but it was on the most extensive scale. The number of officers was 260, while the average number of students under their care since the commencement had been 135 every year, or 45 for each college. The total number of scholarships appropriated in each year from the public money was 165, or 55 for each college. In some of the faculties the number of scholarships in the three colleges occasionally exceeded the number of students, but it more generally happened that the number of scholarships and of students was nearly equal. In the Faculty of Law at the Queen's College, Cork, in the Session of 1850–1, there was one scholarship and no student; in 1852–3, one scholarship and one student; in 1853–4, one scholarship and one student; in 1854–5, one scholarship but no student; in 1856–7, one scholarship and one student. In his evidence before the late Commission the Dean of the Faculty of Law in that college recommended the abolition of his own faculty, on the ground that he had found no students. The principal faculty in those colleges, and the one on which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when introducing the system, laid the greatest stress, is the Faculty of Arts. Now, at the Queen's College, Galway, in 1850–1 there were 26 students to compete for 24 scholarships; in 1851–2, 10 students and 15 scholarships; and in every year since that period the number of scholarships had been greater than the number of students. The history of the colleges is simply an index to the history of the University. In the Queen's University several exhibitions and medals are open to the competition of the graduates. To gain a gold medal is to obtain, it is generally supposed, a very high honour. A gold medallist is always regarded as a man of note. In speaking of some of our most eminent public men, people refer to the gold medal as a distinction that even subsequent honours, however great, cannot overshadow. Of course the small number of medals compared with the very large number of competitors is an essential element in giving this conventional value to such honours. In 1855 four gentlemen proceeded to Dublin to be examined for the degree of Master of Arts. They all passed in a highly satisfactory manner, and obtained a degree. They then competed for honours, being examined for two days; and the result was that each of the four received a gold medal and a money exhibition. No doubt they deserved the honours they gained; but it was usual, in distributing gold medals, to confine the distribution within certain distinct limits. In the University of Dublin, for example, four gold medals could not be awarded unless there wore 160 candidates, one never being awarded unless there were forty competitors for it. In this particular case of the Queen's University, the examiners, no doubt, found that there were four gold medals to be given away to a certain class of graduates, and, accordingly, they disposed of them fairly. No fault can be found either with the candidates or with the examiners. That there were only four of the former, instead of one or two hundred, simply indicates that the system has not been as successful in procuring graduates as the graduates have been in securing gold medals. This is a fair sample of what has taken place year after year in the faculty of arts. Even the Vice Chancellor of the University who, it may be presumed, is inclined to take a sanguine view of the subject, made the admission in 1856 that he found the number of candidates for degrees was four times less than it ought to be. The Vice President of Queen's College, Belfast, in his evidence before the Commissioners, noticed this also. He said: —"We observe this remarkable fact, that the number of graduates proceeding from these colleges has been diminishing for the last three years, and it is much below what it ought to be; and, therefore, it shows that the stimulus afforded by these honours is not sufficiently great to induce young men to go forward." The number of matriculated students entering the colleges has, with slight exceptions, steadily decreased since their establishment. In the first year there were 223 matriculated students in the three colleges; in 1851 the number entering fell to 152; in 1852 to 136; in 1855–6 it stood at 138; in 1857 at 119; and in 1858, the date of the last return, 109. I quote these numbers from the Commissioner's last Report. But that was not the whole evidence of the failure of the system. In the several Professors' classes the symptoms of failure were also to be found. In the class of English language at Queen's College, Cork, there were fifty students in 1849, thirty in 1850, twenty-one in 1851, and only twenty in 1858. The Professor of Greek opened his class in 1849 with fifty-six students, next year it fell to forty-eight, and now it was only twenty-seven. In the class of the Professor of Latin, the same steady decline in the attendance is to be seen. The Professor of History and English Literature at the college at Gal-way has only five students in his class; the Professor of Medicine has only five; and the Professor of Jurisprudence has only two. Some of the Professors have been actually left without a single student. With such facts as these before us, I think I am justified in asserting that the mixed system of academical education has failed in Ireland. There was another point deserving of attention. These colleges had been founded on a distinct educational principle—secular education, and religious control. When Mr. Wise, in the first instance, brought forward his Motion on the subject he declared his conviction that some religious instruction should be given in the colleges, and when Sir Robert Peel's Bill was before the House in 1845, Mr. Wise again advocated an Amendment to the same effect. Sir Robert Peel objected to the Amendment; but, though he would not allow religious instruction, he acknowledged the necessity of religious supervision, and stated that it would form an important portion of the Collegiate scheme. Now, the anticipations in which Sir Robert Peel had indulged in reference to those colleges had not, even in this respect, been fulfilled. In the first place, the Deans of Residence, who had been appointed when the colleges had been first established, found that they had almost nothing to do. The Deans of Residence who belonged to the Catholic Church had, indeed, long since ceased to be connected with the colleges; while, with reference to the licensed boarding-houses which were attached to these institutions, it might be seen from the last report of the Dean of Residence of the Established Church, that not a single student lodged in them whose name had been brought officially under his knowledge. So far, therefore, as the Deans of Residence and the boarding-houses were concerned—and they constituted the sole machinery for moral and religious supervision—the colleges presented an example of failure as great as that in which it was instanced by the small number of their students. This failure was not due to a want of ability on the part of the Professors. I take the liberty of bearing my humble testimony to the great talents, learning and industry which these gentlemen and the other officers have at all times displayed. I believe it is to be attributed to the fact that an attempt had been made to force mixed education on a Catholic people, in spite of the remonstrances and opposition of the authorities of the Catholic Church. But I go further, and assert that the national system of education in Ireland also has failed, though in a different manner. The nature of that failure the House will be able to appreciate when I mention the fact that in the county of Cork alone, where the number of children who attend the national schools amount to 65,000, all, except 471, belong to one religion. The national system of education in Ireland has been promoted, among other reasons, upon the ground that it would tend to unite the people of that country together; but if ever there was a system of public instruction which led to disunion and discord it was that system, and it would be overthrown by agitation in Ireland if not by a previous vote of the House. I am happy to say, that the Protestant Bishops and Clergy also take a decided view in reference to the subject, and maintain that no system of education should be conducted without a fair admixture of religious instruction. Secular education for the children of the labouring classes was a very serious experiment to try. You have been trying it for many years in Ireland and it has failed. But although the mixed system has broken down, the denominational or religious system has not taken its place in that satisfactory manner in which it is to be seen in England. The rules of the Board are still operative for evil. They check religious teaching, they prevent the most simple and ordinary Catholic practices usual in Catholic schools, they enforce the use of books highly objectionable, and they preclude the employment of works in every respect deserving of confidence. A most admirable list of books, published by the Christian Brothers of Ireland, are permitted by the Privy Council to be used in the Catholic schools in England, while their use is prohibited by the Board in Ireland. The denationalizing tendency of the system has never been noticed in this House. Next to its secular and latitudinarian spirit, I regard this as one of its most disgraceful characteristics. I beg to call the attention of Irish Members to it. The school books published by the Board, and used as reading books by the children, are not written by Irishmen. These reading books are compiled by a Scotch Presbyterian clergyman, and they carefully avoid any reference to Ireland. The effect of the mixed system in this respect has been well described by one of the late chief inspectors, a gentleman of great zeal and ability, Mr. Kavanagh, who says, and says very truly, "It has banished history, it has banned Catholic literature, it has enfeebled or excluded morals, it has emasculated poetry, and it declares patriotism and religion contraband." Yet this system is called National. It should, in truth, be called Anti-national. Now, I would wish to have it distinctly understood that the whole of this anomalous legislation has failed, and, as it seems to me, inevitably failed. I frankly confess that I attribute this double failure of the mixed system in the colleges and in the schools to the great fact that it was an attempt to overrule the decision of the Catholic Church. I am one of those who recognize the right of the Church to teach. It is a sacred right which She received from the Greatest of all Lawgivers, and which She never will relinquish. Those who know anything about the history or spirit of my countrymen will understand me when I say, that the failure in Ireland of any educational system which the Church has opposed is very easy to explain. You may vote your quarter of a million to prop up a tottering system; but believe mo you will do so in vain; the failure of the past, however great and unequivocal, will seem almost a success compared with the failure that awaits you in the future. Whilst, for reasons already stated, I avoid entering into the details o a new system, I am most anxious to impress upon the House the utter useless-ness of any compromises whatever. Mixe education has fallen to pieces, and what remains of it must be swept away. No remodelling, no restoration, no return t the original stringency of Lord Stanley's scheme will suffice. Nothing short of the admirable system which exists in England, in Scotland, and in the Colonies, should be proposed by the Chief Secretary, or sanctioned by Parliament. I hope the House will not be misled by the fact that such views as these have never before been expressed by an Irish Catholic Member. Many reasons hitherto conspired to prevent Catholic representatives from giving expression to these opinions, but it should not on that account be assumed that they are new or that they have been hastily formed. They are in fact the steady growth of an irresistible public feeling. Without presuming to use the language of warning, I take the liberty of recommending Her Majesty's Government to be very cautious about keeping up anomalous legislation for Ireland. When the Irish people see that you give them one system and your own people another system, and when they dis- cover the great difference between the two; when they find that their Bishops approve of what you keep here, and disapprove of what you send across the Channel, they will naturally inquire whether your administration is conducted on equitable principles. For centuries the Parliament and Executive of England was charged—and I think very fairly charged—with misgoverning Ireland. The main element in that charge was the undoubted partiality exhibited by giving bad laws to Ireland and good laws to England. It has become the fashion to assert that this charge can no longer be made, and that the two countries are now governed with equal and impartial justice. I venture to deny that assertion; and, as long as this anomalous legislation is maintained, I shall continue to deny it. I trust my object in calling attention to this subject will not be misunderstood. I have done so because it is one in which Catholic interests are deeply concerned. I have called attention to it also because it is one on which the national spirit and the social happiness of the Irish people greatly depend.

said, he wished to offer a few observations to the House on the subject under discussion on behalf of the Church to which he belonged, and of the University which he had the honour to represent. Adverting for a moment to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken with reference to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, he would beg to say that the College of Belfast, with which he was more particularly acquainted, was unquestionably a success, not merely so far as the learning of its professors was concerned, but also with respect to the great judgment with which it was conducted, and the number of students which it contained. There was a Presbyterian College near it, the conductors of which allowed their students to avail themselves of the advantage which the Queen's College afforded for secular education. He would not further enter into the merits of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, for the object which he had especially in view in addressing the House on the present occasion was to invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the position in which the question of national education in that country stood. In doing so he should above all things, advise that right hon. Gentleman not to pin his faith to blue-books, for if he hoped to obtain complete information from that source he would find that he laboured under a great mistake. For his own part, he was of opinion that the Earl of Derby had never applied his intellect to a nobler purpose than when he had endeavoured to establish a good system of national education in Ireland, but, unhappily, the principles upon which that noble Lord was desirous that his views should be carried out had not been fully acted upon. One of the first objects which the Earl of Derby had sought to attain was the establishment of a certain amount of religious and moral education in Ireland. But how had the wishes of the noble Lord in that respect been complied with. Three books of a most useful character—one the Evidences of Christianity, which had been written by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately; another, a book of hymns, which had been quoted in that House by Sir John Young as a proof of the amount of Scriptural knowledge which was administered in the schools in Ireland, and a third, also, a book containing Scriptural lessons, and which had been recommended by the Board, had been introduced, but after being in use for some time they were expelled from those schools. Therefore the first fact they had to look at was, that in these schools under the National Board there was no teaching of that religious character originally desired by the Earl of Derby. The Archbishop of Dublin visited one of the model schools, and found that the books, on the faith of the use of which he and many of the Protestant clergy joined the Board, were not in use in those schools; and accordingly, not obtaining any satisfaction, and considering that a breach of trust with the public had been committed, he left the Board, as also did the Lord Justice of Appeal and Baron Green. It ended in a Board being now in existence which, though unquestionably composed of highly respectable individuals, had not much weight or influence over the minds of any of the great classes of the Irish people. As to the question of joint management, what took place? The idea of the Earl of Derby was, that whenever a grant was applied for, it should be applied for by the clergy of a parish of opposite persuasions. Of 5,000 schools, something less than fifty—perhaps forty-six would be nearer the number—were under joint management, and those forty-six gave greater trouble to the Board than the whole remaining number. The joint management had, in fact, signally failed. As to the schools being conducted on one common principle, the arrangement was that the schools and the property connected with them were to be vested in the Board, so that its members might conduct the education as they thought fit. But out of 5,000 schools there were only 1,600 vested in the Board, and 3,159 were under the exclusive management of the Roman Catholic clergy. The next question which had arisen was, what was to be done with the Presbyterians? Because to suppose that they would consent to a system of education which excluded the Scriptures was useless. Well the Presbyterians were accommodated in this way. Their 700 schools were vested not in the Board, but in the Synod of Ulster, and so they read the Scriptures in the schools as they pleased and when they pleased, and in that they did what was right. It was found necessary to conciliate those sturdy Presbyterians, and the result was that some respect had been paid to their conscientious convictions. But as to the Church of England and the Wesleyan Methodists, what was the case? The Church of England had charge of what were called the parish schools. In those parish schools from time immemorial the labours of each day had been commenced by some reference to the existence of a God; but as by the rules of the Board every line of Scripture was excluded, those schools, in number about 2,000, were all excluded from the receipt of any aid. What was the case as to the Wesleyan Methodists? In this country they were all fairly provided for in the matter of education; but when a Wesleyan Methodist crossed the water and set his foot in Ireland, his status was altogether changed in this respect. In that country no Wesleyan Methodist, however peaceable and loyal, could ever obtain for the schools of his persuasion a book, or school requisite, or any assistance what-- ever under the national system, though he paid heavy taxes in aid of it. John Wesley, who was a good, wise, and pious man, made it a condition of the education to be given among the body of which he was the founder, that it was to be a Scriptural education, and that being in direct conflict with the national system his disciples were excluded. That was the state of affairs in Ireland at the present moment, but a very active movement had been set on foot by the party whose claims the hon. Gentleman was advocating against the whole system of education as it stood, and he (Mr. Whiteside) believed that at a meeting presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy), the noble Lord, surrounded by eminent scholars, was nearly swept from his place as chairman by a body opposed to his plans, who, he (Mr. Whiteside) believed, carried a resolution embodying their own views. The Irish Solicitor General (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) had also taken an active part, he believed, against the system of mixed education in Ireland. For his (Mr. Whiteside's) part, he ventured to state a simple truth. The attempt was originally made to convert the clergy of the Church of England to prefer those new schools. The parties to that proceeding had tried it for twenty years and had failed; and he would tell them that if they lived for 220 years and tried the same scheme they would fail. They—men of expediency —forgot that there were men of principle in the world. They said, "Lay aside all allusions to Christianity in the schools; let the children meet in the schools and receive secular education; catch the pupils when they leave the school as best you can, and teach them separately your religious principles." Excellent advice if practicable, but the system had failed, and would continue to fail, for this plain reason—that the Established Church, the Wesleyans, and the Presbyterians all held that some religious teaching was a necessary and essential part of education. When a man walked into the old parish Church of England schools he saw written on the walls a number of most striking and appropriate texts of Scripture, such as "Fear God and honour the King," "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," "Thou shalt not steal," and many more of like kind; but in schools conducted on the mixed system these texts had to be taken down as against the rules, and instead of passages of Scripture, there were affixed to the walls pictures of vertebrated and unvertebrated animals, and things of that sort. That would give the House a perfect idea of the difference between the two systems. The truth was that at least five-sixths of the parish clergy—certainly nine-tenths of the curates—would hold fast by this principle —namely, that no education would meet with their support if they were required to lay aside the Scriptures. They believed that; and to suppose that by making here and there one of them a Bishop or a Dean they could get them to change their opinions was ridiculous. But still, in some things the national system had not failed. They had produced some excellent school books; they had set aside schools which wore nurseries of disloyalty and ignorance; they had got a system of training and inspection; but they had no more a united system than if they had endeavoured to unite Mahomedans and Christians in the same scheme of education. Let them look at the returns of the Roman Catholics in Minister—of the Roman Catholics in Con-naught. In Ulster the state of things was different, for there Protestants were in the majority. For his part, he (Mr. Whiteside) always thought it was a calumny upon Roman Catholics to say that reading the Scriptures in the schools would convert them. He had subscribed to a school for many years where the Scriptures were read, and where Roman Catholics attended, and he had inquired, but could not find that any individual had changed his religion on this account. And the most singular circumstance was that many Roman Catholic parents sent their children, possibly out of convenience, to the Church school where the Scriptures were read, rather than to the national school. He advised the Government to strengthen their Board if they could, and make it acceptable to the people, which at present it was not. Why, then, were Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Wesleyan Methodists taxed to support such a system? Every hon. Member of that House returned by the Presbyterian body must desire to see Parliament come to some rational settlement of this question. The secular schools were by no means so successful as was generally thought. The Census Commissioners had brought out the fact that in several counties of Ireland ignorance prevailed just in proportion to the number of national schools that were established. An hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head; but it might, perhaps, be remembered that on the Motion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge on this subject, Mr. G. A. Hamilton quoted the testimony of the Census Commissioners, cold unimpassioned men, on this subject, to prove that there was an increase of ignorance between the ages of 15 and 21 in various counties in which national schools were established. And how would they cure that? By having opposition schools —schools that would excite emulation, stimulate industry, and improve the system of education. He had no wish to disturb a single school that existed now, for he admitted that the supporters of the present system had a full right to their share of education; but he disbelieved in the ability of the masters as a body. When he had occasion, as Attorney General, to go down to the south of Ireland to prosecute for treason against the Crown, the first person he had to prosecute was a national schoolmaster. That man was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. This man was proved to have taught the youth in the school, and to have administered to the youth of the country an oath which would not have been unsuitable in a Jacobin club at the time of the French Revolution. He (Mr. Whiteside) asked a gentleman in Kerry whether this was a common state of things, and was answered "There are a score of them as bad." This instructor of youth did not stand alone, for the schoolmaster of the workhouse was equally guilty, and it was a significant fact that when one who had been a national schoolmaster hesitated about taking the unlawful oath he was appealed to in language like this, "By our old acquaintance as national schoolmasters together, will you not join us?" These things should be inquired into, and he was not surprised that the Roman Catholic clergy should express disfavour in reference to some of the persons employed as masters. The Christian Brothers were reported to have the best schools in Ireland for peasant children, but they gave religious instruction, and, therefore, were excluded from Parliamentary assistance under the present system. He believed the Board would scarcely be able to hold their place in the country as matters stood, but why should they not extend to the Church schools some of the benefits which they gave to their own? Why not supply them with books and school requisites, proficiency rewards, and training for their masters? Earl Granville proposed nearly as much in the House of Lords, and the Earl of Derby proposed something to the same effect. If this was done—if they could induce those who were the patrons of these 2,000 Church schools to join the Board, by simply doing them an act of justice, then they would make the national system that which it had never hitherto been. In that way they might obtain a national if they could not have a united system of education. But, at all events, it was utterly vain to expect to control the religious belief of men. As they could not control the Roman Catholics, so they could never control the clergy of the Established Church. They believed in the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and would they be parties to any system which disallowed their use in education? To show the stringency with which the rule for the exclusion of the Scriptures was enforced, he would repeat a ludicrous anecdote mentioned by the Bishop of Ossory in one of his charges. A boy in one of the national schools had stolen a book, and the curate of the parish went to the school to admonish him before his fellow scholars. In doing so be quoted the command, "Thou shalt not steal," when he was stopped by the schoolmaster, who said it was contrary to the rules to refer to Scripture. The schoolmaster was no doubt right. To such things those with whom he was connected objected; but they did not therefore desire to overthrow a system which bad been in some respects beneficial. What he asked was that the Government should consider their claim fairly and dispassionately. If the Government gave to the Church Education Society and to the Wesleyans and others those school requisites and other advantages to which he had referred they might establish a great, a permanent, and a national system of education, which would be acceptable to all classes in Ireland. And if it so happened that the Christian Brothers obtained any portion of the same advantages he should not complain. Of this he was certain that the present system could not continue; it had been tried fairly and fully, and his recommendation to the Government was to look into the matter carefully as one of the most interesting questions of the day. Those with whom he was connected would give them every assistance in extending that which had done so much good, so as to include Church, Protestants, Wesleyans and Presbyterians, without, however, doing anything to deprive Parliament of its just jurisdiction over the public money.

said, that having brought forward this question last year he would be glad to make a few remarks, for he felt convinced in common with many who had formerly been opposed to such a course that the time had come when it would be well for the Government to modify the rules of the Irish Board, so far as that no school should be excluded simply because the Bible was taught in it. He could not assent to the proposition, however, that the national system had proved a failure. On the contrary it had been a splendid success, it had done incalculable good in Ireland. But there could be no doubt that many of the schools were in bad hands, faille was aware, from personal inspection, that many of the masters were wretchedly poor creatures, and that the schools were in consequence very ill managed. On the general question, however, be believed no person would dispute that the system had been productive of very great benefit. As to the complaint that the books had not been written by Irishmen, he could only say so much the worse for them, for a better set of works for the purpose for which they were intended he had never seen. But the more advantageous the system was shown to be, and the more one admired it, the more one was led to regret that these advantages should not be extended to all the peasant children of Ireland. There was no use in blaming the clergy for not placing themselves in connection with the Board; they bad acted on their conscientious objections for thirty years, and they would continue to do so, and it was too late to look on it as a question regarding the clergy, or as a Protestant question. The true way to look on it was a question touching the interests of the peasant children of Ireland. The question was whether some 100,000 of them in the clerical schools should be very much worse taught than they would be if those schools had the pecuniary assistance, and the trained masters, and the apparatus and books, and, above all, the inspection of the National Board. At present about 100,000 Irish peasant children were excluded from those great educational advantages, simply because their instructors deemed it their duty to read the Bible to them. On that account this system, professing to be a national one, repudiated all those children from participating in the advantages it offered. That scruple on the part of the patrons of the Scriptural schools might be a sensible, or it might be a silly one. He did not ask the House to endorse it. He merely mentioned the fact, that such a vast multitude of peasant children were wholly passed by and neglected by the national system of education merely because their instructors thought it right to read the Bible in the school, whereas the Board would not keep any school where specific religious instruction was given as part of the schooling. The sole question then was this—since that regulation cuts off so great a body of children from a first-rate education, was it of essential value? Was it worth keeping up? They all knew why it had been laid down. The idea of those who founded the national system was that by forbidding any specific religious teaching during school hours, they would induce Roman Catholics and Protestants to send their children to the same school, and that this would blend them together in after life. That has a noble object to aim at. If the system had received that object he, for one, should pray the House not to touch the regulation which had produced so excellent an effect. But the plain fact was that no such effect was produced. There was no such thing as mixed education in the national schools. The Protestant parents would not send their children to the national schools where the patron and master were Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics would not send theirs to schools where the patron and master were Protestants. The regulation was a total failure. Why, then, should we keep it up? It was utterly useless for any good result, but it was very effective for the bad result of cutting off a great multitude of children from important educational advantages. It was impotent for good; it was potent for evil. If that regulation were modified or suspended, the national schools would go on exactly as they did now. It would not affect them at all. The only consequence would be, that the clerical schools would connect themselves with the Board, and the children would derive great benefit in a much improved education. Experience, in fact, had clearly shown that the principle adopted in England was the sound and true principle, namely, that the Government should help all those who were endeavouring to educate their poorer neighbours, whatever their religious views or scruples might be, making no stipulation except that a good secular education should be given. That principle seemed to be a perfectly sound one, but it altogether condemned the regulation of which he had been speaking. That regulation introduced an interference, a meddling, improper interference, with the religious teaching in the school. To say to those who were making great sacrifices in order to educate the poor around them, "We will not help you unless you will pledge yourself not to teach this, that, and the other doctrine," was, in reality a piece of intolerance. It was, in reality, an undue interference by the State with individual freedom. It would be far more just and far more wise for the State to say, "You are striving to give your poor neighbours a good educa- tion. Well, then, we will give you an educational apparatus, a trained teacher and annual inspection, in order that you may educate them more thoroughly, without exacting from you any pledge that will hurt your religious feelings." He could not but hope that the Government would see its way to repealing a regulation which was not at all an essential part of the national system, which was unsound in principle, which excited bitter and chronic discontent among the Protestents of Ireland, which had not accomplished the only good purpose expected from it, of creating a mixed education, and which debarred 100,000 peasant children from sharing in the great benefits conferred by the National Board.

said, he thought that the Queen's Colleges had been reasonably successful. At the same time it should be recollected that the collegiate system in Ireland had been overdone. A college had been established in each of the four provinces in Ireland, whereas one college in Belfast, in addition to the University at Dublin, would have served all useful purposes, but still it could not be said with truth that considering the number of the colleges and the area of the country, they had failed. He believed, however, that the system of National education, as a system of mixed education, had been a failure. It had conferred great benefits upon the Roman Catholic population, but there could be no doubt of the fact that it did not possess the confidence of the Protestant community. For some of the Commissioners he entertained the highest respect, but not one of them was a man whose presence at the National Board would suffice of itself to command the confidence of Irish Protestants. The case was different formerly, but the secession of the Archbishop of Dublin had been a great misfortune to the National system of education. He might state by way of illustration, that in the county of Cork there were 470 national schools, of which no fewer than 450 were Roman Catholic—a fact which, while highly creditable to the zeal of the priesthood, showed that the system was of comparatively little value to the Protestants, who could not be expected to send their children to schools of which the patrons and managers were Roman Catholic clergymen. The system, in short, was not a united system at all. He had heard with surprise that ignorance in some parts of Ireland was proportioned to the number of Na- tional schools. Readmitted that the schools were rude enough in many districts; but in those parts they could not expect anything else, when many of the children went to school more for shelter than instruction. What a school required to keep the interest in it alive was, that it should be visited and inspected by the gentry of the locality; and he would ask why not make the system in theory what it was in practice —a separate system? Were that course adopted, the benefits afforded by the National system of education would be enormously increased.

said, that it appeared to be admitted by every speaker that this system of National education had broken down as a combined system in Ireland; at all events, it had not realized the original programme; and he therefore would suggest to the Chief Secretary that the best course to adopt would be to recognize the fact that the Irish system was like those of England and Scotland, a denominational one. The proposed system had failed in every stage of its experiment. The introduction of the Bible, then its exclusion, and after that the compromise of Scripture lessons, had all failed; the vesting system had failed, for not one-fourth of the 5,000 schools in Ireland were vested in the Board, and all the rest were distinctly denominational schools. The joint management system had failed, for only forty-eight schools could be said to be conducted upon that principle; and owing to the break up occasioned by the system itself, it had been shown in this debate that now the Central Board itself did not command the respect which alone could give it authority enough to conduct a national system. The question therefore arose whether the system could he patched up. This could not be done either by giving peculiar rights and privileges to one religious sect, or by making the education secular. The Church could not ask for the Bible unless she consented to the Roman Catholics using their books. Nor would the country consent to exclude religion altogether; and he was, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the only course which could be adopted was to recognize the fact that this was a denominational system, that no other could be fully carried out, and to amalgamate and make it one with the English and Scotch systems, with which it practically agreed, and from which it was only needlessly distinguished, and most mischievously placed under a separate administration.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had said that in Ireland Collegiate education was overdone. His own belief was that, with the exception of Spain, there was no country in Europe in which a smaller portion of the population received a University education. There was no doubt, however, that the system at present pursued had not been successful. Since 1850, £252,000 had been spent upon the Queen's Colleges, and the number of persons who had graduated during that period was 252. They had therefore cost just £1,000 apiece. The wish of every hon. Member of that House must be that, without religious distinction, the highest intellectual education should be given to the Irish people; and his opinion was, that the best means of accomplishing this would be to assimilate the whole system to that of Trinity College. Let Belfast College occupy, with regard to the Presbyterian Church, and Cork and Galway with regard to the Roman Catholic Church, the same position which Trinity College occupied with regard to the Established Church, none of them excluding students of other denominations who might come there, and you would have ten times the number of students, and produce a tenfold benefit to the country. With regard to the National Board the case was not so simple. The system could hardly be said to be a failure, because there had been established under it schools in which 550,000 children were taught, and which, whatever might be the fault of some of them, were, compared with primary schools in other parts of the world, of a high order. There was no doubt that the system was at present in great danger; but there were two alternatives which might be adopted to avoid it. They might either upset the Irish system and adopt that of England in its place, or they might recur to its original principle of united secular and separate religious education. That principle had been so completely departed from, that there were now in Ulster 30,000 or 40,000 Roman Catholic children who were in Protestant schools, taught the Protestant Bible by Protestant teachers. With regard to the 100 model schools which had been established on the principle of excluding religious teaching, the case of those schools must be reconsidered, and they must be put on some other footing, or else there would be continual objections, and the system would not receive that hearty support which was necessary if they wished to confer real benefits upon the country. To leave the system as it stood at present was impossible. Roman Catholics and Protestants would unite against it equally unless it were changed. There were two alternatives, and only two. Either the system must be made what it was originally, in which case he thought the greater number of Roman Catholics would be satisfied; or, if that were impossible, then he said with regret—although he had been a strenuous supporter of the National system—it would be necessary to change it altogether. It was not desirable now to enter into the subject at any great length, but he hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) would take the whole question into his serious consideration.

, as Member for the University of Dublin, felt bound to say a few words on the subject before them. For the first time they had beard the subject of separate education approached in a becoming temper by the hon. Member for the King's County, and heard it temperately discussed by the House. He (Mr. Lefroy) had often attempted to prove that the National system of education in Ireland was a failure. That was now admitted. When the National Board was proposed he certainly refrained from offering any opposition to it, because he believed that upon certain classes in Ireland it conferred great advantages. The books used by the Board were certainly of the most valuable and excellent character, and such as he should desire to see used by the Church Education Society. He did not attribute the failure of the system to the observance of the principle of a united education; because in their University of Dublin they had a united education, which progressed most favourably. They had recently added in that University fourteen scholarships of £100 a year each, which were equally open to Roman Catholics as to Protestants. He was of opinion that a separate system of instruction would have the effect of separating those classes in after years. He could not understand why the Bible should be the only book to be especially excluded. He had no wish to deprive the Roman Catholics of any of the advantages of those schools; at the same time he should deprecate the principle of making the sacred Scriptures a sealed book to the whole school. The greatest authorities upon the subject of education were unanimous as to the character of the education that ought to be given. The noble Lord the Member for London, Lord Brougham, and several other eminent men, had emphatically declared that education without religion was a curse to the country. Would it not, he asked, he fair and wise to give to about 2,000 of the ministers of the Gospel the advantages of this grant without prejudice to others or the sacrifice of any one principle? He would express a hope that the Chief Secretary would turn his attention to this question, and that another year would not pass without some attempt to remedy the defects of the present system of education in Ireland.

said, he augured great good for the cause of education in Ireland from the manner in which the subject under discussion had been debated that evening. The absence of that angry tone and party feeling which generally marked their discussions on this subject showed that all parties were willing to approach the question in a dispassionate spirit. He had always thought that the National system had conferred inestimable benefit on the people of Ireland, and be thought that it ought to be touched, if it was to be touched at all, with the greatest care; but it was impossible not to see that the principle upon which it had been originally founded had been in a great degree departed from, and that the system had, for all practical purposes, ceased to be a united one. He knew that in Ireland very influential, very able, and very intelligent men adhered to the principle of a united education; and he himself was most anxious to see such a system carried out. He never could understand why children of different religious denominations could not meet together for the purpose of receiving their ordinary education; but the experience of twenty-five years had proved otherwise. It had proved that the feeling of the people in Ireland was against such a system. There was no use in denying that fact; and the sooner the attention of Government was turned to it the better. The great majority of the clergy of the Church of England maintained that they could not sanction any principle of education under which the Bible was not read by every child coming into the school; they held that Scriptural instruction ought to be received by every child attending the school. On the other hand, it had been advanced by the Roman Catholic clergy, and laid down in a most authoritative way, that instruction could not be given to Roman Catholic children from any but Roman Catholic lips. That doctrine had been laid down openly, and had received the sanction of the highest authorities in the Roman Catholic Church. The House would see how completely irreconcilable those two positions were, and how they were both opposed to the principle of a united system. Under these circumstances, he thought that the duty of the Government and of Parliament was to consider how, with the materials which they had in their hands, they could make the present system a truly National one—make it general for all. That matter was very fully considered by the late Government; and had they remained in office they would have brought before Parliament a scheme, the object of which would be to very much enlarge the usefulness of the system of National education in Ireland. It would be impossible for him to go into the details of that scheme on the present occasion; but it was one submitted by the late Lord Lieutenant to the Government, and which was under the consideration of the Cabinet when the Earl of Derby went out of office. It resembled very much in its main features a scheme proposed to a Committee of the House of Lords by Earl Granville, and the late Government had every reason to expect that it would have been received with favour by the majority of those who represented the opinion of the Clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. He believed that if it was proposed it would lay the basis of a future system that would be productive of vast advantages to the people. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), as to the expediency of extending the English system to Ireland. There was at present in Ireland a large and extensive organization, and a system which to a great extent had gained the feelings and affections of the Irish people. It would be dangerous to import any new system which might give rise to disputes, the effect of which might be to upset all attempts at establishing a permanent scheme of National education. His conviction was that any change which it might be thought desirable to make in the existing system ought to be made gradually. From what he had heard last night he thought there was no great number of those who represented the Irish people who would not be found willing to come to a calm consideration of the question. There had never been a greater demand amongst the Irish people for the benefits of a good education than that which existed at present. They had tested the benefits of education through the medium of the National schools and those of the Church Education Society, and he could not bring himself to believe that party spirit and party differences would be found to defeat any attempt that might be sincerely made to extend the benefits of education to the entire of the Irish people. He felt confident that this question would occupy the attention of the Government, for they had come to a point at which something must be done. If that something was done effectually great positive benefit would thereby be conferred on the people, and there would be a removal of matters that had for five-and-twenty years been more or less a cause of difference amongst large sections of the Irish nation.

said, that it appeared to be admitted by all parties that the present system of national education in Ireland had not worked well in many respects, and the great majority on either side of the House were in favour of its revision. But whilst they all agreed that it had many faults he did not think it fair to deny that it had also produced great advantages to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had stated in his speech that, during the period which had elapsed between 1841 and 1851, a decrease had taken place in the proportion of educated persons in Ireland, and he laid this at the door of the system of national education. Now he (Captain Esmonde) had expressed his dissent from this proposition in the only way in which at that period of the debate it was possible for him to do, and the right hon. Gentleman had said to him, "the hon. Gentleman may shake his head. We shall see if there is anything in it." [A laugh.] He was sure the House would listen to a man who was pleading for his head, and he would therefore trespass on their time by reading the following extract from the Report of the Census Commissioners for 1851:—

"In concluding our report on the subject of ages and education, we beg to take the opportunity of congratulating your Excellency on the progress which the returns show has been made in the education of the people during the eventful period since 1841; and although it is evident that much remains to be done to overcome the ignorance still prevailing, especially in some of the less improved parts of the country, yet it is encouraging to find that even in remote districts ignorance has diminished during a period which, for affliction and calamity, is unparalleled in the annals of Ireland, and which resulted in diminish- ing the population during the course of little more than six years to such an extent that in 1851 it was actually less than 1821—thirty years previously."

said, he bad listened with the greatest attention to this discussion, and if he had not risen till the close of it it was that he wished to hear all that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had to say on the subject. While he stated as plainly as he could his own views, he should also state them as briefly as possible, leaving more lengthened observations until time and attention had made him more familiar with the subject. He certainly did feel a sentiment of surprise at hearing the hon. Gentleman who introduced the discussion say that the Queen's Colleges had proved a failure; because, when they considered the circumstances under which these colleges were founded, the unparalleled difficulties with which Ireland had had to contend the very year after the Act for founding them passed; when they remembered that these colleges were situated, not in the metropolis of Ireland, but were intended for the education of the provincial towns; that they had affiliated with them no schools for preparation of the pupils; and that they were without any of those endowments or that connection with the Church which the older institutions possessed —he thought they would be of opinion that the result which they had attained to might not, indeed, be an example of complete success, but was an encouragement and a reason for hope. That was the opinion of the Commissioners in their Report. He could not understand some of the statistics of the hon. Gentleman as he had made use of them, but the authentic statistics before him gave them reason for anything but discouragement and despair. The attendance of pupils last year amounted in the three colleges to 493, the largest number in any one year. The attendance of such a number to obtain an education such as was given them in these colleges was an immense advantage to a country situated as Ireland was. Moreover, it appeared that the pupils had been drawn pretty equally from the various religious bodies into which the population was divided. It appeared that of the number of pupils who had matriculated, there were, Roman Catholics, 445; of the Established Church, 426; and of the Presbyterian Church, 343. That surely gave great cause for encouragement, for the cause not only of advanced, but of mixed education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that it ought to be borne in mind how great was the number of scholarships, and argued that those students ought to be excluded who did not contribute to their own support. It was right to explain what the scholarships were. They were not of the permanent character which was generally involved in the term, but were like exhibitions in the English Universities, affording means of assistance to their holders to bear the expenses of their college life. The numbers quoted by the hon. Gentleman did not give an accurate notion of the number of scholarships, which were not held for the whole time the pupils were in college, but were competed for every year. They were forty-eight in number for the three colleges in the entering year, and they must be compared with the whole number of pupils for each year, which last year amounted to between 190 and 200; so that it would be fairer to say that there were four pupils to one exhibition than one scholarship to each pupil. In his entering year it was a great object with a pupil to obtain an exhibition to assist in his maintenance at college, and for the retention of which he must be examined in each succeeding year, or consent to lose it. The scholarships were small in point of value, and only aided in the maintenance of the pupil for a single year of his college life. But what had been the result of the education afforded? He believed that one cause of the diminution of the number of pupils in years subsequent to that of entering, that so great were the advantages derived from the education there, and such the class of life of those who had availed themselves of it, that they were desirous at the earliest period of passing out into the world to obtain that livelihood for themselves, which the education they had received enabled them to do. The Indian competition afforded a good test of the education received. He had before him a list of a large competition for the Indian civil services, and of seventy-three successful candidates returned the Queen's Colleges claimed six, being more than those returned for the University of London or for all Scotland. Considering the great endowments of Oxford and Cambridge, the number was such as to bear no mean comparison with those Universities. Was not this creditable to the Irish people, and did it show that these colleges were a failure? And was it not rather a subject of congratulation and hope that at so early a period of their institution so gratifying a result had been attained? The hon. Gentleman said that every graduate of these colleges cost the country £1,500, though that sum had been reduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick to £1,000. But what had the number of graduates to do with the number of pupils who received education in the colleges? If to obtain a degree was the object for which a pupil entered he could account for the comparison, but if they entered only for purposes of education he denied its fairness; and if few only attained degrees, it still showed that the value of the education was so great that many persons availed themselves of it without that object. A comparison with the number of degrees granted by the University of Edinburgh, which he did not think would be called a failure, would show that, looking to the number of pupils as compared with the number of degrees conferred, the comparison was in favour of the Queen's Colleges. He hoped that in future years these colleges would more largely extend the advantages of academical education, yet considering that there had graduated in them in the first seven years of their existence as many persons as had graduated in the University of London during the same time, it would not be just to assert that this system of education could properly be designated a failure. He would next turn to the other and larger question which had been under discussion—the national system of education in Ireland. Had that been a failure? His right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire said that every one admitted it had been a failure. To establish the assertion that a system had been a failure you must compare it with something. Reference had been made to the large sum which the Committee was in a few minutes about to vote for education in England. Comparing the system of education in England with that of Ireland, and considering the physical and moral difficulties which the latter had to encounter, it could not be said that the latter had been a failure? If they compared the present system of education in Ireland before the Earl of Derby wrote his celebrated letter, or with the system which prevailed before 1830, when Parliament refused a vote of money for its support on the ground that it was a failure, they would find that instead of being scarcely any schools or scholars at all there were at present 500 or 600 schools, and 500,000 or 600,000 pupils? They were told that the number of Protestants in the schools was insignificant, and that nothing that could be done would cause them to increase. But they had at least witnessed one thing with satisfaction. It was for the benefit of the Roman Catholic population that this bounty of Parliament was chiefly sought, and when they referred to the number of schools which existed in the county of Cork and saw how large a number of the pupils were Roman Catholics, did they think that the Earl of Derby in 1831, when the letter was written, ever expected that in thirty years there would have been between 400 and 500 national schools in the county of Cork. Such a result was far beyond anything he could have anticipated as the result of the system. The number of Protestants in the schools did not diminish, but on the contrary had largely increased, the number having risen since 1853 from 65,000 to 88,000. Had this system of education then produced no practical results? Was not the temper of the very discussion in which he was taking a part a most striking evidence of the beneficial results which had flowed from uniting the people of Ireland under one system of education provided by the State. He had before him a statement of a large number of facts which would show that the system, as a system of mixed education, had not failed so entirely as many hon. Gentlemen in the course of that discussion had asserted. But he did not hold that the only principle of national education should be that of mixed education, but he held that the main principle was that which had been laid down by the Commission on this subject of 1812, composed of some of the most eminent men in Ireland, including the Primate and Bishops of the Established Church. That body knowing the deplorable condition of the country, owing to the want of a system of education, asserted "that no plan of education, however wise in other respects, could be carried into execution unless it was understood that its first principle was, that no attempt should be made to disturb or interfere with the religious tenets of any sect." That was the principle on which it was founded, and in that sense the system of national education could not be said to be a failure. It might not be considered as absolutely successful as a system of mixed education. He did not say that it was. But they found that it was spread over the country, and that there was no great discrepancy as regarded the number of pu- pils in the four provinces. Where the proportion of intermixture in the population was large the mixed schools were many, and where the mixed schools were few it was in places where the population was composed of persons for the most part of one denomination or belief. There was a remarkable proportion among the Roman Catholic pupils, and those of the Established Church and the Presbyterian Church. Then, if they looked at the result of the model schools—what had been the result of the system practically and numerically? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said that they had excellent books, loyal schools, admirable instruction, and fair inspection. If that was the case with between 500 and 600 schools was it possible to say that the system was a failure? It might be possible to raise it in the estimation of that House, and in the affection of the Irish people, but looking at it as it stood, it was impossible to say that it was a failure. Then he was told that religious education was excluded, but into that question he did not propose to enter; for having so recently acceded to his present office, he thought it would be better if he carefully examined into that question on the spot. Therefore he would pass lightly over that, which after all was the most critical part of the question. But he might say that if you had an excellent system of secular education, you greatly facilitated the progress in Ireland of sound religious teaching. It was impossible to have excellent books, loyal schools, admirable instruction, and fair inspection without preparing the ground for sowing that seed, the fruit of which he must acknowledge was alone of real importance. He believed that different shades of feeling would day by day and year by year come over the opinions of those who had to deal with this subject. He held in his hand a short address to his parishioners by one who was once a fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. This gentleman stated that he was once an opponent of the National system, but he was not so now; that he was going to have under his care five schools, of which two should be under the system of the Church Education Society, and three under the National school system, but he would maintain in them the principles he had always held, which were quite compatible with an adherence to the system of the National Board. In his opinion, then, the practical result of the system had been invaluable to Ireland. He was talking last night to one of the most distinguished of those persons who had taken a part in the system, who knew Ireland well, and he went over with him all the causes which in the last three or four years had produced so much improvement in Ireland both as respected social change and national prosperity. It was not possible to eliminate from other causes the education which, by the wisdom of Parliament, had spread over Ireland; but when he appealed to this gentleman he said that the education afforded to the people of Ire-land demanded the highest place amongst those causes. If that was the case let it not be said that the system was a failure. He felt bound to acknowledge the kind manner in which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had appealed to him. They both stated that the late Government had in contemplation a scheme which 'would cause the system of national education to approach nearer to the Protestant view of the question in Ireland without breaking down the principle on which it was founded, and they appealed to him to give the subject a fair and dispassionate consideration. During the short time which he had as yet been able to spend in Ireland since he had entered on his present office he had made inquiry of the heads of the education department, and endeavoured to obtain some knowledge on the subject. He mentioned this to show that he had every disposition to give the matter a fair consideration. But he felt bound to speak with great caution with regard to any change in a system which had been founded by the Earl of Derby and favoured by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who said that having gone to Ireland with a strong prejudice against the system, he had come back with a strong feeling in its favour. His noble Friend had called on him to deal with a question of so much delicacy that although it had been considered by the late Government, yet no decision had been arrived at with regard to it by the Cabinet. It would be presumption in him now to say one word which would imply more than a sincere desire to give the fullest, fairest, and completest consideration to any proposal, from whatever quarter it came, which was likely to increase the efficiency of the system of national education in Ireland. But he would not allow himself to convey to the Committee any impression that the Government was indifferent as to the principles that were to govern the system of national education in Ireland. His right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) proposed to abolish the National Board altogether, and place its schools wider the Privy Council. His right hon. Friend was far more sanguine than he was, if he saw his way to an identity of system between the two countries. He had, as far as he could, given his attention to a subject interesting to Ireland, and he rejoiced to be able to hold sanguine views of the future results of a system of education which had done much honour to the Earl of Derby as its founder, and which Sir Robert Peel and the Right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had taken a part in promoting. He would endeavour to receive all suggestions made to him in a spirit of candour and conciliation towards all sides, and, as far as he could, increase the efficiency of the National Board while retaining a principle the adherence to which he believed had conferred most important benefits on the country.

in the Chair.

said, that the total amount of the Estimate for educational purposes in Great Britain amounted to £836,920. The total amount for the Science and Art Department was £93,394, making together a gross sum of more than £930,000. He would first address himself to the sum required for England. It was instructive and interesting to watch the increase of this Vote. The first expenditure for education, under the minutes of the Privy Council, in 1840, was £10,642 8d., and it had gradually advanced, year by year, until in 1849 the Parliamentary grant was £109,948. In 1852 it amounted to £188,000. In 1853 it rose to £250,000. In 1854 it rose to £326,000. In 1855 it rose to £369,000. In 1856 it rose to £423,000. In 1857 it rose to £559,000. In 1858 it rose to £668,000. It seemed therefore that a steady progress had been established up to the Estimate of last year at something like the rate of £100,000 increase per annum. The Estimate this year appeared larger, but from the£836,000 there should in fairness be deducted £75,765, made up of deficiencies of former years. In the year terminating the 31st of March, 1857, there was a difference between the Estimate and the actual expenditure of £18,503; in 1858, of £12,409; in 1859, of £44,652—which three sums made up the £75,765. The Committee might consider that it reflected some discredit on the Department; but these Estimates differed materially from those in any other department of Government. They were not so properly estimates as conjectures. The Department offered the public money to the whole kingdom for the purposes of education on specified conditions, and any person who complied with the conditions was entitled to receive a certain sum. It was necessarily not in the power of the Department to calculate the amount with minuteness, because the sum did not depend on the Department, but on the will of the public to avail themselves of the Vote. Deducting the £75,000 from the Estimate, the result was an excess this year over last of £97,909, which seemed somewhere about the general rate at which the grant had been increasing. The cause of the increase of the grant required no minute analysis. It arose mainly from the fact that the system spread wider and wider, that a great demand for education was created, and the public were availing themselves of the facilities placed at their disposal by the Government. The items seemed to increase in steady proportions, except the grant for buildings, which, perhaps, owing to the amount of buildings already executed, was only as much as last year. Having made this little financial statement, if he had followed the bent of his own inclination he should have sat down; but he was informed that it was expected of the Gentleman who occupied the place which he had the honour to fill to say something on education, and however unwilling he might be to trouble the Committee, as it was expected of him, he thought it only respectful to say a few words upon the subject. The Committee was aware that a Commission under the presidency of the Duke of Newcastle was sitting to investigate the question of public education in this country. While that Commission was sitting it would be improper of him to trouble the Committee with any general speculations as to what the best form of public education might be. He thought it much wiser and better to wait until they saw what the Commission recommended; but he might be of some little service to the Committee, to the pub- lic, and to the Commission, if, availing himself of communications which he had received from the very intelligent gentleman who directed this office, he placed he-fore the Committee the best appreciation he could form of the good and had points, and of the prospects of the system, so as to enable them to form a judgment how far it was suited to the wants of the country. Every candid and impartial person would find that that system could be shown to possess many and great advantages. In the first place, it was evident that it had arisen entirely from the existing state of things, without disturbing existing feelings, that it had sprung up by availing itself of the machinery already in existence of the great voluntary institutions which occupied the spiritual domain of this kingdom; and that it involved as little centralization as possible, because the plan had uniformly been to assist voluntary efforts, and not to put the Government forward to direct or originate any movement of the kind. It offended no honest prejudices, but left every sect free to teach its religion as it understood it, and merely gave the assistance of the Government in that good work. It had, therefore, done as much good with as little ill feeling as the state of English society could enable any system to do. It had given no ordinary proof of strength by showing that it had been capable of increase. There was no better test of a sound constitution, whether in a man, a tree, or a system, than a capability of growing to a maturity without altering their nature—remaining as in the beginning, and expanding gradually and symmetrically. It was impossible to deny that it had also the merit of a tangible result in the number of schools which it had raised. He thought he might fairly say raised, because, although private contributions to the public grants were in the ratio of three to two, there could be no doubt that the existence of a fund at the disposal of the Government for the assistance of private charity, benevolence, and piety, had called forth an amount of liberality which without that stimulus would not have been evoked. The system, therefore, could not be looked upon merely as an expenditure of Government money, but as a stimulus to liberality which had produced great results. There was another merit which he placed still higher. At the time it was established, popular education was in a most imperfect state; but if the present system were put an end to to-morrow, it would be found that whatever system superseded, it must at least come up to the high standard of popular education it had created to satisfy the notions which had in consequence taken hold of the public mind. It bad another merit. It had not only established popular education in this country, but it had created for itself an agency by which that popular education could be carried out. By the machinery of pupil teachers—pupils retained in schools for teaching whom the schoolmasters were remunerated—it had raised a large and intelligent body of instructors, the possession of whom was a valuable benefit to any country wishing to disseminate widely the blessings of civilization. It had stimulated, too, the energies of the private teachers, because it had given to them an augmentation of their minimum allowance of £30 a year proportionate to their merits as tested by an examination. An inducement was thus held out to those teachers, without interfering unduly with them, not to remain satisfied with the knowledge which they had acquired, but to devote themselves to the acquisition of still further accomplishments in the line of their profession. It had also by the instruction of pupil teachers, who were not merely adapted to the purposes of teaching, but who went forth into the world, the sons of poor parents, with a great deal of useful information, contributed something to the cause as well of secondary as of primary education. The centralisation of the system had, moreover, conferred great benefits in matters of small consequence, but which were productive of great results. It was the practice of the Privy Council to receive orders from the various schools throughout the country for all the books which they required, and those books were, by an arrangement entered into with the booksellers, obtained at a discount of 40 per cent below the publishing price, and a facility of procuring good books was thus secured. The present system had also, by stimulating the demand for education, and by causing the expenditure of the public money, very much raised the remuneration of teachers, and by that means had accomplished that which all friends of education deemed desirable—namely, the giving them a hotter status in society, and thus making their profession one in which young men might feel a pride in being engaged. The system had, besides, owing to the process of constant inspection, kept up the standard which had once been established in the schools, and had afforded the central office in London the means of seeing through the eyes of its agents that which was taking place in reference to education all over the country, so that the teachers in the different schools became possessed of the feeling that they must not rest on their oars, and that they were responsible to a Power which extended over them a vigilant and watchful care. Those which he had enumerated seemed to him to be the chief advantages which the system had conferred; and no candid mind, whatever might be its opinion of the soundness of the principle on which the system was based, could, he thought, deny that those advantages were of no ordinary character, and that whether the system became permanent, or an experiment which having been tried, had done some good in its day, but which was destined to give place to a more perfect system; there was no reason to repent that such a course had been entered upon as that the results of which he had just described. The total cost of the system had been about £3,700,000, and the Committee would, he thought, taking all things into consideration, be of opinion that that amount had not been ill spent. He should next advert to those defects which he felt bound to state, appeared to him to constitute the drawbacks of the system. Those drawbacks, he thought it but simple justice to his predecessors in office to say, were, in his opinion, to be attributed rather to the defective nature of the principle on which the system was founded than to any mal-administration of its details. The first objection to the system, and it was an obvious one, was that, being founded on the voluntary principle, it must be presupposed, before it could be brought into universal action, that persons in a position to contribute to the formation of schools and willing to undertake their management, would present themselves in every part of the land. The consequence of acting upon such a principle was, that it was found such persons were not forthcoming in those districts which stood most in need of schools, and vice versa. The objection to which he alluded was, however, one which, in his opinion, could not be remedied except by effecting in the system a fundamental alteration, inasmuch as it was the result of that voluntary principle upon which the schools in question were founded. Another evil was the necessity of laying down a number of strict rules and rigidly adhering to them to prevent the Council from being devoured. No doubt several hard cases presented themselves in which no aid could be afforded, but if in reference to them the Council were to adopt an equitable construction of their rules, everything would become an exception, and bulwark after bulwark would be swept away until every demand made by respectable persons must be as a matter of necessity conceded. The next evil of the system to which he should advert was that which might be described by the phrase, which had become in some degree stereotyped, of "denominational" differences. When the system had been founded the trust deeds of the schools had been framed in a loose and imperfect way, but when the Government of the country had announced it to be their intention to assist the voluntary efforts of certain denominations the result had been that those documents had been drawn up with greater care, and that a perfect manual had been produced in which the different sects of Christians had been marked out in a distinct manner. Now, in his opinion, it was much to be regretted that the money of the public should be spent on schools founded on that exclusive principle. The remarks which had a few days before been made by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast with respect to another subject might well be applied to that, and were, he thought, deserving of the consideration of the Committee. They raised the question whether the public was not justified in saying that before a grant was made to the schools of any denomination they should require the introduction of some sort of "conscience clause" into the trust deed, so that children might not be compelled to learn the formularies of the sect to which the school belonged if its parents objected. That was in effect already done in many instances. There were clergymen of the Church of England who were better than their bond, and were willing to open their schools; but others, he was bound to say, seemed to use the formularies of their Church in such a manner as to drive away from the schools those who did not consent to receive such religious instruction as they deemed it right to give. There was also another evil connected with the system, which he wished to point out to the Committee. He alluded to the terms which had from time to time been made by different denominational sects with the Privy Council, and which were to the effect that the Inspectors should belong to the same denomination as the schools which they were appointed to inspect. Now, when it was borne in mind that there were some seven or eight different denominations whoso schools were placed under the operation of the system, and that each claimed to have its schools inspected by an inspector holding its own particular tenets, it was obvious that great complexities must arise, as well as a considerably increased amount of labour and expense. Indeed, he believed he was justified in saying that out of the fifty-nine Inspectors who now acted under the Committee of the Privy Council for Education, the services of one-third at least might be dispensed with, were it not for the rule to which he had just adverted. Another evil of the system was that it occasioned great complexity in connection with the accounts, which it was necessary to keep at the central office. There were, for instance, at the present moment 15,000 pupil teachers in the receipt of a different rate of salary in different schools, whose positions and characters it was requisite should be known at the office. Charges which might be made against any of them must be inquired into, and an amount of correspondence was thus occasioned which reached a very considerable extent. There were besides nearly 6,000 schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in the receipt of augmented grants on different scales, which had to be renewed at different periods, and in their case also a large amount of correspondence took place. There were in addition fifty-nine inspectors of different religions, who had to be despatched upon their peregrinations in such order as that each might inspect the schools which belonged to his own denomination without interfering with the duties of his colleagues. There were, moreover, building grants, in reference to which the question whether the money for the purpose could he raised or not, often remained in suspense for a period of eighteen or nineteen months. Then came training schools, into which a certain number of the pupil teachers were admitted as Queen's scholars by competition, where the}' were maintained, and where exhibitions were conferred upon them. There were also payments made to those schools, which were regulated by the number of scholars who happened to pass an examination at the end of the first year, the result being that at Christmas in each year the Committee of the Privy Council had to conduct the correspondence relating to the examination of not less than 6,000 persons. Another difficulty connected with the system arose out of the practice of granting public money to the managers of schools, who, not being a corporation, were an uncertain and fluctuating body, so that when they disappeared the Committee of Council for Education did not know with whom to deal, or who were the persons who represented particular schools. The defects which he had mentioned struck him as being serious drawbacks upon the present system, and he trusted he had referred to them as well as to the advantages which had resulted from it in a spirit of fairness and with no view to prejudice the minds of hon. Members upon the subject. His object in entering into the details which he had laid before the Committee was that they might be the better enabled to form a judgment as to whether the system possessed in itself the elements of perpetuity, or whether having performed its allotted task it should pave the way for something more perfect. Perhaps he might be allowed to add a few words on the probable ultimate cost of public education. We had at the present moment under instruction in England about 821,000 children, and for their education there was an estimate of £761,000, deducting the amount which represented the deficiency of former years; thus furnishing something like £1 per head for the education of each child, or, to speak more accurately, providing education for thirteen children for a sum of £12. Now there were about 3,000,000 of children who, if the system were fully developed, ought to be brought under the action of public education. It was not, however, likely that that object could be exactly attained, while it was obvious that before it could be secured the number of children requiring instruction would have increased in proportion to the increase in our population. He wished, at all events, to call the attention of the House to the fact that, in order to provide for the education of 3,000,000 children, an army of 200 inspectors, 18,000 schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and 45,000 pupil teachers would be required, while it would be necessary that there should be a proportionate expense incurred for other purposes. Now, it was an important question whether any Department of the Government should be placed at the head of an organization such as that he had described. It was, no doubt, a difficult matter to calculate with accuracy what the expense of making it would be, inasmuch as that expense would not be increased exactly in proportion to the increase in the number of pupils. There was, for instance, no less a sum than £150,000, which was the present estimate for building fresh schools, and which was an item which would not go on increasing year after year. Still, supposing things to proceed at the present rate, the total expenditure for educational purposes would, in a few years, amount to £2,500,000 per annum. Now that was a very grave consideration which he had not sought at all to conceal from the Committee. While, on the one hand, all must rejoice that so much money was being spent for so good a purpose, yet, on the other hand, they must recollect that the expenditure was increasing, and consequently additional demands were being made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would only add a few words as to schools of science, in respect to which the result of past years was most gratifying. He found from a return from the institutions of science, including schools of navigation, that the attendance upon scientific lectures was 68,212; and in the art schools, where drawing was taught, the total attendance was 79,473, being an increase of 83 per cent over 1857. Another gratifying feature connected with these drawing schools was, that they were gradually emancipating themselves from Government aid, and one by one were becoming self-supporting. Of course, in schools of that description a higher stratum of society was reached, and therefore more assistance was obtainable in carrying out the objects of education. In primary education the cost was, as he had shown, not quite £1 per head, whereas the pupils in art schools only cost 10s. 1¼. per head, including all the expenses of the Department. He thought, therefore, that Department was in a very gratifying position. He thanked the Committee for the attention which it had given to his statement, and in conclusion he could only express a hope that they might be enabled by union, precaution, judgment, liberality, and mutual concession, to arrive eventually at some solution of the question which, while it left inviolate the feelings of professors of different creeds, would really give to the people of England a thoroughly good education in the branches of knowledge befitting their stations in life, and that the giving of that knowledge should not be attended by unreasonable expenditure or the, imposition of additional burdens upon the revenue of the country.

said, he rose to make a few remarks upon the important and interesting statement that had just been made. In following the right hon. Gentleman who had so ably addressed the Committee, he (Mr. Baines) claimed their indulgence as one who had during the whole of his life entertained a conscientious sense of the importance of the question of education. He had the deepest sense of the value of education, he had advanced it by all the means in his power, and he rejoiced to find the feelings of the House and of society in general very different on this subject to what they were in the days of his youth when discussions used to take place whether it was desirable that education should be universal. He must, however, take leave to express his alarm at the rapid progress which these educational Votes were making. In order to justify his apprehension upon that head, he would remind the Committee of the words used by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a year or two ago, when the right hon. Gentleman said he viewed with great jealousy the continual increase in the Educational Votes, as the officers of that Department seemed to think that the expenditure of public money was a necessary duty on their part. The Rev. Frederick Temple, the head master of Rugby School, and late Chief Inspector of Schools, also said that probably two-thirds of the money expended in the capitation grants had been applied in aid of schools which would have done quite as well without such assistance, that in short they had not been spent in promoting education, but in relieving others from the burden of so doing. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had candidly admitted the amazing rapidity with which these grants were increasing, and that in a very few years they might amount to £2,500,000, if not £3,000,000. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year led the House to believe that these grants would amount in the course of a few years to £3,000,000. He had, therefore, the highest authority for saying that these grants deserved the most serious consideration of the House. The grants began in 1832 with a sum of £20,000. That amount crept up to £100,000 in 1847. In 1853 the amount reached £260,000; in 1856–7 it was £451,000; while in 1859– 60 the amount sought for was no less than £836,000, being an increase of no less than 26 per cent upon the previous year. In dealing with this question, however, he could not avoid calling special attention to the capitation grants. Those grants began in 1854 by a stroke of the pen in Downing-street, and were made applicable to all the small towns and rural districts, without the House being afforded the least explanation or justification. Two years afterwards, by another stroke of the pen, and the introduction of a single line into an estimate, but also without discussion, those grants were extended from the poorer and rural districts of England to the whole country. The consequence was that the largest amount of capitation grants was paid to schools in large towns where the least assistance was required. In the town which he represented—Leeds—there was a factory school belonging to one of the wealthiest and most liberal manufacturing firms in this country (Messrs. Marshall and Co.) which received a large amount of Government aid, which, although not sought for by the generous founders of the school, was still an application of public money for the economy of private funds. Take another case, the school attached to St. George's church in the same town. The congregation of that church was large, wealthy, and pious, able to support the school with profusion, and yet, because the public money was offered to them they took it, and thus, without any ground or necessity, the public funds were devoted to the maintenance of that school. This was a most wanton and unwarrantable waste of the public money. It was expending the money of the country on those who needed it not, while the expenditure was mounting up to a sum that frightened Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides of the House. A third step was about to be taken this year, to extend the system from England and Wales to Scotland, notwithstanding that the schools in that country were supported by wealthy communities, who had shown a power of raising money for religious purposes that might make us proud of the country in which we lived. The fourth step which the right hon. Gentleman was about to take was to make a capitation grant in behalf of night schools. Pupils who attended fifty times in the whole year, or one night in a week, were to receive a capitation grant, and they were thus about to expend the public money upon young persons, all of whom were in the receipt of wages, who were able to pay for their education in these evening schools, and who would be positively benefited by being called upon to devote a part of their earnings to this purpose. Another evil was that they were causing the public purse to enter into competition with private efforts, and with the exertions of men who depended upon their skill and knowledge for their support. Such a grant would also injure the Mechanics' Institutes, the main object of which, in the view of Dr. Birkbeck, Lord Brougham, and their other founders, was to convey instruction in evening classes. Such a capitation grant would take away the pupils from the Mechanics' Institutes, and would injure the popular character of those institutions. He had the pleasure of meeting the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), at an assembly of the Yorkshire Union of Mechanics' Institutes. Their Union comprised 138 Mechanics' Institutes, having in the aggregate 25,000 members, and containing 8,000 or 9,000 members in attendance upon evening classes. The Government were about to set up a competition with those popular and voluntary institutions, and to damage associations that were doing the utmost possible good to the country. He wished also to draw attention to the amazing increase in the cost of the schools for the training of teachers. The vote under that head amounted last year to £67,700, and this year it had been increased to £122,000. They were, consequently, now spending the public money at the rate of £26 for every pupil teacher who came to the training colleges for instruction. He should not begrudge that outlay if it were really necessary, but in truth there was no necessity in the matter. These young men, or their friends, used to pay for this instruction, and very properly so, before the system of grants commenced. The British and Foreign School Society had recently in one year received £4,700 for the instruction of teachers from the Government, and only an aggregate of £26 from the teachers themselves. For twenty, thirty, nay forty years before this system of profuse grants began, that school in the Borough-road was devoted to the instruction of teachers. The Sovereign, the Duke of Bedford, Lord Brougham, and many other distinguished personages, used to subscribe to the school, which now dispensed with voluntary contributions for the instruction of teachers, the whole amount being defrayed from the public purse. This was a most unnecessary, and to his mind a profligate waste of the public money. Why was the state to defray the expense of educating the schoolmaster? Let the Committee consider the principle involved. It did not undertake the education of any other class—of lawyers, medical men, authors, editors, or farmers. They singled out the schoolmaster, and although he knew that a distinction might be made in favour of this exception, yet he ventured to express his opinion that there was no safe, solid, and right ground of distinction between the schoolmaster and other classes, and that there was no call upon the country to educate the schoolmaster. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proof of a system being good was in the growth that attended it. Well, were the results as evinced in the growth of the present as compared with the former system such as justified the expenditure? The number of children now attending the schools receiving aid from the State was 821,000. There was no proof that a single one was a new scholar. What then was the probability? What had been the advance before the present system began, and what had it been since? He found in the Census Report of Mr. Horace Mann that from the year 1818 to 1833 the number of day scholars in England and Wales had increased from 674,000 to 1,276,000. Thus, in fifteen years the increase had been eighty-nine per cent. During the whole of this time not one sixpence of the public money had been granted either in aid of building or instruction in England and Wales. The increase from 1833 to 1851 was from 1,276,000 to 2,144,000—an increase of sixty-eight per cent. During nearly the whole of the latter period also, there had been no grants of public money, except in aid of building schools, as the contributions of the State for the annual expenses did not begin until 1847. He would now ask whether there was any evidence to make it probable that the increase was so great since these grants as before? He would state the only facts and figures of which he was aware bearing on the subject. The National School Society, published a report of the number of children under instruction in 1847, and another in 1857. In the former of these volumes they compared the number in 1837 with that in 1847, so that here were two periods of ten years which might be compared. The National Society was well known, and he, a dissenter, admitted most cheerfully the good it had done. He did not approach this subject with the slightest sectarian spirit. [A laugh.] He was sure that the hon. Gentleman who laughed did not understand him. He was certain that the insinuation thus conveyed was not true. He was ready to approve all systems of education which did not infringe on the rights of conscience. He had never, in all his life, expressed any jealousy of the growth of Church schools, but when, as a Dissenter, he saw himself excluded from benefits which the Church reaped so largely, he felt justified in complaining of hardship and grievance, but he did not do so because he grudged the benefits which the Church realized. He would state a few facts founded on the reports of the National Society in 1837, 1847, and 1857. The number of their day scholars in 1837 was 558,000, in 1847 the number increased to 955,000, being an increase of sixty-two per cent., and by the report published a week or two ago, the number appeared to be 1,187,000, being an increase of no more than twenty-four per cent. In the former period of ten years the increase was sixty-two per cent.; and during that time they had not received one shilling of the public money for the annual expenses of the schools, but only for school buildings; and in the last period of ten years, during which they had received millions of the public money, the increase was only twenty-four per cent. He would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider whether these facts were not important, and whether the end which they had sincerely and honestly in view was realized by this system. He believed that the increase in the number of day-scholars was actually less since the system of grants began than it was before. In a report of the Inspector of Schools in his own district in the county of York, an excellent man, the Rev. Frederick Watkins, it was stated that nearly nine4enths of the children of the working classes only attended school for about three years; and doubts were expressed whether the educational system had hitherto been suited to the wants and circumstances of the people, whether it had not attempted to reach too high an intellectual point, and whether it was suited for persons who had to obtain their livelihood by daily work. He thought, however, that there was a fallacy in the statement that the children only attended school for three years. They might not remain at the same school for a longer period, but those who knew the habits of the poor were aware that they were continually moving about, and consequently the children went from one school to another. In 1851 Mr. Horace Mann distinctly stated that the number of children then at school gave an average of five years' education to every child in England and Wales. Now, as every child was not in the course of receiving education, the average attendance of those children who went to school must have been higher than five years. He trusted that the Committee would think him justified in complaining that public money should be expended on schools, while a considerable portion of the community were excluded from participating in the grants, on account of the conscientious views they entertained. No doubt some Dissenting sects had no objection to receive the grants. The Wesleyan Methodists, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Roman Catholics were in this category; but on the other hand, the Independents, the Baptists, who possessed from 5,000 to 6,000 places of worship between them, nearly the whole of the minor sects of Dissenters, and the United Presbyterians of Scotland, refused to do so. There was another important body, who did not conscientiously approve the principle on which the Committee of Council acted, but who took the money, because they thought it was better than nothing; he alluded to those who were in favonr of secular education. He did not belong to that class, for his belief was that religion was a most important element in education, and he was, therefore, decidedly in favour of religious education. But he said that the system now prevailing was one which, in the homely language of a friend of the secular system of education, made everybody pay to teach everybody else's religion. Was it not a very serious hardship to compel people who could not conscientiously receive public money in aid of their religious teaching, and also others who were in favour of secular education alone, to pay for a distinct teaching of religion in which they did not agree? He was friendly to every measure for conferring all civil rights on the Roman Catholics, and on every class of the community, but he could not, with his views, make himself willingly instrumental in teaching that which he solemnly believed to be error. Any other principle must proceed to the length of the universal endowment of all religions, and to that they would come if they followed out the principle on which these schools were endowed. He apologized for occupying the attention of the Committee so long, but he hoped the Committee would believe that the views he had expressed he entertained sincerely, and that he was anxious for the spread of education. He verily believed, however, that they would find it best to leave education, like industry, to a system of perfect freedom. Let the hands of Government be taken off, and religion, literature, education, and everything else, would prosper more surely when left to the self-relying energies of the people, and to a more healthy and honest system. In conclusion he would entreat the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to the subject of the capitation grants, and would express a hope that he would next year be prepared to inform the House whether he was disposed to support that system.

said, that every attempt at national education in this country had invariably turned out to be denominational, and indeed that system was the only one which, according to experience, could be effectually carried out in Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, and to whose opinion on this subject the highest respect was due, seemed inclined to trust entirely to the voluntary system with respect to education. The hon. Gentleman complained of the great expense which was incurred in grants for educational purposes, and to that extent he could not but sympathize with him for he (Mr. Adderley) thought that the gradual increase in the amount of this Vote deserved serious and careful consideration; but when the hon. Gentleman contended that the voluntary principle might be relied upon for the education of the country, he must surely be oblivious of the state of education before the present system was commenced. If in this country there were more men like the hon. Gentleman, who, possessing wealth, were disposed to apply it to the promotion of the important object of educating the poorer classes, there would be the less necessity for appeals to the Treasury in aid of what might be much more satisfactorily accomplished by voluntary action. The hon. Gentleman would see, however, if he looked back for twenty or twenty-five years, that much had been done under the present system, and that the state of things was very different from what it was before the present system commenced. This improvement could only be attributed to the mode in which it had tended to stimulate voluntary exertions, which before, had proved insufficient alone. It appeared that the increase in this Vote amounted to nearly £100,000 a year. A good part of the present increase of estimate had been fairly stated to be a balance of arrears. He thought, with reference to the able argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), that it depended almost entirely on the policy upon which the present system was administered whether that particular system could be regarded as permanent or temporary. If the policy of administration was sound, and the increase of expenditure was properly controlled, the system might be permanent, but if the administration was carelessly conducted upon unsound principles, it must soon come to a conclusion. Now what was the sound principle? It was that which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and was very much the principle which actuated the mind of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines); namely, that this system of Government interference in education was an anomaly throughout from beginning to end, and could not be based upon any regular commercial principle, or upon any principle that dictated the expenditure of the nation upon any other subject whatever. The business of the Government was to do as little as it could with reference to what was really the duty of the people themselves. The education of children was naturally a parental function, and was not the proper duty of the Government, which only interfered where its interposition was absolutely necessary, and after voluntary action was stimulated and in constant proportion as it became self-acting, the Government's aid should be at the earliest possible period withdrawn. The duty of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was therefore to watch carefully the public expenditure for education, and to reduce every unnecessary grant of public money the instant it was found that the object could be attained in some other way. It might be very well for autocratic Governments to put themselves in the place of parents with reference to education, but that was not consistent with the spirit which animated the Government or the people of this country. The true spirit of this country was represented by the principle which had been advocated by the hon. Member for Leeds. The voluntary action of the people themselves was that which must be looked to in the question of education. In America, that voluntary action took the form of general taxation for the education of the whole nation which voted it. In England, the nation educates itself by private means, and resorts to taxation only in aid of the poor. There was certainly a very poor class of parents who could not wholly or sufficiently fulfil their natural duty in this respect, and in such cases it was the duty of the Government to supply the absence either of will or power to discharge the obligation. He thought, however, that in the first instance they should look to the rich inhabitants of each locality and the employers of labour for this bonus to the poor. They were the natural patrons and guardians of the poor, and it was not until the parents had failed in will or ability, and their rich neighbours and employers had failed in will or ability, that it became absolutely necessary for the Government to step in rather than let any children remain without education altogether; but even then, when public aid was obliged to supplement the incapacity of the parents and the negligence of patrons, the true principle was not to go to the Treasury but to local funds of public money—that is to rates. Then what did they come to? They had then to encounter the religious difficulty which had proved insurmountable in this country with regard to local rates for the purposes of education. The only mode of avoiding this difficulty was by coming to the Government far away from and above all local jealousies to arrange impartially among all religious bodies the distribution of aid necessary to supplement the want of means in various districts. The advantages and disadvantages of this system had been most ably stated by the right hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, however, had somewhat exaggerated its difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they were now dealing under this system with some 800,000 children, while there were in the country about 3,000,000 of children of an age for education. It must be remembered, however, that many of this number were the children of persons who were in such a position in society that no recourse to public aid was necessary for their education. Till you come down to quite the lower classes of society you do not begin to count in England the subjects for public aid in education. By stimulating voluntary action the public expenditure for educating those dependant on it might still further be economized, because the object was to induce local bodies more and more to come forward and bear the chief portion of the increased outlay on education. But while the right hon. Gentleman had exaggerated the prospect of increased expenditure, no doubt the present Vote was very large, and the House must look to him to carry out the principles he had laid clown that night. The Government must not listen to the demands of everybody, but should yield only where necessity compelled them to aid a deficiency of means on a given spot. He hoped he had done so, and had economized the rate of expenditure on several heads. The capitation grant was one of the most anomalous parts of an anomalous system. An opinion of Dr. Temple had been quoted as if it applied to the whole system of expenditure on national education. Dr. Temple, however, was in favour of giving subsidies to educational expenditure generally equal to the sums voluntarily raised, and his objections in the passage in question were confined to the capitation grants, because those grants were, in fact, the first departure that was made from the principle of a subsidy. They were mere doles from the public purse, given on no principle except that of a certain rate of attendance at the schools. They were wholly unappropriated and merely replaced in subscribers' pockets that amount which had already been forthcoming. Those grants were, indeed, originally limited to small and remote country districts the poverty of which was supposed to prevent them from helping themselves; but that restriction was subsequently broken down, and the grants extended indiscriminately to all places, rich and populous towns, as well as remote country villages. The consequence was that in many cases they now went to places where they were not wanted, and where the manager of the schools hardly knew how to get rid of them. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would have the courage to bring the capitation grant back to its original purpose he would do a great service to the public. At the same time, there being now no prospect of separate legislation for Scotland, which prospect was the sole cause of any distinction being made, the capitation grant could not fairly be denied to that country while it was conceded to England. As to the evening schools, to which the hon. Gentleman had taken some exception, there was no more useful part of the system. The important period in a boy or girl's life between childhood and adolescence was that in which there was the greatest danger that all the knowledge acquired at the day schools would be entirely lost; and if their system could not bridge over that interval by affording the means of instruction to those whose inevitable lot was early labour, it would be marked by one cardinal defect fatal to the success of the whole. It might be said that this gap would be filled up by the Mechanics' Institute, but it was precisely because the Mechanics' Institute had hitherto failed to achieve this end that the State had been called upon to intervene. This, therefore, was the last part of the Vote that it would be wise to retrench. The House would doubtless be always ready to advance the cause of education; but the Estimates required to be carefully watched; and if the report of the Commission which was now examining into the general subject of national education did not furnish satisfactory information to guide them, or even if the publication of that report was much longer delayed, it would be advisable for the House itself to institute an inquiry whether that growing expenditure might not be reduced to the proper and legitimate function of merely supplementing voluntary exertion as far as necessity compelled, and by no means superseding it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last was rather sanguine in thinking that the way in which those Estimates were to be reduced was by the administration of his successor. Under the right hon. Gentleman's own administration that expenditure, instead of being diminished, had increased. It was altogether a mistake to suppose that the matter could be regulated by mere administration. The amount of those Estimates no doubt depended on the minutes of Council, which it was open to any Government to alter; but while those minutes remained the same they must make up their minds to encounter an increasing charge. The province of the State was not merely to supply the deficiencies of voluntary educators, but rather to improve the quality of the instruction. No attempt had been made by the Government to educate the people, and therefore the system was not open to the charge of undue centralisation. The object of the Government had rather been to direct and aid the education which was already given without them. He thought a careful inspection of the schools under the direction of the Privy Council would show that the education in those schools had been so greatly improved as fully to justify the expenditure. Before the minutes of Privy Council there was no system of inspection, no effective training colleges, no pupil teachers. The advantages brought to bear on the schools by that expenditure —in addition to the aid given to buildings—in the steadiness and perpetuity afforded to them by a large and regular stipend, and which the changing zeal of voluntary effort could never fairly hope to secure, would prove that the money had not been altogether spent in vain. They had a system in operation equal to any in Europe, and in his opinion the country had unequivocally declared itself in favour of its continuance. The mainspring of the education of the poor in this country had been religious zeal, and all that the Government had sought to do was, not to interfere with or to restrain that zeal, but to give it a wise direction. The Privy Council system, properly speaking, did not teach religion at all. It provided for the religious teaching in the Church schools being reported upon, but it had no voice in the teaching itself, and no control over it. It interfered with nobody's conscience; what it did was to afford free scope to the zeal of the Church in educating the people. It ought to be remembered, when so much fault was found with the system of capitation grants, that it tended to produce greater regularity of attendance in the schools. For every grant of money that was made the Privy Council expected to see a corresponding advantage, either in the improvement of the building or in that of the teacher or the attendance. No doubt many wealthy schools might do without the capitation grant, but to the great bulk of the schools which participated in it, it formed the most essential part of their income, and the withdrawal of that grant would lead in many instances to the declension of the school. The question of attendance was all-important, and yet he thought it would not be wise for the Government to have recourse to any compulsion with the view of inducing the children of the poor to remain longer at school than they usually did. The children of the working classes generally were found not to attend school much beyond the age of ten. They were then put to some employment, which, it must not be forgotten, was of itself a sort of education in the business of their future lives; and after leaving school their shortcomings in education might to some extent be supplied by attendance on night schools. There was, however, a deplorable deficiency of night schools, which might be remedied by a system of aid from the Government, judiciously rendered. He agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds, that the Government might very well aid the Mechanics' Institutes, as well as other schools; and he should have been glad to see the Privy Council minute extended to night schools connected with Mechanics' Institutes. Those Mechanics' Institutes were rapidly becoming more and more places where much good solid teaching was imparted in the evenings. They did not confine themselves merely to elementary instruction, but opened up a much wider sphere of information in literature and science to those who frequented them, and he looked forward to the time when the larger of those institutions, by assistance from the Government, might become so many colleges for working men. In conclusion he would say that until the House was prepared to make a great organic change in the system, they must make up their minds to advance this large sum yearly for the moral improvement of the people, satisfied that it was, on the whole, well employed.

said, he was not at present prepared to modify any of his opinions on this subject, as formerly expressed; but he could not refrain from indicating his sense of the excellent spirit and tone which distinguished the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) the Member for Leeds. He felt the greatest pleasure in seeing the hon. Gentleman hold a seat in that House, affording him as it did the fittest opportunities for stating those views which he was so well known to entertain on subjects connected with education. He was afraid the hon. Gentleman and he regarded this great question from different points of view; but he felt certain that no one who had paid considerable attention to the subject of popular education could have failed to be deeply impressed with the signal ability and zeal which the hon. Member had displayed in its treatment and advocacy during many years. He agreed with the hon. Member for Leeds in viewing this Vote with distrust, but the reasons of his distrust were very different from those which actuated the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Leeds regarded the Vote with distrust, because he altogether disapproved of State assistance. Now he (Sir John Pakington) regarded it with distrust not on that ground, but because he strongly doubted whether the State assistance which they gave was given in the wisest and most economical mode. He had heard with satisfaction what had fallen from both sides of the House as to the vast magnitude of this Vote, and he believed that they had not arrived at anything like the maximum amount which this Vote would reach if they persevered in the present system. He had no doubt that in course of time it would reach £2,500,000 or £3,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said it was not a centralized system. Certainly the bad effects of a centralized system were as much as possible obviated in practice, but there was no doubt that by the mode in which the grant was being administered, it was acquiring some of the evils alluded to. In his opinion the hon. Member for Leeds gave expression to a great truth in what fell from him on the subject of the capitation grant. He (Sir John Pakington) distrusted the growth of this grant, and the mode in which it was administered. He did not object to a large expenditure for the education of the people, but he wished to see it administered in a mode in which the public would have greater confidence than they had in the present system. He did not believe in the possibility of a central board administering such an amount with due economy and with proper advantage to the public. Nevertheless, he was not disposed to vote against a single shilling of the amount till he saw some better system proposed. What he mainly rose to do, however, was to ask the Vice President of the Council a question relative to the Commission which he (Sir John Pakington) was successful in getting appointed in the spring of 1858. It gave him great satisfaction to find that the services of the Duke of Newcastle had been obtained as President of that Commission. A better selection could not have been made as the noble Duke had devoted great attention to the subject; but he had now undertaken arduous duties of a different kind; and he wished to inquire whether the noble Duke still continued to act as President of the Commission, or whether his present duties had rendered it necessary that the presidency should he deputed to other hands. If so, he should like to know who was now at the head of the Commission. But a more important question was, what prospect was there of the House receiving the Report of that Commission? He was satisfied that the House would not be prepared to effect any change in the existing system till the Report of the Commission was received: and he should therefore be happy to have an answer to his question from the right hon. Gentleman.

observed that they had heard a great deal about the enormous increase in this Vote, and that it was likely to increase rather than diminish, but they ought not wholly to regard this Vote as it appeared upon the Estimates. They ought rather to compare it with the reports of the Inspectors of Schools, and although those reports, in their candid feeling and details, might not contain so satisfactory an account of the education of the country as they could wish, still they developed a steady and fair ratio of facts and progress, and if there were one feature more agreeable than another in these reports, it was the improvement in the pauper schools of the country, and which dealt with a class of children whose parents could not afford to educate them otherwise. He would draw the attention of the President of the Poor Law Board to the melancholy fact that, in spite of the large expenditure staring them in the face, there were yet 300,000 poor children not receiving any education in this country, and who belonged to a large proportion of that class of paupers who received out-door relief. Machinery had already been provided for their education, but the Act being permissive remained inoperative. From a return that had been furnished on the subject out of 612 unions only 199 availed themselves of the Act; 418 had neglected to avail themselves of it altogether, and of the 199 who had availed themselves, the total number of the children amounted to 5,650. The Act in question was the 18 Vict., c. 94, and it was passed mainly through the influence and authority of Mr. Speaker. He believed the best plan that could he adopted for rendering the Act more operative was for hon. Members and poor-law guardians to exercise their influence in their own districts in bringing it into public notice. He believed that the great mass of the poor-law guardians of the country were not aware of its existence, otherwise they would have availed themselves to a greater extent of its advantages. If that were done, a great amount of ignorance, and possibly of the material for youthful crime, might be brought under wholesome influences. Although the grant was unquestionably a large one, he considered that it had been far from profitless in its results. The great difficulty which was to be encountered lay in the unwillingness of parents in humble life to allow their children to avail themselves of the advantages of education; but from the pains and expenditure which had been bestowed on the rising generation, he believed that similar difficulties would not be experienced with the future race of parents in those classes.

said, there was one point connected with the subject before the Committee to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend who presided over this department. It had always appeared to him that if the object of Government was to afford a stimulus to the system of education, an active inspection was the form in which, in many cases, it was likely to give most efficient aid. But one striking omission in the working of the system was that it withheld its aid from those who were most willing to help themselves. If a squire, for example, resolved to erect a school in his parish he might go to the Government and solicit from them a grant in aid of the undertaking, and his wishes would be complied with. On the other hand, a person might feel it to be his duty as a landlord to provide a school for the instruction of the children of his labourers, and might decline to receive any pecuniary assistance from the Government; but, at the same time, such a person had a right to expect that the Government would extend to him that cheap and gratutitous assistance which consisted in Government inspection. That assistance could be given through the medium of the Government Inspectors. He claimed it as a right, which the Privy Council ought willingly to acknowledge, that those who did most to assist themselves by maintaining schools at their own expense should not meet with the difficulties which they at present encountered in obtaining the services of the Government Inspectors. The reports of these gentlemen afforded only an imperfect idea of the amount of education going on throughout the country. They ignored altogether hundreds of well-conducted schools, supported entirely upon the voluntary principle; and having on his own estates several schools established and maintained upon that principle, but never having enjoyed the benefit of the Government inspection, he hoped that if ever he should apply to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council to have his schools visited and examined by the Government Inspectors, no hesitation would be felt in cheerfully granting so reasonable a request.

said, he did not wish to prolong the debate, but he could not permit some of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to pass without remark. He agreed with what had been said by almost every hon. Gentleman who had spoken, that although there might be many defects in the existing system of education, yet, until a better one had been brought forward—and he was not aware that anything like so good a plan had been proposed—we ought to go on as we had done for some time past. The Vice President had stated that in his opinion one main defect of the present system was that the trust deeds of the several schools were made too exclusive with respect to the particular religious bodies to which the institutions belonged. He begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if any evil existed of that kind—though for his own part he did not admit it to be an evil—it had been brought about by the action of the Privy Council itself, causing it to be suspected—he did not say whether with or without reason—that the Council wanted to introduce the very system which the right hon. Gentleman now talked of establishing—the system, namely, of conscience clauses. Those who recollected the disputes that took place not many years ago would remember that not a few of the parties who were willing upon other grounds to accept aid from the Privy Council would not accept it, because they were afraid of having some such measure thrust upon them as that which seemed to have passed through the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It ought not to be forgotten that a vast number of the schools which now existed throughout the country were founded by the religious feeling of the public. There could be no doubt of that fact, and the right hon. Gentleman might rest assured that people of strong religious feeling would not permit themselves to be interfered with in the management of their schools. If he attempted to do so, instead of effecting the object which he had in view, he would only render the schools more exclusive, and aggravate the evil, if there was one, which he said now existed. During the last four or five years much of the jealousy which formerly prevailed seemed to have passed away, and he earnestly trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not take any step which might have the effect of blowing again into a flame that fire which, he might depend upon it, was not extinguished, but only slumbering. Many influential clergymen looked upon the children in the schools connected with the Established Church as being under their spiritual charge, and it would be impossible to induce them by Act of Parliament to countenance any system of instruction which their consciences did not tell them was right. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had made some observations which appeared to have a great deal of force and truth in them as to the extent of the education under the cognizance of the Government inspectors. He did not think the Privy Council had to do with more than one-third of the present number of children at school. If there had been that increase of population since the census of 1851 which it was reasonable to expect, there would be 2,400,000 children in school, but in the schools under Government inspection there were not more than 800,000. There were a vast number of persons who did not want pecuniary aid; all they wished was that no strain should be put upon their consciences, and that they should be permitted, upon that understanding, to apply for Government assistance in the event of their requiring it. Hitherto the present system had worked well in that respect. None of the great schemes which had been broached within the last few years had steered so clear of the same difficulty; therefore he had opposed them all, and he should continue to set his face against every plan which did not allow the people to go to Heaven in their own way, and to teach their children what religion they pleased. There was one branch of the expenditure for education which ought to be carefully watched. He referred to that portion of the grant which was expended in the production of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. The education of pupil teachers at the expense of the State was at one time necessary, but the Government ought to consider whether the ordinary law of supply and demand would not now produce an adequate number of sufficiently educated persons to conduct the education of the country. Did any very large proportion of our pupil teachers become schoolmasters, after all? If not, we were unquestionably spending a great deal of money without obtaining the result which we intended to accomplish. He concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich upon the subject of education generally, and was quite ready to vote every shilling which the Government might ask. At the same time, however, he thought the Privy Council might do more than it had hitherto done in the poorer districts of the country, and he was persuaded that Parliament would not grudge any sum which might be required for extending the benfits of education to those who, though they stood most in need of it, were not able from poverty to provide it for themselves.

said, that with regard to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman it was clear that the whole of the pupil teachers, after being maintained and educated by the State for five years, could not become schoolmasters, nor did he think it desirable that they should, inasmuch as lads of thirteen were not old enough to choose an occupation for life, and, even if they were, some of them might turn out unfit to be intrusted with the education of children. It appeared, however, from the Parliamentary returns that more than two-fifths of them actually became teachers, while, with respect to the remainder, it might be said that the money of the State was not wasted upon them, seeing that it was expended in imparting to them a sound education, fitting them to render good service to the country in the various occupations of life. The Vice President of the Council, after stating in his very able speech the numerous merits of the existing system, had frankly laid before the Committee what he considered its defects —namely, its increasing expense, its want of universality, and its denominational character. But with respect to the first of these objections he would observe that for every pound of the public money expended upon this object they obtained £2 from private contributions; a fact which proved that this expenditure was both economical and popular. It should be also recollected that all their neighbours spent much on this object, and the United States spent without stint to give a good education to the children of that country. In his opinion the only substantial objection that could be brought against the system at the present time was its want of universality. Certainly those who paid their share of the money, but received no benefit from it, had a perfect right to complain. But there was a very simple way of curing that evil —namely, instead of diminishing, by increasing the grant, so as to comprehend the whole country in its scope. This would be a work of time, but it would be a certain remedy.

said, the Committee ignored the fact that 2,500,000 children were taught in Sunday schools, by 313,000 teachers, who received no pecuniary reward whatever. The Church of England schools received two-thirds of the whole amount, though their numbers were not equal to those who received no grant whatever. They were not justified in increasing the grant before they had received the Report of the Commission then sitting on the subject. The increase this year was £173,485 of which £75,000 was for the arrears of last year. He believed there was not a man in the kingdom who was more desirous of promoting education than the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), and his opinions were deserving of the utmost respect. That hon. Member was opposed altogether to these grants, and coinciding with him, as he did, he moved that the grant be reduced by £100,000.

was of opinion that the less this House and the Government interfered in the matter of education the better. Besides, it was becoming every day more and more a very serious drain on the public purse. As the noble Lord the Member for London had once well remarked, instruction was only received in the schools—education could alone be implanted at home. Scotland and her sons owed much to the system of education which prevailed there, and he would express a hope that the Government would leave the people of Scotland, as well as of England, to educate themselves, and that those national grants would be diminished with a view to their entire discontinuance, more especially as their inevitable accompaniments were the religious question, and its consequent fearful discussions and dissensions. The good feeling of men of property would always induce them to contribute to the aid of their poorer fellow-countrymen by subscriptions during life, and bequests after death, and the giving of public money would greatly tend to dry up these sources of private contribution.

observed it was truly stated that the reduction of this Vote was to be effected not so much by keeping down the Estimates as by attending to the minutes on which those Estimates were founded. Formerly the Treasury was represented in the Committee of Privy Council by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but since the appointment of the Vice President of Education the Treasury had ceased to exercise any real control over these minutes, which, in point of fact, regulated the expenditure. If it were wished to keep down the expenditure, some rule should be adopted by which the minutes of the Committee of Council should be submitted for the revision of the Treasury before they were finally adopted, because at present they were passed by the President and Vice President alone. They might then be modified when they seemed to entail too large an expenditure.

said, he did not rise to enter into the general discussion, but to echo what had just fallen from his hon. Friend. As long as the Education Votes were administered under the real control of a Committee of Council, formed of six or seven Members of the Cabinet, the Treasury was usually represented there by the First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whatever minutes were framed passed under the view of those who were responsible for the financial departments. The change since made was an important one, because now these minutes did not go near the Treasury at all. That change had crept in unawares, for he did not think the House was apprised that such would be the effect when the appointment of a Vice-President was decided on. He agreed, therefore, with his hon. Friend in thinking that it well deserved the attention of the Government, because it was not regular; it was not conformable either to precedent or to our principles of administration that important documents, forming, as one might say, standing contracts with parties all over the country, should take effect and should raise expectations which could not be disappointed, when they had never in any way been submitted to the consideration or approval of the Minister of Finance.

said, that the information which he was able to lay before the House on the subject of pupil teachers was not very accurate. About 12 per cent., he believed, never came to the end of their apprenticeship, through illness and other causes. This reduced them to about 87 per cent., of whom 76 obtained Queen's scholarships, and it might be considered that these became schoolmasters. As to the remainder there was no accurate information. With reference to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), he had no official information as to the proceedings of the Commission, though they had sent him a long paper of questions which he was quite unable to answer. He knew, however, that the Duke of Newcastle still remained at the head of the Commission, and that they had sent out a large number of searching questions, to which answers had been received. He did not believe that the members of the Commission themselves would be able to tell the right hon. Baronet when they would report, but he hoped that report would be forthcoming in time to allow some action to be taken upon it next Session. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Had-field) proposed to reduce the Estimates by £100,000, but, as he had told the Committee, the expenditure did not depend upon the Estimates but upon the minutes, which, as his right hon. Friend had truly observed, were standing contracts, which had to be fulfilled; and therefore the only effect of the hon. Gentlemen's Motion, if successful, would be that there would ensue a deficit of £100,000, for which it would be necessary to apply to the House next year.

said, he thought this rather an awkward state of things, for whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just told them that he had no control over the expenditure, the Vice-President now said that the House of Commons had no control. If, however, the Committee were to refuse the money, he did not know where it would come from.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he wished to point out that the whole cost of the bridge, with the approaches, would be about £500,000. The value of the bridge estates was about £150,000, so that £350,000 would have to be found from some other source, either county-rates or, more probably, the Consolidated Fund. No wonder the Miscellaneous Estimates increased at such a rate if charges of this description were imposed on the country at large for the improvement of the Metropolis.

said, he must express a hope that this Bill would be postponed until the opinion of the profession in Ireland was taken upon it. The Bill had been only printed and sent over to Ireland yesterday.

declined to postpone the Second Reading. The object of the Bill was merely to amend an omission in the Medical Acts.

said, he rose to move "That it be an Instruction to the General Committee of Elections to suspend their proceedings in the matter of the Petition of Electors of the City and County of the City of Norwich which was presented upon the 17th day of June last, against the Return of Henry William Schneider, Esq., and Viscount Bury, until the Examiner of Recognizances has reported on three other Petitions, subsequently presented to this House, against the Return of Viscount Bury, and which subsequent Petitions relate to the same Election as the Petition presented against the Return of Henry William Schneider, Esquire, and Viscount Bury on the 17th day of June last." These petitions were against the return of the noble Viscount in the election of April last; but there was a subsequent election in the month of June; there was no allegation of bribery or treating in the June election, all the allegations referred to the election that took place in April; it was alleged that the bribery at this election was notorious. If the election should be declared void on this account the noble Viscount would be unable to take his seat on the election in June. The question, therefore, was whether all the petitions should not be tried by the same Committee; if not, all the facts might have to be gone over twice. The point depended entirely on the construction of the 48th section of the Act of Parliament. It would be better that all the petitions should he tried by the same Committee.

said, that as a Member of the Committee he wished to state that a similar application had been made to the General Committee on Elections and that they had come to the conclusion, first, that they were not satisfied that they did not possess the power by law to carry out the instruction moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and next, that if they had such a discretionary power, they were unanimous in refusing the application. He would remind the House that the main principle of the law on disputed elections was, that they should not be brought for decision before the House of Commons, but another tribunal—the Committee of Elections. He would suggest that the wiser course was not to override the decision of the Committee. The question had been considered by the Committee of which the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge were Members, and they were assisted by counsel. The decision was unanimous, and it was supported by a precedent in former times. As to the inconvenience, there might be quite as much inconvenience if the decision of the Committee had been the other way. It was quite true that the second petition referred to the supposed misconduct of Viscount Bury at the former election, but supposing Viscount Bury had been elected on the second occasion for Marylebone, and was petitioned against in respect of Marylebone, could it be said that the petitions for Norwich and Marylebone ought to be referred to the same Committee? The General Committee of Elections thought that these petitions referred to two different elections, and had treated them accordingly. The Motion now was too late, and he did not see how the House could interfere.

said, he was of opinion that the House had no jurisdiction in a matter which had been settled by Act of Parliament. If they sought to make that House a court of appeal, the Act would be completely null and void. Under these circumstances, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion, but would be satisfied with having brought the subject under their notice.

said, that as far as the first petition was concerned, it had been brought to a conclusion by the noble Member having vacated his seat, and he imagined that the only petition which could be prosecuted was the second, with regard to the election which gave him a title to a seat in the House.

said, he thought it would be most inexpedient for that House to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Committees. He was much surprised at the construction given to the Act of Parliament by a man so experienced in election business as the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.

said, the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend amounted to an attempt to repeal the Act of Parliament by which the General Committee of Elections were constituted the sole tribunal to pronounce a decision upon questions such as that under discussion. In his opinion the proper course was for the House not to interfere in the matter.