said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. He had given notice of that Motion fully a month back, and it was only at the instance of the Secretary of State for War that he had so long postponed bringing it forward.

(who had given notice that he would call the attention of the House to the undefended state of the coast between Weymouth and Southampton) said, he rose to order. He was unaware that the last subject had been disposed of, and as his notice was placed immediately afterwards on the paper he believed that he had precedence of the hon. and gallant General.

said, the Motion before the House was that he should now leave the chair, and the hon. and gallant Officer, having risen to submit another Resolution, was rightly in possession of the House.

said, he should not trouble the House with many observa- tions in support of his Motion, as he understood the Government intended to assent to the appointment of this Commission. It was hardly possible to mention at the present moment a subject of greater importance than the state of the national defences. Some persons thought the expenditure on this head was far too great, while others believed our means of defence were still far from sufficient. Great were the differences of opinion which existed, and he thought some attempt ought to be made to inquire into the real facts of the case. For his own part, he was sorry to say that he did not think this most important matter had been gone into by the present or by former Governments as it deserved to have been. The present Government, it was true, were hardly yet seated at their bureaux, and with regard to the late Ministry he quite concurred with the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in thinking that the bright spot in their administration had been their efforts to maintain the maritime forces of the country. He trusted that those exertions would be continued, and he believed this would be the case, for he had every confidence in the judgment and ability of the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty. Vast interests were concerned in this inquiry. The value of the commerce which every year went into or passed from our ports was, he believed, about £350,000,000; and if any disagreement arose between this and any foreign country, such as to endanger these vast interests, what terrible ruin must result to all classes of the population of England. To dwell on this momentous consideration would be superfluous. And as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) appeared disposed to assent to the Motion, it would, in fact, only be necessary now to submit it to the House:—

said, he then rose, pursuant to notice, to call the atten- tion of the House to the undefended state of the coast between Weymouth and Southampton. While a large expenditure had been incurred by the Government for the construction of 30 line-of-battle ships, that portion of shores to which his Motion related—or rather that which lay between Weymouth and the Needles, which lay opposite to Cherbourg, and which in case of attack would be found the most accessible to an invading force, had been left without any adequate means of protection. It had not, however, been left thus undefended in former times, for he found on reference to a map, which bore the date of 1765, that no less than five or six batteries were then erected along that part of the coast. As an illustration of the danger which might arise from leaving things in their present state, he might mention that while Pool, the borough which he had the honour to represent, was sixty miles from Cherbourg, it was at a distance of thirty miles from Weymouth, and that in case of a hostile attack the fleet which might be situated at the latter place could hardly be brought up in sufficient time to be of much service in keeping off the invading force. He should, therefore, urge the Government to turn their attention to the subject, and to allay, if possible, any feeling of panic which might have arisen in the public mind by placing themselves in a position to proclaim to the country that they were prepared for every emergency. He might add, that it seemed to him desirable that inasmuch as it was difficult to establish rifle corps in maritime towns gunboats should be employed along the coast—a large number might, for instance, be drafted from Portsmouth to the point in question—in working the rifled cannon placed on board, which as well as batteries erected at different points on the shore, volunteers from these towns, who would not be found disposed to join rifle corps, might with advantage be employed. Nor would the gunboats themselves be worse in their condition from being kept in the water than hauled upon slips as at present. He should, above all things, recommend his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War not to rest satisfied with imperfect information on so important a question as the state of our defences. Hon. Members were no doubt aware that some time ago the Government of Belgium stated that the defences of Antwerp were in a perfectly efficient condition, and that they had gone to great expense to attain that object. It had, however, turned out, when the matter had been sifted before a Committee, which had been moved for by a member of the Belgian Chamber, that all the good will which the Government had exhibited had not availed to secure the end which they had in view, and which they imagined they had accomplished. It was, therefore, he maintained, the duty of his right hon. Friend to take nothing on trust, but to examine into the subject for himself, and to see that no part of the country was left without adequate means of defence.

I have got, Sir, a somewhat multifarious number of questions to which to reply. I shall commence by answering those which have been put to me by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adderley), in the greater portion of whose observations I must say I entirely concur. My attention was some time ago called to the subject of the payments by different colonies towards their own defence, and I confess it is scarcely possible to conceive anything more capricious or, I may say, unreasonable than the varying proportions in which those payments are made. The Government of the mother country sends troops to the Colonies for the purposes either of defence or of internal police. So far as the first object is concerned, they have some sort of claim to ask her to bear a share of their military expenditure, inasmuch as she arrogates to herself the settlement of all questions of peace and war, and their interests may suffer as the result of the policy which she chooses to pursue. That is a doctrine which, however, may be pushed too far, because if the prospects of a colony are injured by war she enjoys all the advantages of being placed under the protection of a powerful State in time of peace. These observations apply not only to colonies which have great wealth, but to those garrisons which belong to us in the Mediterranean and whose strength makes their possession coveted' by other nations. Now, with respect to the question of the maintenance of troops in our Colonies for the purposes of police, I must say I think such a course is one which is indefensible. We at home pay our military and police expenditure: the one out of the proceeds of Imperial taxation, the other out of local rates. That is a distinction which ought, in my opinion, to be as far as possible maintained in our Colonies. The question, however, is beset with difficulties, but, before I proceed to state the views of the Government with respect to it, I shall quote, for the information of the House, from a document which I hold in my hand, the proportion in which the mother country and the Colonies pay for the defence of the latter. In the case of the North American colonies, £441,539 are paid by Great Britain, and only £21,811 by these colonies; the greater portion of that sum being paid by Canada. For Australia the Home Government pays £228,000, the colonies themselves £156,000, to the payment of which amount Victoria is the principal contributor. We have, however, entered into arrangements with them which I think ought to be extended to other colonies, and in accordance with which the colonists pay a certain allowance out of their local funds, and confer several advantages on the troops in the way of procuring provisons for four companies; their agreement being to maintain entirely at their own charge any troops which they may require above that number. The result is that we do not receive from those colonists such pressing solicitations for an increase of military strength as we do from other quarters, while the relations which exist between them and us are placed upon a much sounder footing. For our colonies in the Mediterranean we pay £95S,000, while there is a sum of £30,560 expended by them; but then it must be remembered that, being great military garrisons, it is of the utmost importance for our interests that their defence should be adequately provided for. On the West Indies we lay out £432,000, while the colonists themselves pay not more than £6,000. In our colonies in the East, Mauritius, and Hong Kong, our expenditure for defensive purposes is £280,000, while they expended £91,000. The Cape of Good Hope cost us £635,000, while a sum of £29,000 is all that the colonists contribute. The last mentioned is, I must say, one of the strongest instances of that disproportion to which I have referred. My right hon. Friend, in alluding to the Cape of Good Hope, spoke of the German Legion which was sent out there, and of which he says he has for a long time heard nothing. I am sorry to have to state that I cannot say as much, for the War Department has of late had repeated solicitations addressed to it in connection with that body. I hold in my hand a statement which I have received from the Treasury, and which involves a claim for a large sum of money, inasmuch as Sir G. Grey has kept the troops of the German Legion in pay from the time of their arrival in the Cape of Good Hope until the present day. A considerable portion of those troops, it is true, volunteered to go to India, but a large number of them was left behind, and the expense of the maintenance of such a body is very great. Without, however, going further into this point, I shall state to the right hon. Gentleman the course we have taken. It is quite true that if there were only one party to the bargain, we by an Imperial Act could easily overrule the intentions and feelings of the colonists by laying down some law which would settle once for all the proportions upon which this expenditure for military purposes should be based. But this must be made matter of negotiation and mutual understanding between the mother country and the several colonies. They have the great advantage of distance and the great advantage of passive resistance, and therefore I do not feel very sanguine of an early and effective inroad upon the system which now exists. But it ought, nevertheless, not to be neglected, and at the present moment there is a Committee sitting upon the subject, consisting of Mr. G. A. Hamilton (Treasury), Mr. Godly, who is well known to my hon. Friend, and Mr. T. F. Elliot (Colonial Office). The instructions which have been given to those gentlemen are, to ascertain the gross expenses of military defences for the five years 1853-7 inclusive; the proportions borne by colonial Governments; in what colonies they are necessary for Imperial or colonial purposes or both; to lay down the principle upon which the expenses ought to be apportioned; and to state the best mode of carrying that object into effect. As I have before said, the Government are most anxious to pursue this course. The Duke of Newcastle enters warmly into the matter; but, I repeat, that owing to the distance and the great power of resistance, I am not sanguine as to an early or uniform settle-inent, although I am sure every exertion will be made to place the matter upon a more satisfactory footing than at present. With respect to the questions raised by my hon. and galiant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) and by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour), let me say, with regard to the last, that the subject of the defence in case of attack of the coast of England has not escaped the notice of the Government. My predecessor appointed committees of officers to make a minute examination of the whole coast, and those Engineer officers prepared plans with great accuracy and great skill. We thought it most important that those officers should be made thoroughly familiar with the topographical and physical nature of the coast of Great Britain, but I am afraid it is impossible to attempt to fortify as against an enemy every portion of the whole coast. You might by attempting it fritter away an enormous sum of money. To place batteries and guns, with no men to serve the guns, would place the country in a worse position than if you did nothing at all. I only hope that the House and every individual Member will recollect that it is impossible the whole of the sea board can be put in a state of fortification, and that the attention of the Government must, in the first instance at any rate, be turned to the defence of those great ports and arsenals in which we have all our materials of war, in which we have the means of reproducing materials of war, and which, I am sorry to say, are not in that forward state of defence at the present moment which I could wish. The gallant Officer proposes a Resolution: —

"That, in the opinion of this House, taking into consideration the relations existing between some of the great Military Powers of the Continent, it is advisable that a Commission be appointed, consisting of Civilians and Military and Naval Officers, to inquire into and collect information concerning the present condition of our National Defences; to ascertain what improvements may be made therein in order to insure the utmost efficiency combined with economy; and to report thereon to Her Majesty's Government."

said, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War for the manner in which he had treated the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Adderley). He was not aware when he read the notice what was the particular purport of the Motion, on account of the manner in which it was worded, and he confessed that he listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with a great deal of anxiety as to whether he understood it rightly, and whether the right hon. Gen- tleman would be misunderstood on the other side of the water. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as he could gather from his observations, appeared to question the expediency of having troops in British North America. He hoped he might be permitted to make a few remarks upon that subject, because the whole of his life had been spent there. It was said that the colonists ought to defend themselves. Be it so. It was not the first time they had done it, and they were able to do it again. But at the same time there was a reciprocal duty as well as a mutual interest—on the one part, loyal and obedient attachment to this country, and on the other protection. It was said that the militia of the colony ought to be organized. He was proud to say that it had been organized, and in the war of 1812 with the United States, with very trifling assistance from this country, for her troops were wanted elsewhere, the militia of Canada turned out, and the whole force of the United States was not sufficient to make any impression upon them. Again, when Lord Seaton by that very extraordinary manner in which he governed Canada produced rebellion—not in Nova Scotia, for in Nova Scotia there never was rebellion, but in other parts—it was the native troops, under the command of Sir A. M' Nab and Sir F. Bond Head, who drove out the Yankee sympathizers and the French rebels. The same thing could be done again, but the very knowledge that England would protect the country in time of need was a protection of itself. If it were announced that the troops would be withdrawn, and the colonies of British North America must protect themselves, it would lead to trouble with their neighbours; while the very knowledge that a great country like England, with a large army and a powerful fleet, was willing to take them under its wing, was a protection against the most powerful neighbour they had to fear, if fear were not a word inapplicable to the case. If the troops were withdrawn, what did they want with the colonies? Let them give the colonies under those circumstances their independence. They did not ask or want it, and would receive it with regret; but the colonists were men of English extraction, and would say, "If you are come to the condition of Rome, and you must gather your legions from the extremities of your empire, give us our independence and leave us, and we will say God speed and protect you as in the olden time." But when hon. Members talked of the militia and governing the colonies, England did not govern, but misgoverned them. England did not manage their affairs, but mismanaged them. What had occurred with regard to the militia within the last three or four years? Why, that a boy of 15 or 16 years of age, at Eton or one of the public schools, was made a colonel of the militia of Nova Scotia. Was the appointment of a boy, who was learning his Latin and Greek grammar in this country, over the heads of old men in the colony, because it would give the boy rank hereafter, likely to encourage the militia to turn out? In his opinion, it was turning the whole thing into ridicule. These were the blessings they enjoyed and the encouragement they received. What had the colonies to do with an European war? Their ships were plundered on the high seas, their sailors were impressed in their towns, and the enemy's ships were in all their coves and creeks, watching for their homeward-bound ships. The quarrel was not one of theirs. When this country undertook to govern the colonies, and when it made laws suitable for itself, well and good; but Parliament ought, at least, to ask the colonies whether the same laws were suited to their condition. When they gave to America the coasting trade of this country, what right had they to include in their gift the coasting trade of any of the Colonies— what right had they to permit the Americans to extend under the term "coasting trade," the trade from Boston, round South America, to California? Yet that was one of their acts, and it was one that had almost ruined the shipping of the North American colonies. Look at the extent and feeling of those colonies. They contained 4,000,000 intelligent, loyal and patriotic men. They made an offer of two regiments for the Crimea, and one of their regiments was now in this country. The sympathies of the colonies were still further evinced in the legislative grants and subscriptions for the Patriotic Fund and the Indian Mutiny Fund, of the distribution of which latter fund he was one of the managers. He did not recollect all the figures, but from the Australian colonies alone £70,000 were received in subscriptions and grants. These were circumstances on which to found the consideration that if Great Britain were to withdraw her legions the colonies ought to have fair notice. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had given so proper an answer to the question put to him, and that his answer would go out to the colonies. If this country were to withdraw her troops, let there be an understanding how and when they were to be withdrawn. He had had the satisfaction of bringing before the late Secretary of the Colonies a plan by which it would not be necessary to keep a single soldier in Canada. If that chain of railways which ran from Halifax to New Brunswick were completed by the construction of a small portion to Quebec, in twelve days, and at any season of the year, the Government of this country could send as many troops as they liked to Canada, and they need not keep a single soldier in that country. He was glad the discussion had taken this turn, and he was gratified that the Secretary for War had answered the question which had been put to him in so conciliatory and statesmanlike a manner.

said, he had heard with great satisfaction that the Secretary of State for War assented to some extent to his hon. and gallant Friend's proposal for a Commission. For if that House were called on to vote a large sum of money they would do it all the more readily if its expenditure were recommended by a Commission that commanded public confidence. He wished therefore to suggest that the official element should be introduced in this Commission as sparingly as possible, if even it were not excluded altogether, since one of its most important functions would be to review the proceedings that had already taken place under official authority. It would also be desirable to secure an early report, and a limit ought, he thought, to be put to the period at which the first report should be made. He did not see why the first report—not the final report, but embodying the main recommendations of the Commission—should not be made within three months. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was out of the question to attempt to fortify our coasts so as to prevent an enemy from landing. The only fortifications required were those that were necessary for the protection of our ships and arsenals. To build batteries along the coast for the enemy to land under was absurd. There was no doubt an enemy possessed greater facilities for landing and for the transport and embarkation of troops than he ever had before, and there were many points along the coast on which an enemy would have no great difficulty in landing. He agreed with General Shaw Kennedy that we should not be safe until we had such an internal force upon our own soil as would defeat and destroy any enemy that might gain a landing. If that were so, the Commission about to be appointed ought to recommend what amount of internal land force we ought always to maintain—how many troops of the line, how many militia, and how many volunteers we required, so as to be always in a state of perfect security. For a nation containing 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 male adults to be in a perpetual panic of an invasion of 100,000 or 200,000 men was a scandal and a burlesque. We ought always to be in such a condition that any army that was likely to obtain a landing would be certain to be defeated and destroyed. The Commission might make a valuable report, which would facilitate the proceedings of the Government in that House, and carry more weight than any statements on mere departmental authority that might be made in Committee of Supply.

said, he hoped that the return alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), which was rather a complicated one, would be laid on the table on Friday. The noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office would, he was confident, give his best consideration to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but there was another side to the question, as they had heard from the distinguished colonist whom they were all glad to see in the House, and who was a brilliant representative of the truly British spirit of the colonial subjects of this country. He thought that his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert) had struck a fair balance between imperial views and the colonial side of the question, which had been so candidly and temperately stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Haliburton). It must be remembered that the Home Government had to deal with a great number of communities scattered all over the world, differing in age, in means, resources, in the liability to attack, and the necessity for defence, and it was, therefore, impossible to adopt one uniform system in dealing with them all. In many of these cases, too, the Home Government had not to deal with colonies subject to their absolute authority, bhut had to negotiate with Governments possessing representative institutions and capable of acting in a great degree independently of the Home Government. The only mode in which the Imperial Government could in some cases act was by refusing to send British troops to particular colonies, or by saying they would withdraw the troops now there unless the colony paid for their maintenance. He did not deny, however, that there were occasions on which that power of withdrawal should be put in force by the British Minister for the Colonies; but it was no trivial responsibility to undertake. He could not therefore promise that that power would be used in any general way. At the same time, great weight would be given to the views which had been put forward, and the Government would endeavour to alter the heavy balance which existed on the side of the mother country in respect of the outlay incurred upon the Colonies.

said, he was glad to hear the Government intended to appoint a Commission of the kind indicated by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War; but some doubt appeared to exist in the House as to the extent of the powers to be conferred upon it. He hoped that the Commission contemplated would have for it3 object an inquiry not merely into the stone and mortar question, but into the whole subject of the national defences—to determine the number of men, both of the regular army and the militia, which it was essential we should have in this country as a permanent force, available at all times; what was the number of ships and sailors it was necessary to maintain as a permanent available naval force; and what fortifications were indispensably requisite for the defence of the kingdom. Such was the scope of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) and he thought it desirable that it should be so extended that we should no longer be liable, as we were now, to a constantly recurring state of panic, which was fast becoming chronic, and which was unworthy a great nation. We ought, on the contrary, to be in a position which would render us independent alike of the friendship or the enmity of all or any of the potentates of Europe. We ought to know, as Englishmen, that whatever steps were necessary to obtain the security of this country had been adopted; and he thought that the appointment of a Commission to inquire into these matters would be the best means to attain that object. If that Commission should report that a certain number of men, a certain number of ships, and certain mi- litary organizations, were required for this purpose, he hoped that the House, when it came to consider the Estimates, would not seek to reduce them, but merely be watchful that the money which they voted was well applied to the purposes of the country. That object he conceived would he better attained by the Commission proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend than that contemplated by the Government.

said, he also approved of the appointment of the Commission, but he thought it was impossible that such a Commission could determine the exact number of troops, militia, ships, or artillery necessary for the defence of this country, inasmuch as the defensive force ought always to be proportioned to the force of other countries from time to time, and have regard to the varying state of European politics. Nor could he agree in the notion that there was a "chronic state of panic" in England; at the same time there was no doubt a feeling that because of the great military power existing on the Continent it was necessary that this country should be placed in such a state that if any state of circumstances of an ad-verso nature should arise, rendering remonstrances on the part of England necessary, she should be able to make those remonstrances with due weight and without any apprehension as to their result. He hoped the Commission contemplated by the Government would be so constituted as to carry weight in the country as well among military men as civilians, and that they would not incur expenditure of a kind calculated rather to retard the work of national defence than to carry it out on a satisfactory footing.

said, he wished to remind the House that the word fortification did not occur in his Motion. Of course he quite felt the total absurdity of any attempt to fortify the whole of the English coast; but he thought the Commission should take a comprehensive view of all that was necessary to our national defences.

Whatever may be the views of the House as to the constitution of the Commission announced by my right hon. Friend, its appointment is a question of very great importance. I do not think there will be any advantage in adding to its inquiries, so as to make them of a larger character than those which have been indicated by my right hon. Friend. In the first place, it would so extend the range of the inquiries as to postpone the report for a period longer than is desirable, and at the same time would embarrass the proceedings of the Commission. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) will be satisfied with the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend, and will not press his Motion to a division, seeing that his object is accomplished by the course proposed by the Government. I am anxious to state, that in my opinion the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman)—that the Commission should be instructed to enter upon a larger range of inquiry, and to consider what should be the amount of the naval and military force necessary for the defence of this country—is an inquiry of a totally different nature from that to which the Commission of my right hon. Friend is intended to apply; and, moreover, that it is not a proper subject for inquiry by Commission. The inquiries of the Commission will be directed to the permanent works which are essential and necessary for the defence of the different dockyards and other places of a like nature. These once ascertained, the works when constructed will form part of the permanent defences of the country, and as such will not vary; but the inquiry suggested as to the proper amount of naval and military force to be kept up, is a matter which must depend upon the Government of the day, and for which they are responsible. This must necessarily vary from year to year, according to the varying circumstances of this and other countries. This inquiry differs essentially from that as to the permanent works. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not embarrass our proceedings by pressing his views upon the subject. The inquiry has necessarily occupied the attention of the Government, but the result arrived at in one year may differ considerably from that which may be come to in another.

said, lie could not agree that the Commission proposed by the Government would in the least meet the views of the gallant Officer (Sir De Lacy Evans). The inquiry into the best mode of fortifying the dockyards was, from its very nature, but a small portion of the great question which the gallant Officer wished to have investigated, and involved merely an engineering investigation as to the best mode of defending particular places. The corps of engineers was maintained expressly for the purpose of designing and carrying out a system of inland fortification, and he could not conceive what necessity existed for the appointment of a special Commission with regard to a subject which the engineers, who were maintained at such great expense, were peculiarly competent to deal with. What the gallant General desired was the appointment of a Commission to consider the whole system of defence proposed for this country, not with regard to the maintenance of the naval and military services for purposes of aggressive war, for the strength of these must depend on the circumstances under which the war was to be carried on. The point which the country was interested in knowing, and which the gallant General desired to elicit by this investigation, was the extent at which the ordinary defences of the country in time of peace were to be fixed—and, likewise, that some assurance might be given that the military and naval preparations were such as would protect them against any sudden invasion from abroad. In short, it was desired to know what ought to be the minimum force maintained in time of peace, and what should be the nature of that minimum force. Unfortunately the strength and efficiency of the army had heretofore been considered as separate and distinct from that of the navy; whereas they were in fact so closely connected that the question of' the minimum of the one necessarily affected the other. They should therefore be treated as one in regard to the primary object for which they were maintained. The object on which the people of this country desired first to be satisfied, when they turned their minds to the subject of the defences, was as to the sufficiency of the fleet to protect them from invasion. Those who were peculiarly competent to inform them, such as the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier), asserted that the navy was entirely insufficient to defend this country against aggression from a neighbouring State. The object of this Commission with regard to the navy would he to ascertain the minimum that could with safety be maintained both in ships and in men. Some persons entertained the idea that an abundant supply of seamen was always to be obtained in time of need from the great commercial marine, and that they might therefore have in the navy great numbers of boys and comparatively few able seamen; but if they looked a little farther it would perhaps be found that it would be exceedingly difficult in case of war to withdraw from the mercan- tile marine any very large supply of sailors without so entirely disarranging that service, and creating such a grievance to the commercial interests that an outcry would be raised which would render it almost impracticable to man the navy at the expense of the commercial marine. The gallant Admiral therefore had raised the question how far it was expedient that the sailors who were maintained in time of peace should be all able-bodied seamen—thus affording a basis which could at any time be increased by boys and less efficient sailors; and he confessed that he had never heard that question satisfactorily answered. It was always avoided by the Admiralty, and never dealt with in a satisfactory manner. It was, however, a question peculiarly fitted for the consideration of such a Commission as that proposed. In the same way there were many questions connected with the Army that called for inquiry, and these should also be intrusted to the consideration of this Commission. Thus it was most desirable to inquire whether, independent of the Navy, the Army was capable of being placed on a footing which would repel invasion. Where, he would ask, was the utility of maintaining a force of 80,000 men if they were liable to have 200,000 brought against them, unless they had sufficient means of reinforcing their army to an extent that would render it equal to the force by which it might be attacked? Experience showed that whatever might be the strength of an army in time of peace, unless the means existed of replenishing its ranks in time of war, it very soon came to an end, and the result was the same whether it were victorious or vanquished. The career of the great Napoleon showed that after all his brilliant victories he was compelled to succumb to the forces opposed to him, from the fact that they were constantly being reinforced, whilst his own army at last failed to receive accessions in any sufficient number. The question of maintaining in this country a military reserve, such as would render the standing army, whatever its amount, really effective for the purposes of national defence, was one of the first importance. It was a question which succeeding Governments had never dealt with, and never attempted to deal with. There were many other subjects which required investigation to place the country in a satisfactory state not for aggressive, but for defensive warfare, and the adoption of some plan by which, though it might be impossible to fix a num- ber at which the army and navy should under all circumstances be kept, these services might yet be placed on such a footing as would give confidence to the people; and, what was still more important, would satisfy them that the enormous sums which they were called on year by year to vote were really applied to some practical and useful purposes. Because it was a melancholy thing to be told, after the expenditure of so many millions for successive years, that the army and navy were almost useless without an additional and very large expenditure, and that whenever the least doubt or danger existed, the whole work had nearly to be recommenced. It was his belief that if a proper system had been observed, the services would have been organized on a better, more effectual and more economical footing, and that results of a far more satisfactory character would have been arrived at. Looking however, at the circumstances in which we were placed, he thought the investigations of the Commissioners should take a wider range than was proposed by the Government.

said, that in explanation he wished to say that he had not proposed that the force should not vary from year to year, but that there should be a minimum established below which the force in this country should never be reduced.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the management of Greenwich Hospital. He was sorry to learn that the Government intended to oppose his Motion. He was at a loss to know why it should be opposed; for if there were abuses in the institution they should be corrected; and if there were none, the Government would then have a great triumph over him for having brought forward a Motion which was entirely useless. He believed that there were great faults in the management of Greenwich Hospital; and if ever there was a time when they should look into the matter and see that the seamen in that establishment got the same justice as the officers, now was that time. All the officers received their salary and their half-pay as well, and it was extremely hard that the seamen were not treated in the same way. The Governor had a pension of £300 a year for the loss of his leg; and the other officers had pensions for their wounds, and it was quite just that they should. But if a poor seaman lost an arm or a leg and went into Greenwich Hospital his pension was taken away from him, and he only received the maintenance given to a man who had served a certain number of years. Now surely this was not fair play. The House would be astonished when he read' a calculation which he had made in respect of Greenwich Hospital, which showed that the salaries of officers came to £25,598 10s. a year, whilst the sum spent in the maintenance of all the pensioners was only £33,163. The first thing he asked was that the common sailor in Greenwich Hospital should retain his pension for his wounds. It was not fair that a man who had received no wounds should receive the same advantages as one who had lost in the service of his country one or, perhaps, two of his limbs. At present a pensioner got a shilling a week only to amuse himself with. It was quite true that he was clothed, fed, and lodged; but a sailor could not be comfortable unless he had some money in his pocket. The noble Lord at the head of the Government himself might have the range of Buckingham Palace, and be well fed, clothed, and lodged; but if he had not a penny in his pocket to bless himself with he would be a miserable man. He would give some details as to the officers. The governor, including his half-pay and his pension, received no less than £2,759 0s. 1d.; the lieutenant governor, £1,345 6s. 4d.; the senior captain, £740 15s. 7d.; and so on in the same proportion. These were handsome allowances, but he did not say there was a penny more than those officers deserved, for they were all old officers; but the argument was as good for the men as for the officers. A married seaman's only means of maintaining his wife was to go upon the out-fund or to take his provisions away with him, and share them, together with his shilling a week, with his wife and family. If a man had half a dozen children, how could he maintain them respectably? The wife of a sailor who was in Greenwich Hospital was, he should say, one of the most degraded women in the world. They could get but little work, and they had not sufficient to maintain themselves in decency. If they were allowed to do the washing of Greenwich Hospital, washhouses being erected for the purpose, that would afford a comfortable living to a great many, and the plan would be cheaper than that in operation at present —sending the things to Croydon to be washed. A pensioner passed his house the other day, and he spoke to him, and asked where he had been. The man said he had been to see his friends. He further asked whether he had received any money when he started, and the man said, "Sir, I saved up my shilling a week, and what little I could make up besides, and went down into the west country," and, he added, that he was obliged to beg his way back, though when he got back he should be allowed the value of his provisions for the time he was away. Now, why should not the value of the provisions have been advanced to him when he went away? Another great complaint was that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor had not the smallest power in the world, but were continually thwarted and their recommendations overruled by three civil Commissioners who had £700 or £800 a year each, and some of them did not even live at Greenwich. It was precisely the same in the time of Sir James Gordon, Sir Charles Adam, and Sir R. Stopford. It might be necessary to have a financier to manage the monetary concerns of the hospital; but if it were, let him be a member of that House, and responsible to it for the manner in which he discharged his duties. The existence of these Commissioners was entirely unnecessary. The day before yesterday two men came to him, one of them a pensioner who had been in the service about twenty years, his pension being £27. When the Queen's proclamation came out calling on him to serve he went to Portsmouth, and was sent on board the Asia. He had been a petty officer, and he understood from the proclamation that when he went back he was to receive the same pay and rating as he had had before. The man said, "I am, however, now only rated as an A.B." He was, however, a devilish clover fellow and justly added, "Suppose you, Sir, were a reserve admiral, how would you like to go back again as captain?" Nor was this all, for previous to going back he had been employed fitting out merchant vessels and received weekly wages, but when he joined his ship he was two months without receiving any money, because the ship was not in course of pay, nor had he been able to make any allotment. This was not of so much importance in this case, because there was his pension of £27 to support them; but the contrary was the case in the instance of a man living in his own village who had a pension of £6, and who earned 10s. or 12s. a week as a bricklayer's labourer. He went to Portsmouth in obedience to the proclamation, but he could get no pay until the ship was in course of pay, nor could he make any allotment for his wife and family, who were starving at that moment. These were little things which did not come under the notice of the Admiralty; but all the pensioners who had re-entered the service were in the same position; they could get no pay until the ship was in the course of pay, and of course could make no allotment. He contended that these matters deserved inquiry, and he would therefore conclude by moving for the Address.

said, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that there were already an original Motion and an Amendment before the House; therefore, till one or the other of them was disposed of his Motion could not be put.

Am I at liberty now, Sir?

No; the Motion now before the House is that I leave the Chair.

said, he wished to call attention to several items in this Vote, which, it was understood last year, should not again appear in the Estimates for Irish Education. There were several of those items to which he objected, amongst which were the following:—Salaries of teachers of navigation, and purchase of nautical instruments; salaries of teachers of drawing and music; salaries of work mistresses in the ordinary National Schools, AMP; c. There was a long list under the head of model farms, class 11, which some of the Irish newspapers themselves had stated was as gross a piece of jobbery as ever was perpetrated, amounting in the whole to £4,274. There were also ninety agricultural schools maintained at a most extrava- gant cost. He submitted that the landlords of Ireland ought to maintain their own agricultural schools, as was done in Scotland and in England by the landlords of those countries. There were sixty-four schools belonging to workhouses in Ireland, to which he made no objection. The whole of the items to which he had referred as most objectionable amounted to £22,689, which sum he would move should be deducted from the Vote, unless he received an assurance from the Government that they would never again appear in this Vote. He thought the best application of this money would be to promote the extensi on of education amongst the people.

said, he thought the House ought to look at both sides of the question, and he must express his surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have passed over the Vote for English Education, amounting to £826,000 for the education of 800,000 children, in silence, and yet should grudge this comparatively small sum of £246,000 for the education of 500,000 children in Ireland. If justice were done, the English and Scotch taxpayers would have to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of £300,000 more. There could be no more legitimate expense than that incurred in teaching the people agriculture —the pursuit by which the majority of them had to gain their livelihood. As for singing, if he had his will it should be obligatory on every school to teach the children this most civilizing accomplishment. He could scarcely think the hon. Member serious in his opposition to instruction in sewing.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would be satisfied with his assurance that no new expenditure with reference to the Model Agricultural Schools was now contemplated. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware how that system of agricultural teaching originated. It was considered desirable by the Devon Commission, and by all persons who had paid attention to the condition of Ireland, that industrial education should be combined with merely literary education, in order that the children, whether male or female, might receive a training which would enable them to obtain a livelihood. The question arose, however, how the teachers for the agricultural schools in which these children were to be educated should themselves be trained? The most economical course was evidently to give them an efficient training, and on this ground the Model Agricultural School near Dublin and that under the control of the Commissioners had been established. His hon. Friend also objected to the expense incurred for the instruction in needlework afforded in the female industrial schools. It appeared from returns presented by the Board of Trade that an extraordinary increase had taken place of late years in articles of needlework manufactured in Ireland which were imported into this country. These imports were principally owing to the employment provided by capitalists in Scotland for Irish women, thus affording to the young women of the sister kingdom the invaluable advantage of gaining a subsistence by their industry. He thought the Government would have neglected their duty if they had not provided for their industrial education in both these establishments. If his hon. Friend would refer to the report of the Commissioners of Education, he would find that very high authorities among Irishmen, and also Mr. Chambers, an eminent Scotchman, who had visited the school of Glasnevin, had expressed a strong opinion as to the importance of maintaining that establishment, even if it were not profitable, as a mere farm. He (Mr. Cardwell) did not mean to say that these items would not appear in future Estimates, but the charge for the higher branch of the agricultural schools had been discontinued as a matter of new expenditure.

contended that it was against the principle which had been repeatedly acknowledged in the House to grant any particular class of Her Majesty's subjects sums of money in order to their being educated in any particular industrial branch. They did not, for example, vote away money to teach the people to spin wool in Yorkshire or to make knives in Sheffield. Ireland was never more prosperous or contented than at the present moment. And he rejoiced at the fact; but he certainly thought it most absurd that the people of the United Kingdom should be called upon to pay for teaching the childern of Ireland music and needlework. He should certainly divide with the hon. Member for Lambeth against this Vote.

said, he thought it was a mistake to give stewards and gardeners such a training as was afforded in these schools, but he would recommend the hon. Member for Lambeth not to divide the Committee.

said, as the hon. Member for Lambeth had allowed the Votes for industrial teaching in England to pass without the slightest comment, he could hardly be serious in his threat to divide the Committee on this Vote.

said, he was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that these items were in course of diminution. He could not understand on what principle any English, Irish, or Scotch Member could support this Vote; but as he feared that he should not succeed in his opposition to it he would withdraw his Motion.

said, some observations were made that morning as to the payment of the national schoolmasters in Ireland. He thought it was highly expedient to increase their salaries, and also perhaps to reduce their number. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) bad spoken on the subject of education in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman advised the people of Ireland to preserve the national system, but there were 2,200,000 or 2,300,000 Protestants in Ireland, and nineteen-twentieths of them were of opinion that the Scriptures ought not to be excluded by a peremptory rule from their schools. The province of Ulster afforded a test of the feelings of Irish Protestants on this subject. They were unanimously of opinion that some concession should be made to satisfy the scruples and convictions of their church and people. The Church of Rome, the Church of England, and the Presbyterian Synod complained of that system. The right hon. Member for Taunton asked the Irish Members why they did not approve it, but would the English Members agree to the establishment of that system in England? They certainly would not. There were at present what were called revivals in Ulster, and he had read an account of 30,000 people worshipping there the other day in the open air. Those people would tell you that they clung to the Scriptures, that they pinned their faith upon the Scriptures, and upon nothing else. You might say that that was Puritanical, but that was not the question. The question was, did they bold that opinion? They did. On what principle, then, did the House propose to tax them for the support of a system to which they objected? That system would never prevail among a Protestant population, and it was therefore incumbent upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man of ability and, he believed, of sense, to ascertain what were the opinions of all classes of the people, and to make the system conformable to their opinions, and it would thereby become more national than ever. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) had misunderstood what was said about the national schoolmasters. It was never intended to attack the whole body of schoolmasters. The great bulk of them were most respectable men, and in charity he was willing to believe it was their miserable pay which induced four or five of them to implicate themselves in treason. On returning from the late trials for conspiracy in Ireland he mentioned to Lord Eglinton what he had discovered in reference to the conduct and moral principles of certain of the national schoolmasters. Lord Eglinton said, the moment the trials were over he would cause a strict inquiry to be made by the National Board into the conduct of these rebellious schoolmasters, and endeavour to secure for the country teachers who would not deprave the morals of their scholars. It had been said that the Protestants were an extreme and intolerant party; but the Protestants had never yet been convinced that it was an intolerant opinion to be in favour of the reading of the New Testament in schools, and against the exclusion of any good book. At the same time they did not wish to force their system of instruction upon any one, but to leave the school doors open, that all who entered might do so with a full knowledge that they would [hear the truth. The success of the schools in Connaught and Munster, where there was little mixed education given had been vaunted. But surely in Ulster, where the system of mixed education actually existed, encouragement ought not to be withheld from those who sought to carry its principles into practical operation. A gentleman who formed one of a deputation to the late Government in Dublin said that if the national system was allowed to exist as at present the education of the better class would be extinguished in Ireland; and on being asked for an explanation of his opinion, he said that it had had the effect of destroying all the intermediate schools, which formerly educated a better class of the people than the peasants merely. Un- der the existing system education was not provided for those classes who were immediately above the poor, and he expected soon that a grant would be moved for out of the public purse to provide for their education. The hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Maguire) complained that the Roman Catholics were very much restricted under the National system, and he cited as an example an instance where the Commissioners refused to make a grant because the emblem of the cross appeared on the ground to be built on. He (Mr. Whiteside) thought that was a very narrow objection. But he went further, and said there was an extreme difficulty in applying this system in its stringency to all cases of religious manifestation. His complaint was that this country (Great Britain) was in the habit of legislating without consideration for the quiet, peaceable, retired, and, if he might say it without offence, the loyal people of Ireland. It was precisely because they were quiet that their opinions were disregarded; if they had been troublesome, their grievances would have been redressed. There had not been a single Orange procession in Ulster this year, but great discontent was felt on this subject of education. The right hon. Member for Taunton said they ought to be satisfied with a theory of his, with which, however, they were not satisfied. Let him mention three examples of the difficulty of working the system in its present form. Some time ago a number of ladies connected with the Established Church and with the Dissenting bodies united together in founding a ragged school in Belfast, where certain miserable and outcast children were fed, clothed, and taught something of the existence of a God, of which they had never heard before. The National Board was applied to for assistance, which was granted after examination of the rules of the school; but after a time representations were made to the Board that something had been taught savouring of religion —he knew not whether it) was the Lord's Prayer or a hymn. Straightway an offensive inquiry was instituted on the spot to discover not merely whether the Btrict orders of the Board in regard to religious instruction had not been exceeded by these benevolent ladies, but into their own opinions and conduct as to religious teaching. In another case an inspector found a religious book in a school conducted by some nuns, and it appearing that a Protestant child had been taught an Ave Maria from it, the Board wrote an admonition to the teachers condemning what they had done. What did this prove but that those ladies, being bound together by a higher obligation than any that the Board could enforce, could not fail to be brought into collision with its administrators, and did that despite the rules which the rules of the Board were formed to prevent? It would be far better to give to the members of different religious persuasions such aid as they were fairly entitled to secure, and enforce under inspection a good secular education, and then leave the patrons to give religious instruction in accordance with their own conscientious belief to those scholars who chose to attend their schools. The third instance that he would quote was one in which an inspector visited a school in Tyrone and found the school closed during school hours to enable the Redemptorist Fathers to hold a meeting within its walls. As the Board would allow no religious teaching within the school, their rules were brought into direct conflict with the opinions of, no doubt, the great bulk of the pupils. The schools could not be opened in the morning with a recognition of the existence of the Almighty; a priest would violate the system if he gave the children his blessing; and the scholars would, in their turn, be censurable if they crossed themselves in the school. What was that but attempting to govern the people of a free country by the drum-head principles of the Prussian system? He believed the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) had once a favourable impression of the National system, but on examining its working he came over to our opinion, and that is to maintain the secular system in all its utility, leaving the patron to give the religious instruction which he notifies. Sir F. Head also, who in a pamphlet stated that he had been charmed by the spectacle of a model school in which several hundred children were taught, after further reflection said the sight of such a school inspired a sentiment of awe, because those hundreds of children commenced and concluded their day without any acknowldegment in the school of the existence of a Divine Being. He also became of our opinion. No answer had ever been given to the case of the Wesleyan Methodists. In their schools, by the system of teaching established by John Wesley, religious instruction was made obligatory; the trustees of Methodist schools could not deviate from their trusts, and their system was in direct conflict with that of the Nation-al Board. The Earl of Eglinton had at one time entertained an opinion that the Board ought not to be meddled with; but, after investigating the practical working of the system, and consulting the dignitaries of the Church upon it, he came to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to maintain it as it at present existed, and that such modifications ought to be introduced into it as, without affecting the conscientious scruples of any man, and rendering the system more national, would enable this House which voted away the money, to include within the operations of the Society those who now conscientiously differed from it. When they reflected upon what was the nature of the population of Ireland, and that there were fifty Members from that country who would probably vote for a modification, he thought that whatever their opinions or prejudices this House was bound to reconsider the stringent rules of the National Board of Education. He (Mr. Whiteside) spoke not to the Roman Catholics, but he spoke on behalf of the Church, which would not change with the changing politics of the day, and of the University for which he was a Member; but he could not help expressing his admiration of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), because he thought it was tolerant, courteous to those who differed from the right hon. Gentleman, and yet expressive of his own views. He would, however, warn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that he would never be able to change the opinion of the Church on this question. The Church of England rested on the Scriptures, and it would always insist that the Scriptures should be taught. The Protestants in Ireland were part of the nation as well as the Roman Catholics, and neither party could now well exist without the other. The country, however, was wide enough for both, and the best advice he could give them was to respect each other, and endeavour to settle this dispute in an amicable spirit, and put an end to almost the only question that now provoked a difference of opinion in Ireland.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that although Roman Catholic children attended many of the Protestant schools in Ireland, they never heard of any of them being perverted or converted to the Protestant faith, But why did the Roman Catholic children go to the Protestant schools? Was it not a notorious fact, that in ninety-nine eases out of 100 they were coerced in doing so? He was stating what he knew to be the truth. He knew from experience, that when work was scarce, labourers were refused employment and turned away, De-cause their children did not go to the Protestant schools. The Secretary for Ireland had proved to him that he knew how to take a correct measure of certain gentlemen who came from Ireland and spoke mildly and quietly in this House, but who had got up this game of opposition with a view of moving the Government to accede to the wishes of the Church party. If the Roman Catholics held the same proportion of property in Ireland as the Protestants, he should be ready to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield. He agreed almost entirely with what had fallen from the hon. Secretary for Ireland. No matter what defects might be imputed to the National system of education, it had conferred greater benefits on Ireland and done more to raise the character of the people than anything effected by legislation within his memory.

agreed that it was of the utmost importance, that the schools in the south of Ireland especially should be raised to a higher standard, and that the only mode of raising them was by increasing the salaries of the masters. The real test, in his opinion, of a good system of National education was, that it should evoke the largest possible amount of local and personal effort; but tried by that test, he confessed he thought that the Irish system of education had in some measure failed. He trusted that the Government would use their best endeavours to make the system succeed in those points where it had failed.

called attention to the fact that this Vote was required on account of the practical failure of the system of mixed academical education in Ireland. A note in the Estimate stated that the Vote was necessary to meet certain incidental expenses formerly defrayed from fees which had been reduced. The total sum derived from such fees, however, before the reduction, was only £759 for the three colleges. When the matriculation fee was reduced from £3 to 10s., the aggregate reduction amounted to about £700. The House was now asked to vote £800 to make up for the loss of £700. If the number of students had been as large as the promoters of the colleges anticipated, no necessity whatever would have arisen for this Vote. He would not oppose the Vote this year for reasons he had formerly adverted to.

said, the whole of the items which formed this Vote were given in a complete state in the Estimates, and he had no hesitation in saying that the colleges had not met with the success which was originally expected by the founders.

said, that as a Protestant Dissenter he always felt ashamed when he saw this Vote upon the Estimates. He would appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for his support, for it was his belief that if the House could be induced to refuse the Vote the path would be cleared, to some extent, for getting rid of Maynooth. There was no reason on earth why this large denomination of Christians should not pay their own theological professors. Among the disbursements was a sum of £250 a year to Dr. Cook, for filling the office of professor of sacred rhetoric— an office, he believed, which had never been heard of in any other country. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote to the sum of £450 being the amount of the retiring allowances.

inquired if it was not an understood thing at the establishment of the Belfast College that the institution was to merge into it.

explained that the fusion had taken place, but that such of the then existing professors as were en-titled to a retiring allowance were provided for out of the Vote.

complained that the Irish Presbyterians were the only Nonconformist body in the United Kingdom who received a single farthing from the Exchequer. He objected to such gentle-men as Drs. Montgomery, Scott, and Cooke, enjoying professorships when they had chapels for the administration of the duties of which they were likewise paid. It was now quite time that the Presbyterians should be put on the same healthy footing as other Nonconformists. They were most grudging in the support of their clergy, and he believed no greater service could be done to the denomination than by the withdrawal of this grant. Let them in future pay their own ministers and their own professors.

said, hon. Gentlemen must remember that the retiring allowances comprised in this Vote were made to professors who were got rid of when the Parliamentary grant for the Belfast Academical Institution ceased. The Irish Presbyterians were not Nonconformists, they formed, in fact, a National Church, holding the same opinions with the Church of Scotland. With regard to the conduct of the rev. Gentlemen mentioned by the last speaker, it was ridiculous that a salary of £150 per annum was to prohibit them from turning their talents to the best account, so long as their doing so did not interfere with their professional duties. A salary of £150 to Dr. Cooke for teaching the young men of his own creed—the equal of Chalmers in oratory—was not apiece of extravagance of which the Committee could complain. He must remind the hon. Gentleman who spoke of these Presbyterians in Ireland in the way he did that they contributed largely to the taxation of the country, and that it was a very impolitic course for any hon. Member to take, when £30,000 was voted for the College of Maynooth, by turning round on some of the most useful men in Ireland who were engaged in teaching a large body of people the principles of their religion.

said, that the Presbyterians were at present in connection with the Free Church of Scotland.

said, he could bear testimony to the deserving character and services of the Presbyterian clergy of Ulster, whose incomes were by no means too large.

said, the principle of this Vote was radically bad; for this money was given not to a university, but to the theological hall of a small body of Dissenters; and if such Votes of public money as these were given, it would be occasion of great extravagance, because other demands of a similar nature would be made on the public purse. He, therefore, objected to it altogether.

said, that as the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the senior Trustee of the British Museum, happened, unfortunately for him (Mr. Walpole), to be in office, it devolved upon him as the junior Trustee to move the Estimate for the present year. But the duty was considerably lightened on this occasion by the circumstance that there was nothing in the Vote this year requiring explanation or apology. The Committee would observe that the Vote was less by £1,875 than it was last year, or £77,475 against £79,275 of the previous year. The Vote was arranged under the different heads of the salaries of the establishment, the house expenses, purchases and acquisitions, books, and bookbinding, catalogues, and miscellaneous charges. If hon. Members looked through these different details they would find that there was an increase under the first head of £1,475 in consequence of the increase of attendants which the new arrangements had rendered necessary. Under the head of house expenses there was a diminution of £220, in consequence of some improvements in the warming and ventilation. Under the third head, of purchases and acquisitions, they would find there was a slight increase of £300, chiefly owing to the improvements in the mineralogical department which was under the direction of a very able Professor. Under the head of books and bookbinding there was a large diminution, to the extent of £2,500 which, was owing to large Votes having been taken in former years to bring up the arrears of bookbinding which had fallen back in former years. There was also a diminution of £900 in the Vote for the catalogues, while the miscellaneous charges remained the same; so that the Committee would observe the difference between last year's Vote and the present was a saving in the present year of £1,875. The only material point to which he thought it necessary to direct the attention of the Committee was a circumstance which must be highly gratifying to them—he meant the increase in the number of gentlemen who attended the Museum for the purpose of study. Not only was there an increase in the number of students, but an increase in the number of books they used for study; and, what to his mind was the most gratifying of all, there was a large increase in the number of boots put into the closets for the purpose of future study by those students who came there day after day to pursue their investigations into a particular subject, and who were allowed the use of these closets —a new regulation which he had no hesitation in saying had proved of the greatest advantage. The number of books returned to the shelves of the general library during the year was 177,290; to the Royal library, 12,425; to the Grenville library, 787; and to those closets where the books were left for students, 122,192; and adding to these the number of volumes, amounting to 564,000, in the reading-room, which the students could command without requiring any order for their use, it showed that the books used in the course of the year amounted to 876,000, or 3,000 per diem, while the numbers used in the preceding year were 576,000, or about 2,000 per diem. This showed that the increased accommodation afforded to students had been largely used by them. There were two vacancies in the list of Trustees that had been filled up. One of those vacancies, which was in the appointment of the Crown, and had long remained vacant, had at last been filled up by the appointment of the learned and able Dr. Cureton. The other vacancy was in the appointment of the official trustees; and it was a satisfaction to his mind to be able to state that they had selected the learned and excellent historian, Mr. Grote. This appointment was, he thought, of itself sufficient guarantee that the managers of this institution were determined to do all they could to maintain its high position as worthy of the British nation. He would formally conclude by moving the Vote.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the pre- sent state of the collection in the British Museum. It had been his intention, if he had obtained the Committee for which it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he had moved during the late Session of Parliament, to enter upon the inquiry as to whether some portion of the collection could not have been advantageously separated from the Museum, and then the question would have arisen as to the locality to which such portions should be removed. He had shown on that occasion that the Museum was in a state of hopeless confusion; that valuable collections were wholly hidden from the public, and that great portions of other collections were in danger of being destroyed by damp and neglect. Parliament, however, was dissolved, and on its reassembling he had not the energy, and he was not sure that he would be supported by the ardour of a sufficient number of Members to press for this Committee. In the course of next Session he should probably bring forward the matter again; but he trusted that the observations he was now about to make would render it unnecessary. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had opposed the Motion on the ground that the British Museum was in such a discreditable state that every delay should be avoided; that the late Government was in a position to act, and that it was to action and not to protracted investigation they should look to remedy the evil. No one better than the noble Lord could know the deficiencies of the British Museum. He believed that if the Government were prepared before the next meeting of Parliament with some course of action, they would be spared the anxiety of a protracted investigation, and get rid of the injurious evils which now affected the British Museum. He trusted that the Government would consider the subject during the recess, a course which they could take with the more advantage as they numbered in the Cabinet no less than four of the most influential Trustees. He would wish them, first of all, to consider whether the natural history department could not be removed from the British Museum. Public opinion was strongly in favour of its removal; and then the question for the Government was the locality to which it should be removed. There were two or three localities to which attention had been drawn. First of all there was Kensington; but he warned the Government that if they proposed to remove it to that locality they would meet with strenu- ous opposition. He believed that an opposition as successful as that which had been raised to the proposed transference of the National Gallery would be raised to any attempt to remove the British Museum to Kensington. The Regent's Park, which had been likewise spoken of, was certainly a more central position, and had the further advantage that the stuffed and osteological specimens might be studied in close proximity to the living specimens, but there were likewise difficulties to be encountered in that quarter, for he understood that pledges had been given which rendered building in that locality, without the consent of the inhabitants, a matter difficult of accomplishment. He believed that with certain arrangements which could be made the present site offered advantages which were not to be met with elsewhere; and certainly there would be the primary gain of a saving in the expense of a new library; the risk and delay attendant on a transference would be avoided; and they would also thus have drawn together a noble collection both natural and scientific. He did not mean that the collections were to be continued under the present roof, or as they stood; he should like to see a separation made between the works of nature and of art. He should desire to have a north and south front to the building for these different purposes, and he thought it would further be most advantageous that the enormous establishment should be placed under separate departments. It was quite bewildering for any man to attempt to govern the Museum in its entirety at present, and to exercise a general view; how much more bewildering therefore must it be for any single mind to attempt to exercise a general management over the whole. He hoped that in the new arrangement, whenever it might be completed, there would not be overlooked the necessity which existed for a scientific arrangement of the archaeological department. He could not do better on this point than to recall the attention of the Committee to what had taken place. Mr. Smirke, the architect to the Trustees, had prepared, by their order, a plan for the future arrangement of the British Museum. The Trustees, on this subject, had neither conferred with nor consulted a single one of the heads of the departments; and those gentlemen, if they were fit for the positions which they occupied, ought certainly to have had a voice in the matter. Professor Owen had not been consulted; and when, at great trouble, he drew up a plan it was determined by the Trustees that it should not be submitted to the House. Mr. Hawkins, the head of the department of antiquities, himself drew up a plan for the future arrangement of the archaeological department, which was a virtual though unconscious protest against the plan of Mr. Smirke. Year after year the House was asked for sums varying from £75,000 to £80,000 for this national institution, and for the most part these were voted without objection or complaint. But they had a right to expect that this money should be spent properly, and they would take care to demand that the British Museum, when it was completed, should be a credit and not a disgrace to the British nation. Another subject which he felt obliged to bring prominently forward was the necessity of making that building not merely a place for recreation, but of instruction by means of lectures. That proposition, when made on a former occasion, had been most favourably received by the House and the press out of doors. He was far from desirous of assuming a position of hostility to the present management, but he was perfectly determined to persevere in his efforts till those who did not belong to the upper classes of society, but who nevertheless contributed their quota towards the maintenance of the establishment, should have the means of deriving equal advantages from it with those who were more favourably off as to social position and early education. Those for whom he was interested were equally anxious to know the meaning and value of objects comprised in the collection, but unless by the medium of lectures they had no means of becoming acquainted with these details. He trusted that at the commencement of the next Session, whoever might be Her Majesty's Ministers, they would be prepared with a statement to the effect that a measure had in the meantime been prepared which would deal with the matters to which he had called attention. He must likewise refer to the position of the assistants in the British Museum, who were unquestionably the worst paid and the worst used of any of the public officials in any department. They required an education of a special and high order. Take, for instance, the archaeological department. The gentlemen assistants there had received a good classical education; many of them had a knowledge of different modern languages, and some even were acquainted with Eastern languages, both ancient and modern, yet the utmost to which these gentlemen could aspire, so long as they remained attached to the British Museum, was a salary of £300, with the exception of one fortunate individual, who might eventually be placed at the head of the department. Two years ago an alteration had been made in the condition of these gentlemen, who were divided into two classes; and he confessed he should be glad to be acquainted with the principle on which that division was made, and whether it had been generally applied. Previously the assistants had entered at £150 per year, and the maximum to which they could arrive after a great many years' service was £245. By the new arrangement they entered at somewhat over £200, and their salaries increased yearly until they reached £300. He believed there was a great diversity of opinion among the Trustees as to giving the assistants at the British Museum a more liberal provision in the way of salaries, although, considering that it was necessary to have the best men they could get, the present scale of salaries ought to be increased. There was but one other point to which he would allude, and that was with regard to the vacation. He found that in the whole year the assistants at the British Museum only had twenty-four days' vacation, while the assistants in all the other public departments had more than eight weeks' vacation in the year, and bearing in mind that the former were required to be on duty every ordinary day from ten a.m. to four p.m., he thought this very inconsiderate treatment. It was not by overworking people that they got the most efficient service; and although the officials of the Museum might endure such labour, yet it was placing upon them burdens which no other officers would bear. It was because those gentlemen were not connected with Parliamentary or political struggles that they found no person of influence to advocate their claims, and it was in the hope that he should better their condition that he now ventured to press the subject upon the Committee.

said, he knew the gentlemen constituting the working body of the British Museum, than whom a more intelligent, honourable, or worthy class of men did not exist. He trusted the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would use his influence in that House and as a trustee of the Museum in removing the great scandal on the lite- rary character of the country that at present existed in respect to the remuneration they received. He believed if the case of these gentlemen was brought clearly before the public, the feeling of the House and the country would be that these gentlemen should not be allowed to remain in the state of honourable penury in which they now stand—but would be regarded as deserving servants of the State. He (Mr. Milnes) availed himself of that opportunity to suggest that a certain number of small reading rooms should be attached to the library, for the use of men of high literary distinction who were engaged on particular works, and to whom the circumstance of studying in company with a large body of persons was extremely inconvenient. One of the most distinguished literary men of our time, who from physical circumstances was unable to avail himself of the treasures of the library, had actually received from foreign countries the very works which he was unable to take home from the British Museum. He also suggested that some arrangement might be made by which provincial libraries might be benefited by the distribution among them of some of the large collection of duplicate volumes in the library of the Museum.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had called the attention of the Committee to the position of the assistants of the Museum, who, he thought, were an ill-used class of men. He had the honour of knowing the whole of them, and he thought it was an honour to any gentleman to be acquainted with men of such high attainments and so fully competent to conduct the different departments in the Museum, and who were able and willing on all occasions to give every information to visitors to that establishment. And yet with the small salaries allowed them they were unable, highly accomplished though they were, to live like gentlemen, or to educate their families in a manner befitting their station. One of them he knew, had been compelled to relinquish what to him must have been a sort of Crimean medal, namely, his title of honour in connection with a learned body of which he was a member, from sheer inability longer to pay the annual expenses incident to membership. He (Mr. Turner) considered it a disgrace to the country which refused a salary of £300 a year to such men, but gave it to persons employed, for instance, in the inspection and manipulation of boots and coats for the army.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the small sum which was granted to Irish institutions of a similar character, when such lavish Votes were granted in England. He hoped that when a few trifling items were proposed for Irish purposes they would not meet with a renewal of objection to the amount. He agreed with the hon. Member for Galway that the British Museum was not made sufficiently available for the purposes of instruction. On a future occasion he should renew the notice he had formerly given on that point, and also for opening the Museum after the hours of Divine service on Sundays.

said, that the officers of the Museum complained not only of the lowness of their salaries, but of the way in which they were treated, being marked, for example, when they arrived in the morning, and having the number of hours they attended recorded against them. He could not understand why the Trustees had allowed the grievances of the assistants to remain so long unredressed. He was quite sure that no private gentleman would have treated his servants as the Board had treated the assistants of the Museum. He also wished to remark with reference to what had been said as to removing a part of the Museum to Kensington, that he thought the inhabitants of the east end of London had some claim to be considered, and that Victoria Park was as suitable a spot as Kensington for a part of the collection. He believed Mr. Smirke was the architect who had carried out the alterations of the Museum. £550,000 had been ex-ponded on the front, which he certainly did not admire, and only £200,000 on the Museum. He hoped any further alterations would be submitted to a competition of architects.

said, he differed from the view taken by the last speaker. The proportionate outlay was, as he believed, greatly less and the cost of the portico and peristyle under £100,000. The original architect was Sir Robert Smirke, his brother, Mr. Smirke, being the present architect, both of them being then of the greatest eminence. He did not object to the amount of the Votes that had been granted in respect of the monuments brought from the excavations at Halicarnassus, which had been referred to in the course of the discussion, but he wished to know whether some arrangement could not be made by which those extremely curious monuments could be publicly exhibited; at present they were in a miserable state under the portico.

asked whether the Museum could not be kept open longer on Saturday afternoons than at present; it might be contended that this would throw increased labour upon the servants of the institution, but he thought the working classes better deserved consideration than they, and that the general disposition evinced by all classes to observe the Saturday half-holiday rendered such an arrangement desirable.

said, he rose to reply to the various suggestions and questions that had been made. The hon. Member for Galway, in pointing out the inconvenience of removing some portion of the collection, and retaining others where they now were, suggested that the whole question should be taken up and considered by the Government. He (Mr. Walpole) was of the same opinion, for he believed that no Committee of that House could effectually grapple with the subject. Various Committees had already sat upon the whole matter, and all the information required had been obtained. It now only remained for the Government to take the matter in hand, and determine not only with regard to the British Museum, but with regard to other existing museums, how they could best be made available for the public generally. He thought it was hardly necessary, after the observations made by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) to reply to the observations that had been made upon the supposed confusion existing in the arrangements of the Museum. He might mention, however, that within the last ten days one of the most scientific gentlemen in Europe had seen and expressed his entire satisfaction, not only with the collections themselves, but with their arrangements. As to the suggestion that courses of lectures should be established, and lecturers of acknowledged ability be appointed to impart instruction upon the various portions of the collection, he thought that a difficult question to decide. Individually he thought such collections could not be made the most of without instruction; but in what rooms could the lectures be given? Who was to give the lectures? How was he to be paid? And after all, was the Museum the proper building for such a purpose? The Museum was a collection, not a school for instruction—a place to which people might resort to get information upon which they might make their own observations. But if the Museum were turned into a great college or academy for instruction, he thought it would be a perversion of the purpose for which it was originally intended. Then, with regard to the remuneration of the assistants, he would be glad to see them paid higher salaries. He did not mean to say that any of the gentlemen were paid in accordance with their attainments. But who was paid according to his attainments? Was Professor Owen—the person who was paid more than any one else in the establishment—paid according to his attainments and acquirements? Why, he would not be sufficiently paid, if he received a salary equal to that of the first Minister of the Crown. He did not wish to check the desire of hon. Gentlemen, of the Government, nor even of the Trustees, if they entertained such a desire, to pay higher salaries than were now given; but two years ago the whole question had been fully gone into by officers appointed by the Treasury to see if those persons were properly paid: their salaries in some instances were raised, in all they were considered. Let it be considered again de novo, but he only wished to tell hon. Gentlemen that after such an inquiry they should not come down to the House and complain that the Votes in the Civil Estimates were being increased from year to year, and that no check existed upon the Trustees, who were remunerating their assistants, not according to the requirements of the establishment, but according to their own notions of philanthropy and benevolence, however disqualified the recipient might be. With reference to the suggestion that separate rooms should be built in which gentlemen deserving peculiar consideration might pursue their studies unmolested, which they could not do in the public reading-room, he considered that many objections might arise if such an arrangement were put in operation, not the least amongst which would be jealousy caused by the admission of one to the exclusion of another. But he thought that the arrangements already provided in the public reading-room — the separate desks, the separate lockers in which the reader might keep his pens, paper, and books which he had not finished reading, cum multis aliis —were of such a nature as to preclude the necessity for the adoption of such a suggestion as that to which he was replying. As to the exceptional case mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract such a case might be made by the Trustees the subject of exceptional treatment; and he was quite sure that the Trustees would feel the greatest willingness to take it into their consideration and make every necessary provision required. Then, with regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) upon the monuments from the excavations of Halicarnassus, he admitted that they were undoubtedly in the most disreputable state as far as the accommodation provided for them was concerned. They were under a glass covering, hardly open to the public; and there was really no means of studying them as many persons might desire to do. But in alluding to this subject the hon. Member was in fact opening the whole question of the extension of the building. That was a very large question, and he (Mr. Walpole) was very much in favour of the extension, therefore he hoped it would not be thought that he was going to oppose it. But at the same time he must be understood as giving his own individual opinion only in thus expressing himself, and not the opinion of the Trustees, although, for aught he knew, they might entertain similar views. He believed that they would never make the Museum a fitting receptacle even for the objects which we had got until it was extended to the street running to the north of it. Nay, more; he would not say but that, in the course of time, it would not be necessary to add to it on each side, so that it should occupy the whole space within the four adjoining streets. As to extending the hours of admission on Saturday, he might remark that until lately the Museum had not been open to the public at all on Saturdays. He believed that the hon. Member (Sir John Shelley) was under a mistake if he thought that Saturday was the day on which the working classes took most advantage of the Museum by visiting it, for he was informed that it was on Monday that they went there in the greatest numbers; and if they extended the hours for being open on Saturday they would involve themselves in the question of whether the Museum should not be open in the evening; and it was a question whether such a course by rendering necessary the introduction of fires and lights, might lead to more loss than advantage. He had not long been one of the Trustees of the British Museum, but in the governors of no institution had he ever witnessed a greater desire to give the greatest possible accom- modation to the public, and to the working classes as well as others. The Trustees could have no desire except to make the institution worthy of the country, and he believed that, by the attention which they paid to it, that object would be accomplished.

said, that speaking as an individual he felt bound to state that he looked upon the scheme for extending the Museum which had been sketched by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) with alarm, as one involving an enormous and most unnecessary expense. The provision of additional accommodation called for the early consideration of the House; but whether it could be accomplished without the separation of the collections was to him more than doubtful. The Trustees, he believed, were quite prepared to enter into the fullest consideration of this question and to declare their opinion upon it, and it would be the duly of the Government, when circumstances would permit, to take steps to bring it to a state of ripeness for decision. At the present moment he felt more than ordinarily the necessity for caution and circumspection, on account of the accumulation of heavy demands on the public purse, though he did not state this so much as a reason for doing nothing as a plea for indulgence. He was sorry to hear the question of insufficient salaries and vacations raised in the House of Commons—for in the first place there appeared little presumptive reason for raising it, and if it were raised it should be in a different manner and place. The most deliberate and careful consideration had been given to the question of salaries by the Trustees and the Treasury jointly some two years ago. In fixing the salaries of offices of this kind, it was but fair to the public that the other incidents of the offices should also be taken into view. It must not be forgotten that the offices which these gentlemen held were peculiarly agreeable in themselves, and the agreeable incidents of offices of this kind for literary men must necessarily form an important item in considering the salaries attached to them. Still, if these gentlemen were dissatisfied —and it was evident from what had been said that they were—with the amount of salary which they received, and the length of vacation which they were allowed to abstract from their ordinary duties, their proper course was to memorialize the Trustees and ask for an alteration. They had al- ready raised one point before the Trustees —that of retrospective increase of salaries —and the Trustees having decided against them it was competent for them to have applied to the Treasury, and ultimately to the House of Commons. So in all other cases they ought to go before the Trustees first, and if they did not get justice from them they might then go to the Executive Government, and it was only by way of appeal from the Trustees and the Executive Government that they could legitimately appear before the House.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman laboured under a misapprehension, when he said that he (Mr. Gregory) represented the grievances of the officers of the British Museum. From taste and inclination, however, he was frequently at the Museum, and well acquainted with the affairs of the place. He hoped that the gentlemen in question would profit by the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that their address would meet with more success than former ones had done.

said, he would not ask the House to take a Vote which might create discussion at that time of night, twelve o'clock.

said, he would move the second reading of this Bill. He proposed to take any discussion which might be thought desirable in Committee.

said, he should oppose the second clause.

said, that Major-General Cartwright, who was an Inspector-General of Police, was entitled to a salary of £700 a year, but in consequence of his having served in the army, and being in receipt of half-pay, a deduction of £200 a year was made from that amount. He wished to know whether it was intended to remedy this grievance.

replied, that a clause in the present Bill would enable officers of the police force to receive their full-pay in that capacity, as well as half-pay and pensions for military services.

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that in consequence of indictments having in many cases been preferred against persons before grand juries simply for purposes of oppression or extortion, this measure provided that in cases of perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, obtaining money or other property by false pretences, keeping gambling-houses or disorderly houses, or indecent assaults, the prosecutors before preferring Bills should be required to take proceedings before magistrates, and so give the parties accused some notice of the accusations. At present indictments might be preferred before grand juries, and if they were found upon ex parte statements the plaintiffs were entitled to bench warrants, and the first notice the intended victims—the persons accused—received of the proceedings was from the execution of those warrants.

said, the arguments used in favour of this Bill would equally apply to the whole grand jury system, and the right generally of preferring an indictment before a grand jury. Although he was anxious to guard against abuses in the cases referred to, he objected to constituting a justice of the peace, without any appeal or restraint, the sole judge as to whether an indictment should or should not be preferred. The measure was one which proposed a fundamental change in the constitutional rights of a British subject, and which appeared to him to be totally subversive of his liberty in those matters. He should certainly oppose the passing of the measure, unless it was materially altered in Committee.

said, the Bill was undoubtedly of a startling character in regard to some of its provisions, and would require careful consideration. He concurred in the principle of preventing vexatious indictments; nevertheless, he thought that it required some alteration in order to pro- tect the rights of a British subject to obtain justice for a grievous wrong done him.

said, that as the Bill referred to Ireland, he should like to hoar the opinion of the Solicitor General for Ireland upon it.

said, this was a modified attempt to get rid of the grand jury system. Attempts had been made to get rid of the system altogether. He believed the system had been abused in the metropolis with a view of extorting money, but he must beg leave to reserve his opinion upon the question whether the Bill dealt rightly with the grievance. He would ask whether the object of the Bill could not be attained by restraining persons from presenting Bills instead of restraining the grand jury from finding Bills? But he thought the objections to the Bill could be better discussed in Committee.

said, he believed the operation of the Bill in Ireland would amount almost to nothing, because the offence against which it was aimed was almost unknown there.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Roman Catholic charities, said that for some years past an annual Bill had been passed to withdraw Roman Catholic charities from the general law by which all charities were subjected to—the jurisdiction of the Charitable Commissioners. The reason of that exemption had been that in many cases the Roman Catholic charities contained trusts which the law denominated as uses of a superstitious character, and, therefore, void by the existing law; and it was thought that if those trusts were brought, without some cautionary legislation, under the jurisdiction of the Charitable Commissioners, they would be invalidated, and that thereby inconvenience would ensue contrary to the intention of the original founder. Promises had been made at different times that this exception should be put an end to, and that provisions should be proposed to the House which would have the effect of remedying the inconvenience in question, at the same time that the Roman Catholic charities should be brought under the operation of the existing law. Up to the present time, however, that object had not been effected; and what he (Sir G. Lewis) now proposed was, that the necessity for that annual exemption should he superseded, and that an enactment should be established which should have the effect of converting those Roman Catholic charities which were contrary to the existing law to purposes consonant with the existing law, while they still retained their Roman Catholic character; that was to say, that the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners should, in cases where the trust either covered the whole estate, or where it was mixed up with a lawful trust, have power to apply that portion of the endowment, in the case of its being a mixed trust, or the whole in case of its being an unmixed trust, to a charitable purpose that was lawful according to the existing law, at the same time maintaining its exclusively Roman Catholic character. That was the principal object of the clauses which he now sought to introduce. He also proposed that there should be a clause by which validity should be given to uninterrupted usage where it had existed for twenty years.

said, he was glad that the Government had resolved upon the introduction of this Bill. All he now asked was, that they would give sufficient time for considering the measure, and that the country might see that it did not involve any principle the recognition of which might be the cause of regret hereafter.

said, he trusted that Irish Members, from not opposing the introduction of the Bill, would not be considered to have assented to its principle. Any doubt he might feel arose from the approbation expressed by the hon. Member.