said, that he anticipated that when the correspondence between the Treasury, the Admiralty, and the Post Office with reference to the pier and other accommodation at Holyhead was completed, which he hoped would be before long, there would not be any objection to laying it upon the table.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When certain copies of the Models of Gasholders, deposited in the Office of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer, in compliance with the 3rd Section of the Sale of Gas Act, 22 &c 23 Vict., c. 66, will be sent to the Lord Mayor of London and the Chief Magistrates of Edinburgh and Dublin, as required by the Sale of Gas Act?

said, that he was informed that three copies of the Models of Gasholders deposited in the Office of the Comptroller General of the Exchequer, in compliance with the 3rd Section of the Sale of Gas Act, were completed, and ready to be sent to London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. The Lord Mayor of London had been informed that the model was ready for him whenever he chose to send for it. As to the other two, they would not be sent until it was ascertained that proper accommodation was provided for them.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the Recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of last Session?

said, the Report of the Committee had been taken into earnest consideration at the Foreign Office, and an attempt had been made to embody their recommendations in a scheme. That scheme had been forwarded to the Treasury, and in case it met with their approval it would rest with that Department to submit such demands to the House as might be necessary to cover the additional expenses that would be entailed by the alterations recommended by the Committee.

Sir, seeing the noble Viscount the leader of the House in his place, I wish to make an inquiry of him on a point connected with the course of public business, which I believe is of much interest to the House. The noble Lord is aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has given notice of a Motion on Tuesday, the 25th of March, to the effect that this House upon a subsequent day, to be then named, shall go into Committee of the whole House, to consider the mode of distributing the national fund for the purposes of national education. My right hon. Friend said that he would be prepared on the 25th of March to ask the opinion of the House whether it was desirable or not to consider the subject in Committee; and if they agreed to that Motion, he would before the day for going into Committee be prepared to lay his Resolutions on the table of the House. But yesterday some hon. Members sitting on the opposite benches seemed to be desirous that the Government should agree to the Motion, and pressed the Government to take that course. Some answers were given by various Members of the Government, which have occasioned, I believe, great ambiguity on the subject. The noble Lord must feel that this is a subject upon which a clear understanding is most desirable. I therefore wish to inquire from the noble Lord, what is the course which the Government are prepared to take upon the question? A right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench led us to infer that it was possible for the Government to agree to go into the question on the 25th.

I rise to order. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to what was said from the Treasury bench, of course those hon. Members to whom he alludes must have an opportunity of replying.

I only wish to make a few observations in order to render my statement clear. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am misrepresenting the case, he will have an opportunity of replying to me on a subsequent occasion. I wish now to put a question to the noble Viscount. I apprehend what both sides of the House wish to understand is this:—Are we, on the 25th of March next, to go bonâ, fide into Committee of the whole House on the question of distributing the funds for the purposes of national education? If that is the wish and determination of the noble Lord, my right hon. Friend has said that he will be prepared on a convenient occasion—so that the House will have ample time for consideration—to lay his Resolutions on the table; and, of course, any other hon. Gentleman who may wish to lay Resolutions on the table in reference to the same matter will also have full opportunity of doing so. Now, I wish to know what really is the intention of the Government in respect to this matter—whether they are prepared to agree to the consideration of these Resolutions in Committee? In that case, we shall, of course, go into Committee upon them on Tuesday, the 25th of March.

Sir, I was not here yesterday, but on reading the record of what passed, which is in the hands of everybody, it does not appear by me that there was any ambiguity in the answer given by my right hon. Friend, which the right hon. Gentleman imagines. But to answer his question, I have no difficulty in stating that Her Majesty's Government feel the subject of education as connected with the Revised Code and the Minutes of the Council to be a matter on which such great and extensive interest is felt that there can be no reasonable objection to consider in Committee of the whole House the proposals which any hon. Member may think fit to make on that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge appeared to me to describe very accurately, and very succinctly, the course which he meant to pursue. I presume his Resolutions would be Resolutions bearing on the Revised Code, and on the minutes of the Committee of Council for Education; that they would bring on for discussion the questions which have been under consideration. There are two courses which he might pursue. He might either do that which I understand him to have indicated; that is to say, he might give notice that on a certain day he would move that on a subsequent day the House should resolve itself into Committee on that matter, and might state at the same time that he would not hang up his Resolutions for criticism till the time arrived for the House to resolve itself into Committee. That is the course he might adopt if he were very modest as to the nature of his Resolutions. The more natural course would be, that he should lay those Resolutions on the table of the House, and simply give notice—as I believe was done by my noble Friend Earl Russell on a former occasion—that he should, on a subsequent day, move the House to resolve itself into Committee on those Resolutions. But these are distinctions on a matter of form. Substantially, the Government will have no objection to have the proposals, whatever they may be, bearing on the subject of education as carried on by the Committee of Council, discussed in a Committee of the whole House.

Sir, from the answer just given by the noble Viscount, I infer that the Government would have no objection, if I laid my Resolutions on the table, as I said yesterday I should fee prepared to do, at least a fortnight before the day on which I am to make my Motion for going into Committee, that I might then move, instead of the House going into Committee on a future day, that the House should go into Committee on the day appointed for the Motion—namely, Tuesday, the 25th of March. Am I correct in supposing that the noble Lord would not then object to going into Committee? Is that what the Government are prepared to do? I believe that course would be the most convenient that could be adopted, for it would enable me to bring forward the question earlier than otherwise it would be in my power to do. Then, if the noble Viscount consents, I would first give notice of a Motion for this House going into Committee on Tuesday, the 25th of March, and then I would undertake to give notice of my Resolutions at least a fortnight before that day.

I do not think there is any objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand he would lay his Resolutions on the table a fortnight before the day on which his Motion is to come on.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If the Government have entered into any negotiations with parties in this country, or considered offers of co-operation from Foreign Governments, for the purpose of laying down Telegraphic communication with America?

I am not aware, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have entered into any negotiations with any parties in this country relative to telegraphic communication between England and America. The American Government have expressed, in general terms, a wish that, by some means or other, a telegraphic communication should be established between England and America; but no distinct proposal has been made on the subject, and therefore no negotiations have been entered into with any foreign Governments with reference to such communication.

rose to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade the question of which he had given notice. It would be necessary that he should preface this question with a few brief sentences by way of explanation; but, as he was well aware that this was not a subject of general interest, though deeply affecting a most important body—the shipowners of the United Kingdom—he would take care that those sentences were very brief and few. In the year 1860 a Bill was introduced into this House, called "The Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill." It was intended to repeal certain provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts which had become obsolete, and were quite inapplicable to the present mode of carrying on the commerce of the country. It introduced uniformity of practice in the place of a most perplexing variety; and it did away with evils which had long been loudly complained of, and which were deeply injurious to the shipping interests of the port of London. To give an idea of the extreme inconvenience of the present law, he would mention only one point out of many. When a ship arrived in port from a voyage, it might be imagined that her owner would require the consignee of her cargo to land it with all reasonable despatch, in. order that his vessel might proceed again upon her outward voyage; but the fact was, that he was compelled by law to keep his ship as a gratuitous warehouse for an unlimited period, unless it should suit the good pleasure of the consignee to remove the goods earlier. His only alternative was to enter the goods as his own, which would formerly have subjected him to a penalty, and which was still an irregular act, and might be called an evasion of the law. Now, when it was considered that the introduction of steam and the diminution of the profits of the shipowner had made rapidity in the voyage, and despatch in loading and discharging, most essential, some alteration in the law was absolutely necessary. And since British shipowners were exposed to competition with the whole world, every artificial burden and restriction ought to be removed from them. This was the object of the Bill of 1860. It was no scheme of a private member anxious to indulge some whim of his own, or to further some local interests. On' the Back of the Bill appeared the influential names of the President and Vice President of the Board of Trade. It was not hurried through the House without sufficient notice, for, though laid upon the table early in the Session, it was carried so late that it could not come before the House of Lords. They were told that the Customs authorities had been duly consulted, and he (Mr. Cave) had reason to know that deputations from shipowners, dock companies, wharfingers, and out ports, had frequent and protracted interviews with the right hon. Gentleman, and gave him the benefit of their experience and advice. It was hotly discussed in Committee, at great length, for, he thought, three nights; several changes and Amendments were proposed and adopted, till at length what might be supposed to have been a perfect measure was produced—at least, he knew it gave general satisfaction to the shipping interest. But, as he said before, it was too late to pass the House of Lords, and it was generally understood that it would be reintroduced at the earliest moment of the following Session. But another Session passed away, and there was no sign from the Board of Trade. The shipowners, therefore, naturally complained that their interests had been neglected, and he thought that the House had a good right to complain that a measure which it passed with so much care and deliberation should have been allowed for so long to lie dormant without an effort to restore suspended animation. Perhaps it might not yet be too late to resort to this process, and it was with that hope that he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to reintroduce during this Session the Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill, which passed the House of Commons in 1860, or to incorporate its provisions in any other Bill?

said, that the hon. Gentleman had very accurately described what had passed in the Session of 1860, with reference to the Bill. It was perfectly true that the Bill had passed in that House; but subsequently it was stated that hon. Members connected with the commercial interest had not paid that attention to it which it was desirable its provisions should receive at their hands. That was what had been stated, and it led the Government to reconsider the objections which had been urged to the Bill. He had come to the conclusion that the Bill of 1860 was, in the main, a good one; and they were now in communication with the Customs authorities on the subject. With regard to one portion of the Bill, there was a controversy between the wharfingers on the one hand, and the docks on the other, which was of such a character as to render it difficult to pass such a measure as the hon. Gentleman wished for; but the Government were willing to introduce a Bill after consultation with the Customs. That consultation was now going on, and he hoped it would settle the matter.

Seeing my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland in his place, I wish to ask him a question; and as it is a matter of personal interest to myself, I shall explain in very few words lay object in putting the question. My right hon. Friend in a speech the other night, quoted a letter from me to the effect that I had written to him to say that, as far as I could learn, there was an ample supply of food in Ireland. Now, sir, I have been over in Ireland and have made inquiries, and it is my duty to say that there is a great deal of distress in that country. And as that letter might appear to have been written at the present time, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If it was not dated the 12th of November last, whether it did not refer to my own immediate locality, and whether in that letter I did not mention that there would be considerable distress in Ireland arising from want of fuel?

In reply to my hon. Friend I beg to say that I had u desire to state anything but that which i strictly correct. It is true I wrote to my hon. friend, as I knew at the time that he was going to Africa, and on his way through Dublin he wrote to me a letter which I received on my return from my prolonged absence in the West. That letter is dated the 12th November. But it contained the words which I quoted, and which were—

"I have taken some pains to ascertain how things stand in my part of the world, and, as far as I can ascertain the real state of the case, I think there will be a sufficient supply of food."

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the right of Officers of the Native Regiments of Madras and Bombay to succeed by Seniority to the command of Troops or Companies, and to the ultimate com- mand of their respective Regiments, is abolished; and whether Officers who have elected for local service with their Regiments can he sent to general duty notwithstanding their wish to serve with their own Regiments? The question was rendered necessary by what was called the amalgamation; but what might more properly be designated the dislocation of the armies of India. It had reference to the Madras and Bombay army, that of Bengal having been almost totally destroyed by the rebellion; and he would have it to be remembered that the Madras and Bombay native armies remained loyal to the British Crown, and that to that circumstance must largely be attributed the restoration of British power in India. The officers complained, and not without reason, that their rights had been violated by the sending of staff officers who had been long absent from their regular duties back, not only to their own regiments, but to others to which they had never belonged, and placing them over the heads of the regimental officers who had seen long service, and were entitled to the command of cavalry troops or companies of their own regiments. He held in his hand a list of cases which filled two folio pages, and from which he would cite one or two examples. Major Silver, of the 4th Regiment Madras Native Infantry, had been posted to the 31st, to the prejudice of two regimental captains, one of twenty-five years' service, and the other of twenty-four. Major Groube, of the late 5th Native Cavalry, is with the 2nd Cavalry, though Major Taylor and five captains appear to be present. Major Fowler, of the late 8th Regiment, had been placed in the 1st Cavalry, and had thus superseded all the regimental captains. Major Allen, of the 3rd Native Infantry, had been removed to the 12th, and had superseded the regimental major (Halliday), who had served twenty-four years. In the Bombay army Major Johnston, of the staff corps, who had nominally belonged to the 1st Native Regiment, and who was only a captain of the year 1853 and with army rank of 1859, had been removed to the 1st Grenadiers, and had thus displaced two captains of 1842 and 1844, of twenty and nineteen years' service. Captain and Brevet-Major Soppett, of 1842, of the 12th Native Infantry, is in command of the 25th Native Infantry, though two captains, of twenty and nineteen years' service, and six lieutenants are present with the regiment. The practical result of those arrangements was to abolish entirely regimental rights. The 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, guaranteed to the military and naval forces of the Indian service the like pay, pensions, and privileges, as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the Company; and, by Mr. Henley's clause in the Act of 1860, it was also provided that the advantages as to pay, pensions and allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise, should continue and he maintained in any plan for the reorganization of the Indian army, anything in the Act to the contrary notwithstanding. He had thus made out distinctly that these guarantees had been violated and faith broken; and the inference must necessarily be drawn, that regimental succession by seniority, as had been the usage, was to be superseded, and virtually annihilated by the transfer of officers to command regiments to which they did not belong.

said, that he had received communications from India to the effect that the greatest possible dissatisfaction on this subject existed among the officers of the late Indian army. Those officers who had availed themselves of the option allowed them under certain circumstances of accepting retiring allowances, had their names printed in italics in a list, and, on the death of any one of those officers, no promotion took place; though by the Act of Parliament it was distinctly provided that the officers of the late native Indian army were to be placed in the same position, not only as regards pay, but promotion also, as they would have occupied had they continued to serve the India Company. It was plain that the pledge given to those officers had been broken, because if they had remained in the service of the Company, whenever a death occurred there would have been a promotion. Their chances of promotion had thus been seriously diminished, and he wished to ask what course the Government proposed to take, and whether they were going to consider the matter? He hoped that no consideration of economy would be allowed to interfere, for he was sure that the feeling of the House would he against saving money at the expense of meritorious officers who had spent the best part of their lives in the service of the country.

said, his hon. friend who had just spoken had entirely mistaken the facts of the case. The names of officers who retired were not placed in italics on the list, but were removed altogether. In the room, therefore, of every officer who died, or who would have retired under the old regulation, another was promoted, so that no such state as the hon. Gentleman supposed prevailed. He might add that an extra retirement list had been provided beyond that which existed a year ago for a certain number of officers; but the Government thought they would not be justified in making so many promotions, as they created retirements, their object being to reduce the army as well as to diminish expenditure. They had, however, given a proportion of promotions in respect of those extra retirements, in the ratio of two out of three, or three out of four, he did not recollect which. [Colonel SYKES: Every other.] To the extent to which the change went, he thought it must be looked upon as a boon to the Indian army. With respect to the observations of his hon. and gallant friend behind him (Colonel Sykes), he could only say that they had no bearing upon the question of the amalgamation of the two armies. The question which he had put applied in fact altogether to the native army of India, inasmuch as whatever had been done in the direction to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred had arisen out of the reduction of that force. His hon. and gallant Friend in dealing with the subject, had mentioned the case of a particular person who had been out of employment for a considerable time; and who, having been suddenly sent back to his regiment, took rank over the heads of men who had served with the regiment during the period of his absence, and that was conceived to be a hardship, The hon. and gallant Gentleman must, nevertheless, be well aware that under the old system in India, officers who were absent for years from their regiments on staff employment, were, on attaining a certain rank, sent back to take the command of those regiments, superseding all the officers who had from year to year been serving in them, and who had performed signal service in command of them. Indeed, he had before him the case of an officer who had. after an absence of fifteen or twenty years, been thus sent back to his regiment. He would remind the House that they must, in considering the subject, bear in mind the fact that the army in Bengal, and also in Madras and in Bombay, to a great extent had been reduced. In Madras, for instance, four regiments of native cavalry had been discontinued, and an order had been issued to discontinue eight regiments of native infantry. The consequence was that a large number of officers were thrown out of employment; but as to the expediency of the reduction of the native army, which led to that result, he believed no doubt existed. But then arose the question, what was to become of those officers whose regiments bad been disbanded? If his hon. and gallant Friend desired that they should enjoy all those advantages to which they might look forward before the Indian mutiny, it was obvious their expectations could be realized only by continuing the native army on the old scale. But as it had been determined to reduce that army very considerably, the question of what was to be done with the officers of the disbanded regiments remained still to be answered. Allusion had been made to the case of a major in a light cavalry regiment in Madras, who—that regiment having been done away with—had been put to do duty with another; but what rank, he would ask, was an officer so situated to hold in his new position? Was he to serve in the regiment to which he had been appointed as major, or captain, or lieutenant, or subaltern? The view the Government had taken of the matter was, that those officers who were deprived, for the cause he bad mentioned, of their natural employment should be employed again, as far as possible, with the rank their seniority gave them. That he deemed to be the fairest mode of dealing with a large body of officers, such as those of whom he was speaking; notwithstanding the wishes and hopes of those who held a lower rank might not, in some instances, be as a consequence realized. The best answer, however, which he could perhaps give to his hon. Friend, was to read an extract from the Order which had been sent out to India on the subject.

"Officers of the staff corps will be rarely appointed to do duty with native regiments retaining their regular organization. When so appointed, however, and on public grounds, it would be unjust to deprive them of the privileges attached to their relative regimental rank. Their position in the regiment, therefore, will be similar to that of the officers belonging to the general list formed by your General Order No. 1,637 of 1859, and they will be entitled while so employed to all the advantages of their (original) position as regimental officers. Officers of the staff corps, who while doing duty with their former corps may be promoted in the staff corps to a higher grade, will at once cease to do duty with their former regi- ments, and must remain unemployed until their services are required for staff duty."

said, he did not think the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given the House was by any means satisfactory. The case of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen was this:—A practice had prevailed in the Indian army by which officers of regiments got promotion in rotation, but that the Government, having a number of officers unemployed, were placing those officers in the Bombay and Madras regiments over the heads of officers of long service, and were there by violating the practice that had previously prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman had virtually admitted the fact, but had stated, that in order to employ those officers there was no other resource than to place them, according to their rank in other regiments. That might be very true; but what sort of answer was it, he should like to know, to make to the complaints of the officers who were thus superseded? Passing over that point, however, he might be allowed to advert to the question raised by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir George Bowyer) which, as he understood it, turned upon an order issued by the Government declaring that certain officers who wished to retire should have a bonus for so doing; and which was accompanied by a regulation stating that the vacancy so created should not entitle the officer next in rank to promotion. Now, of that order the officers next in rank complained. They contended that previous to its issue old officers who would have been obliged to retire, owing to impaired health or any other cause, would, upon their retirement under these circumstances, have created a vacancy which would enable those under them to obtain a step in rank; but that, owing to the operation of the new order, no such promotion took place.

in explanation said, that they had given a bonus to officers who were entitled to retire, and a promotion took place on each of those retirements; but that when they created additional retirements, they then gave only a proportionate amount of promotion.

said, that was precisely the grievance, that when officers were induced by the Government to retire, the amount of bonus they received was a proportion only, instead of being the full amount.

said, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Council a question of which he had given notice, namely, Whether orders were not issued, shortly after the promulgation of the Revised Code, that the portion of it which concerned the conditions under which Pupil Teachers were to be engaged should be acted upon forthwith; and whether forms of examination, giving notice to that effect, were not printed? The Revised Code had two aspects. In one it was a so-called educational reform, and in the other it had an important bearing upon the privileges of the House of Commons. Some time ago, when the subject was first brought before the House by the Vice President of the Council, the right hon. Gentleman was reproached with having issued the Revised Code as a decree of his own when Parliament had ceased for a time to exist; thereby introducing a vast change into the educational legislation of the country without allowing Parliament any opportunity of pronouncing its opinion on the subject. In reply to that charge the right hon. Gentleman said that the Code by its very nature could not come into operation until the financial year had passed away, and that consequently the accusation could not by any possibility be correct. His exact words were—

said, the noble Lord could not refer to, or quote words used in, a past debate of the present Session.

said, he would bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman; but in doing so he might call attention to the fact that the House was about to go into Committee of Supply, and that he was stating a grievance which demanded redress beforehand. If in stating grievances which demanded redress independent Members were to be forbidden from referring to words which had previously fallen from a Minister of the Crown, it seemed to him that the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to that House would be quite illusory. The ancient and constitutional practice was, that independent Members when the House was going into Committee of Supply, should have an opportunity of calling Ministers of the Crown to account; but how they were to do so if they were not allowed to quote the words of the Ministers he was unable to conceive. However, in the face of the decision which the right hon. Gentleman had given, he would not quote the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council in the recent debate on education, but would only state that on a certain occasion, which he would not particularize, and in a certain place, which he would not name, the right hon. Gentleman, upon being reproached by a certain right hon. Member, to whom he need not more particularly refer, with having introduced the Revised Code as a decree of his own, without subjecting it to the discussion of Parliament, and with having thereby evaded Parliamentary control replied as follows—

said, the noble Lord could not do by an evasion of the rules of the House that which he could not do under their provisions.

said, he would again bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, but in doing so he might remark that reference was frequently made to debates in "another place" without the slightest interference from the Chair.

said, the rules of that House were very positive upon the point that words used in a former debate could not be quoted or referred to unless the debate was a consecutive one, upon the subject of a Bill or other measure before the House at the time. That was a very distinct rule with respect to past debates in the same Session. Any reference to debates in "another place" was still less permitted in that House.

said, he had only again to bow to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, for he had no means of resisting it; but in doing so he might be permitted to say that it was very favourable to Ministers of the Crown. He would not quote any distinct words, but he might be allowed to remark that it was generally supposed that the Vice President of the Council had grounded his defence against the charge to which he had referred upon this consideration—that the nature of the Revised Code was such that it was absolutely impossible the Code could come into effect until Parliament had an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon the subject. He wished to test that defence by facts. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Speaker) would allow him to say that he did so last week. Perhaps that was irregular. It might also be irregular to say that it was thought he then introduced a small subject to the House. He ventured to assert that the ground on which he was now about to arraign the Vice President of the Council was not a small, but a large one, involving the most important item in the whole of the educational grant. That ground was, that when the right hon. Gentleman last year promulgated without the sanction of Parliament the Revised Code, his intention at the time was, and he took measures accordingly, to bring it into immediate operation, as far as respected that enormous proportion of the grant which concerned the pupil-teachers. In endeavouring to establish that complaint, he would first point out to the House what were the pledges and statements of the Vice President of the Council. He believed he was in order in referring to debates which took place last year. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman made use of the following words:—

"I will merely state the outline of the Minute, prefacing it with the assurance that the Committee need not be afraid that we contemplate any coup d'état, because the nature of the grant is such that we cannot make any innovations till the end of the next financial year."

"We intend to preserve the interests of pupil-teachers, and to take care that all future pupil-teachers shall serve, as now, for a period of five years."

"The main difference between a pupil-teacher and a monitor is, that while the latter is engaged by the job—that is to say, a week, a month, or a year—the pupil-teacher is apprenticed with an engagement for five years."

was understood to say that there would be no objection to the Production of these returns.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council whether the introduction of the new principle of individual examination would necessitate any increase in the number of salaries of the present staff of school inspectors? During the preceding year £65,000 odd, or upwards of two-thirds of the grant, went alone to the payment of the inspectors? At present there were about sixty inspectors—thirty-six full and twenty-four assistant inspectors, and the table of fees was based upon rather a high scale. The thirty-six inspectors received salaries, perhaps, including allowances and augmentations, varying from £700 to £900, exclusive of travelling expenses. The assistants received from £450 to £535, also exclusive of travelling expenses. He was not sure that the number of those gentlemen would not have to be increased; but without having a word to say against the efficiency of the present body, he thought that if the new Code came into operation, thereby considerably diminishing the duties to be performed, a salary of £900 per annum for examining children in their alphabet, and in writing and arithmetic, would look rather formidable.

said, he had received a copy of a letter addressed by Mr. A. Corrie, from the Council Office, to a clergyman at St. Saviour's National School in Liverpool, and dated August 31, 1861. It appeared that the clergyman in question had written asking how he was to act, and, from the answer he had received, it would seem that some persons in the Committee of Council Office did intend that the Minutes should come into immediate operation. This was the letter—

"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and I am directed to inform you that on the 1st. of November next the minute of the 29th of July, 1861, will take effect in your school, and all new appointments will be subject to the Revised Code."

said, that he had received a letter from a clergyman at New Seaham, in the county of Durham, stating that in December last he was informed from the Council Office, that no more apprenticeships would be sanctioned under the old system. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he could reconcile that with his statement in the House, that in future pupil-teachers should serve for five years?

Sir, it is impossible to reconcile the letters with my statements; but had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray) been kind enough to call my attention to the facts before I came to the House, I should no doubt have been prepared to give some explanation. At the Privy Council Office we correspond with some 6,000 or 7,000 schools, and it is impossible for me or any one person to be responsible for every letter; but if hon. Gentlemen would give me some notice, I should be able to answer their questions. I can only say that the letters, as stated, are not in accordance with our practice, because we have in innumerable cases since the notice was given on the 23rd September, consented to the apprenticeship of fresh pupil-teachers under the old Code. I will explain all the facts to the House, but I cannot accept the versions which gentlemen may give to hon. Members of letters which I have never seen. If the right hon. Gentleman will move for papers, or will come to the office and inspect them, I will endeavour to give him every satisfaction; but I cannot undertake to explain everything on the spur of the moment. Now, as to the charges which the noble Lord has made against me. In the first place, he says, that in a speech last Session I said that the House need not he under any apprehension of our attempting a coup d'é at, because it was impossible that the changes should come into effect until the expiration of the financial year. That was the statement of a simple fact.

The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible that "any innovations" could be made.

said, the noble Lord catches at the words "any innovations;" but it is impossible for a Member of this House, or a Minister of the Crown, to be so guarded in the words he makes use of as to defy criticism. I may have inadvertently used the expression quoted by the noble Lord, but the meaning of what I said was, that we had not the slightest intention of introducing a change without the consent of Parliament. It is impossible. What the Minutes amount to is this. They are the notices given by the Department of Education of the principle on which the Department will solicit from Parliament the granting of the Vote for Education. As you cannot touch the grants now held under one system and apply them under another, and as you cannot get the money to carry out the new system without the consent of Parliament, it is impossible—granting me to have all the evil intentions which are imputed to me—to make this revolution which is apprehended. Then the noble Lord says I told the House that pupil-teachers under the new Code should be engaged for five years, as they now are.

And serve, as now, for a period of five years.

The noble Lord has read a paragraph from the new Code, in which it is said that the engagement shall be terminated by six months' notice from either party; and he says that is a breach of my undertaking. Hard words, Sir! But does the noble Lord know what is the present engagement of pupil-teachers? Their present engagement is to serve five years, and they are apprenticed by deed; but that deed is not stamped, and it has no validity whatever. That has always been the practice of the office, and it was thought better in introducing a new Code that we should give a really effective agreement, terminable by notice on either side, than perpetuate an agreement which is in the eye of the law a nullity. If the noble Lord examines the agreement which he quoted, he will find that the direction is to serve for a period of five years, and the specimen agreement to be entered into by managers with pupil-teachers names the same period of service. When I spoke of five years, I was alluding to the recommendation of the Commissioners; but they have taken no precautions to ensure continuity of service. The great merit lies in continuity of service; for the pupil-teacher is of little value for the first year, but becomes of value in later years, and unless the precaution be insisted on—which the Commissioners overlook—the full benefit of the agreement is not derived. So what I said was perfectly true, and what I did was in accordance with what I said. We have taken the precaution, subject to this power of terminating the engagement with notice, if it should prove not satisfactory to either side, of keeping the pupil-teachers for a period of five years. Suppose upon a point of detail like this, that, speaking to the best of my opinion and information at the time, I had announced that the Government would not make such an arrangement—would the House, if a subsequent change of opinion took place, charge my original statement upon me as a matter of bad faith? We are accustomed to better treatment. Would the House deem justifiable a fastening on words and syllables an imputation not of change of opinion, but of a wish to deceive and overreach the Houses of Parliament? Now I come to the more serious part of the noble Lord's charge. He asks a question, but he has relieved me from the necessity of answering it, for he has made answer to himself, and the facts are matter of notoriety. He charges me not only with a want of respect to this House of which I should be exceedingly grieved to be guilty, but with a breach of faith and honour—if I understood him rightly. The framing of the Code was a matter of difficulty, but still greater difficulty attended the arrangements for the transition from one system to another. To those who were charged with that duty it was a matter of anxious care; and if we erred, we did so not from want of consideration, but either from want of ability to grapple with the question or from its inherent difficulties. The principles of the change are mainly two—first, that there shall be no payment except to the manager; and secondly, that we shall pay money only on the individual examination of scholars. When we had settled the principles of the change, we had then to consider how to deal with the interests existing under the present system, which were vested and entitled to be respected. We came to the conclusion, and it certainly was an agreeable one. that pupil-teachers now apprenticed under the present system had rights which we were hound to respect. The faith of the Government has been pledged, and though the agreement was not exactly legal, we will never take any advantage of a flaw in the indenture; hut, at whatever inconvenience, we are hound to see that they do not suffer by the change. The House will see that this is a matter of no slight difficulty; because our own principles being that we are to pay only to the manager, and then only upon examination, the necessity of preserving the vested interests of these pupil-teachers embarrasses and will continue to embarrass the working of the system till the last of them has fulfilled his apprenticeship and been got rid of. Then conies the question as to pupil-teachers apprenticed after the passing of the Minute and before the time when it was to come into operation. The pupil-teachers engaged before the issue of the Minute had no reason to suppose their interests would be interfered with by the Government; they had no notice of any change, and we felt bound to respect their interests. But those engaged after the passing of the Minute stand on a totally different footing, and have no claim of vested interests to set up against the Government or the public, for of their non-vesting they had previous notice. There fore we decided that pupil-teachers engaged after the Minute was agreed to should not be engaged by the Government upon the existing terms, but by the mangers under the terms which would come into force when the Minute itself subsequently became law. That we did, because we thought vested interests meant reasonable expectations; and when teachers had notice that we were about to change the system, they had no longer a reasonable expectation that the system would continue which entitled them to bring claims against the public. We did that—whether rightly or wrongly I do not shrink from the issue—entirely with a view to the public interest, and to prevent further vested interests from accruing. Up to the 23rd of September that rule was acted on, and the House will see that the last thing we thought of was to withdraw the matter from their cognizance. Instead of dealing with £250,000 a year, the noble Lord might have said £300,000; but as regards these pupil-teachers, we are only dealing with a few who were elected between the time of the passing and the promulgation of the Minute, to replace others who had completed their apprenticeship. In placing these not on the footing of the old pupil-teachers, we felt we could not do any serious or permanent mischief; because if the House should adopt the Revised Code, as I trust they will do, the parties will then be placed in the position which they were led to expect; whereas if the House should reject the Revised Code, by a single Minute these pupil-teachers can be placed on the same footing as if they had been engaged by the Government under the old terms, and no prejudice will be done to them. The noble Lord truly says, a considerable ferment arose in the country. My noble Friend Earl Granville was at the time in Ireland in attendance on Her Majesty. I was on the Continent; but I returned on the 17th of September, and at once put myself in communication with Earl Granville. Though we felt that we had honestly and conscientiously exercised our best discretion, we did not think it advisable to allow persons to do what the noble Lord has done to-night—that is, to distract attention from the real merits of the controversy by discussions as to our discretion and wisdom; we showed a more conciliatory spirit, and instead of leaving it in the state we placed it originally, we suspended the Minute absolutely. We did that on the 23rd of September, and since then we have acted consistently—I heard for the first time to-night that there has been any deviation from that practice—as if this Minute had never existed at all. We may be wrong in the view we took originally, and as we have seen fit to retract, it does not, perhaps, lie in my mouth to say differently. I only ask the House to see how the view of affairs differs, as stated by me, from that which has been stated by the noble Lord. I can only regret that he has viewed our conduct so unfavourably. I assure the House that the matter is one of enormous difficulty. We do not pretend to be free from error; we are conscious of having made many. I bow with submission to any hon. Gentleman who finds fault with the intellectual part of the work, which is fairly open to any hostile criticism that may he brought against it. But I speak both for the noble Lord and myself when I ask the House to believe that we are utterly incapable of doing anything to withdraw the question from the absolute jurisdiction or control of Parliament; or of entertaining the least desire to be wanting in that respect which we owe to the House. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) has spoken of the salaries of inspectors as excessive. Their salaries begin at £200, and are raised by successive stages of £50 till they reach £600, when they stop, and this maximum rate is not attained till they have been twenty-four years in the service. In addition to the salary of £200 there are allowances for the expenses of travelling and living at hotels—for they are always on the move—amounting to £250 a year; in addition to which, they are reimbursed for any expenses incurrred in connection with the discharge of their official duties. He advances money, and if the amount appears moderate, he is reimbursed. That does not appear to me extravagant pay for gentlemen of the very high class we employ as inspectors. Our rule is, and it has been constantly acted upon, to take the young gentlemen of the greatest distinction we can find from either University; and any one who will compare the names of the inspectors with the University calendars will see that we have enlisted in the service of the public a most distinguished set of men. This Minute will not come into effect until after the 31st of March, 1863, except in the case of certain new schools. No schools now assisted can be examined under the new Minute till after the date I have mentioned. Therefore I have not the least reason to apprehend that during the next financial year there will be any increase of the public expense in this matter. Whatever the ultimate result, I certainly do not contemplate raising the salaries of the inspectors. But it is obvious that when the system does come into effect there will be some increase of expense under this head. I would rather not make any positive declaration on the subject at present, for I might hereafter be accused of breach of faith if I now indicated a plan which subsequent experience might not prove advisable. We shall have the opportunity of trying experiments on a small scale this year; and when the time comes to ask for a vote of money under the new Code, which cannot be in force till next year, then I, or whoever may be in my place, will be prepared to lay fully and fairly before the House the amount of the additional assistance that may be required.

said, that he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, Why he has annexed the non-parochial district of Nottingham, called "The Park," to the suburban Union of Basford, instead of making it contributory to the poor rates of the town of Nottingham, of which it was in reality a portion? Although the question was one altogether of a local character, it was of great importance to the people of Nottingham. There were 153 residents in "The Park," the great majority of whom were leading merchants and manufacturers of Nottingham, who were chiefly indebted for their affluence to the industry of the working population of that town. It was by no means just that at a time when the operatives were suffering severely from the depressed state of trade consequent upon the war in America, that the very persons who had derived so much advantage from their industry should either endeavour or be allowed to evade their responsibilities as regarded local taxation. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have been aware of the real facts of the case, and he implored him at least to postpone his final decision until after the 1st of March, in order that full particulars might be laid before him. The feeling of the people of Nottingham on the subject was clearly evinced by the fact that in the course of two or three days above 2,300 signatures had been obtained to a petition against the proposed annexation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would concur with him in thinking that the wishes of so many of the inhabitants of the town of Nottingham ought not to be made subservient to those of the 153 residents of the Park. He should like to be informed why the annexation had been considered advantageous to Basford, and not to Radford Union. Radford was nearer to the town and nearer to the Park than Basford was, and the rates in the latter Union were consider ably less than in the former, while in some of the parishes in Nottingham they amounted to as much as 6s. or 8s. in the pound. In his opinion the proposed annexation was both unjust and unwise, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.

said, he regretted that since the hon. Baronet and his constituents had attached so much importance to this annexation, he had not taken an opportunity of addressing the Poor Law Board until the very day before the 1st March, the last on which anything could be done to remedy the complaint. Even, however, were he to delay his decision, he doubted whether the hon. Baronet would be able to by before him any other facts than those which had been already submitted for the consideration of the Poor Law Board. The facts were, briefly, that the district proposed to be annexed was a tract of country near Nottingham that had hitherto been extraparochial. Some years ago, by the operation of an Act which had passed that House all these places ceased to be extraparochial and became bound to maintain their own poor. This particular district had no poor, but it was still the duty of the Poor Law Board to see that all parishes liable to the maintenance of their poor should be attached to some Union. As the district had no poor, each one of the neighbouring unions was anxious that it should be united to it. He had received deputations from three unions, Radford, Basford, and Nottingham, and heard evidence adduced in support of their respective claims. He then had made inquiries as to the rule of the Poor Law Board which usually regulated the annexation of such places. He found that the public convenience of the district had been the guiding principle, due regard being had at the same time to the opinions and wishes of the owners and occupiers of the property to be annexed. He accordingly desired that some public meeting should be held to collect their opinions. Such a meeting had been held, and the owners and occupiers of the district had expressed a nearly unanimous wish that they should not be connected with Nottingham, and that they should be united to Basford. He found that the contribution of the district to the establishment charges of Nottingham and Basford unions would he precisely the same. He also found that Nottingham was "the county of the town of Nottingham," and that it had always carefully avoided having any parish attached to it. He was therefore looking about for a reason to determine his decision, when a representation was made to him that the hundred of Basford was a few years ago made liable for the destruction of the castle of a noble duke, and had had to pay £22,000 for an outrage in which its inhabitants took no part. This consideration, coupled with the expressed wishes of the owners and occupiers of the district, finally induced him to decide in favour of Basford Union. He did not think the capitalists who had villas in this district could fairly be charged with neglect of the poor, because they were employers of labour, and were at this moment employing more hands than were absolutely required for the purposes of trade, owing to its present depressed condition. If the hon. Baronet could lay any further facts before the Poor Law Board they would receive attention; and if any good cause could be shown for so doing, he should be happy to revise his decision.