said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Mr. Horsley, Poor Law Inspector, has made his official Reports to the Irish Poor Law Commissioners, respecting the several districts in the west of the county Cork, which he lately visited, with a view to ascertain their condition; and whether there is any objection to lay such Reports before Parliament; also, whether he would object to lay before Parliament any Reports made to him by Mr. Horsley of the same districts?

said, Mr. Horsley had made the Reports which were specially desired of him; but he thought it would establish a bad precedent if the confidential communications of subordinate officers to Members of the Government were, as a general rule, submitted to Parliament. He did not wish, therefore, to lay any portion of those Reports on the table of the House.

said, the right hon. Baronet had not answered the first part of the Question, as to Mr. Horsley's official Reports to the Commissioners.

said, he should prefer not to lay them on the table of the House.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Colonel Bentinck, of the Fourth Dragoon Guards, has been placed on Half Pay according to regulation, "by Medical Certificate"; and if not, why the new regulation of 1861, under which no officer has been allowed the privilege of being placed on Half Pay until after n service of twenty-five years as a Commissioned Officer on Full Pay, has in this case been disregarded and set aside? He also wished to ask, Upon whose advice the finding of the Court Martial has been rescinded, and Captain Robertson, who had been sentenced to be cashiered, has been sent back to his regiment, and Colonel Bentinck has been forced to retire?

said, the retirement of Colonel Bentinck, had not taken place in pursuance of the terms of the warrant to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The warrant would not have permitted an Officer to retire on half pay under the circumstances under which Colonel Bentinck had left his regiment. Of course it was competent for the Crown, which was the authority from which warrants issued, to dispense with it in cases in which an exception to the rule might seem desirable. On financial grounds the public would gain by the substitution of a junior for a senior Colonel, inasmuch as the latter was nearer his Major Generalship. In respect to the general question of superseding Colonel Bentinck, he would only remark that when a commanding Officer of a regiment appeared to be inefficient, and it was desirable to remove him, the action of the Commander in Chief would be seriously crippled if the step of insisting on that Officer's retirement were not resorted to. At the same time it would be most unfair to the Officer if he were not allowed half-pay. The hon. Gentleman seemed to treat the case of Colonel Bentinck as one of undue leniency.

I beg your pardon. I think quite the contrary. I think it a case of undue leniency to Captain Robertson.

said, he had certainly understood that that was the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's Question; at all events, it had been thought by some that undue favour and leniency had been shown to Colonel Bentinck, whereas he believed that the view taken by Colonel Bentinck himself was that he had been treated by the Horse Guards with extreme severity. Therefore, setting one opinion against the other, it might fairly be presumed that the course which had been taken was not far removed from the just one. As regarded Captain Robertson, the sentence of the Court Martial had been rescinded by the advice of the Commander in Chief, and he (Sir G. Lewis) held himself responsible for that step.

said, he would take another opportunity to call attention to the circumstances of this Court Martial.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, The names of the several townlands in the county of Tipperary which are to be charged with the cost of maintaining ten extra police on account of the late M. Thiebault's murder. Will all occupiers of those townlands be subjected indiscriminately to such extra taxation; and is it expected thereby to stimulate local zeal in detecting the assassin?

said, it was intended to charge four townlands with the expenses of the extra police, but the matter was still under discussion. All occupiers would be charged except, as he had said before, the brother of the murdered man. As to whether it would stimulate local zeal to detect the assassin, the charge was in the nature of a penalty on the locality where the crime has been committed.

wanted to know the names of the four townlands.

said, he could not give the names. They were, however, in the immediate locality of the murder.

said, he wished to know whether the rumours were well founded that there had been fresh attacks on property and life; whether any measures of repression were contemplated by the Government; and when the Special Commission would take place, or how soon before the Assizes, which commenced in the first week of July?

said, it was true that another unfortunate attempt at murder had been made in the county of Clare. The shot had passed through the gentleman's arm, but he was not killed. He did not know whether the assassin had yet been arrested, but the Government were taking every measure in their power to repress these deplorable acts. The Special Commission would issue some time between the 15th and 20th inst.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, When it is likely he will make his statement on the finances of India; and whether he can lay on the table of the House any correspondence on the subject?

said, he was not at present in a position to name the actual time for that statement. The matter would come on as soon as he could find a day when there was no other pressing business. He was quite ready to lay on the table the correspondence which had taken place on the subject of Indian finance during the last twelve months.

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared likewise to produce any authentic account of the speech made by Mr. Laing?

said, he did not think it would be a convenient practice to lay on the table of the House reports of speeches made in the Indian Legislature.

said, he would beg to inquire, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not know that Mr. Laing's statement had appeared in full in the Bengal Hurkaru.

said, he was quite aware of the fact. He need scarcely, however, remind the hon. and gallant Member, that although the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were reported in The Times, those reports were not submitted to Parliament as official documents.

Sir, I beg to move that the House, on its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next.

wished to say, in reference to the answer of the right hon. Secretary for India, that under the present circumstances of a portion of the country, it was very important that the right hon. Gentleman should bring forward his Indian Budget at some reasonable period of the Session, when the attention of Members could be fairly directed to it. His hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had given notice that he would call attention to the operations which were going on in India, with a view to promote the cultivation and greater export of cotton. It had, he understood, been agreed that that subject should not come on that evening; but it would be a great convenience if the right hon. Baronet would bring forward the whole question in such a shape that the House could discuss it in the manner so great a question deserved. As far as he could gather, it did not appear that anything was really being done in India to promote either sensibly or speedily the cultivation of cotton in that country. He knew that all those persons in Lancashire who had turned their attention to the subject were grievously disappointed at the small progress that was being made in the matter. The right hon. Baronet appeared to have fallen into the error of some of his predecessors in thinking that the finance of India was a subject of no consequence—that it was a mere matter of form, which could be disposed of in the last week of the Session. At this moment, it was, in his (Mr. Bright's) opinion, a matter of the utmost importance; and he appealed to the right hon. Baronet to press upon his colleagues that this great question was at least of as much consequence as the Highways Bill, to which the House had given up too many nights this Session. If nothing were done in India, we should find that for two or three years to come the condition of Lancashire would be such as to cause the greatest concern to the House, to create great embarrassment to the public finances, and to produce, perhaps, difficulties over the whole country greater than hon. Members anticipated.

rose to make an appeal to the good feeling of the noble Lord at the head of the Government on a matter which involved both public interests and his own private character. A sense of duty had led him on a number of occasions to bring before the House the very painful subject of the destitution which prevailed in certain parts of Ireland. On the last occasion he made several statements with regard to a particular locality in the county of Cork on the authority of a competent person whom he had sent down to that district to examine for himself the state of things that existed there. Before bringing the subject before the House, he placed the communications which he had received from this gentleman in the hands of the Irish Secretary, and desired him to inquire into their truth for himself, Mr. Horsley, a Government officer, was accordingly despatched to investigate the circumstances of the locality. In answer to his speech in the House the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) stated that Mr. Horsley visited Cape Clear and Sherkin, to which reference had been made, and reported, that although there was much distress there, it was not more than prevailed in ordinary seasons. Upon receiving that reply, he was, of course, to use a common phrase, "knocked over." A few days afterwards, however, he saw a report of a meeting which was held in the Union of Skibbereen, at which Mr. Horsley, in a report to the guardians, urged them to relieve the people in those islands, as otherwise they would certainly die, and he said that what he (Mr. Maguire) had stated was not in the least exaggerated, but was literally true. He was indebted to the courtesy of The Times for the opportunity of placing before the public a number of extracts from the statement of Mr. Horsley. Whether that officer had asserted what was not true, or whether the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had garbled his report, he would not undertake to say; but he asked the Government to produce the report which the right hon. Baronet quoted in a recent debate. The right hon. Baronet said that it was a special and confidential paper; but, at any rate, he was justified in vindication of his own truth and honour in demanding that the public report which Mr. Horsley made to the Poor Law Commissioners should be laid on the table. He did not address himself to the right hon. Baronet, but he appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government wheit was right for a Minister of the Crown to quote from an official document, and then to refuse to produce it. He trusted that the noble Lord's sense of justice and fair play would lead him to publish Mr. Horsley's report to the Commissioners; but, if it were refused, he should, of course, move for it on another occasion.

said, he wished to make one or two remarks on the general state of the country. He should be very brief, for he knew that the hon. Members were much disposed to count out an Irish question. He thought that the appeal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was a very proper one. He had read the report with regard to the Skibbereen union, and certainly its tendency was to support the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite rather than that of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland. He was himself well acquainted with the most notorious district in Ireland; and he never remembered a state of affairs so grave as that which at present existed there. The application of the Peace Preservation Act and the special Commission, so far from affording a remedy, operated as a positive mischief. He would not detail his reasons for so believing; for if he did so, he would not be understood; or if he were, his remarks would be treated by the House and the Government with that indifference amounting almost to insolence with which the opinions of Irish Members were invariably received. The occupiers of property in the neighbourhood in which M. Thiebault was murdered would, if properly applied to, have helped the police to detect the assassins, but they were deterred from doing so by indiscriminate taxation for the support of extra police. By sending these extra police they would impose a tax upon the district of £350 a year. Part of the property in the locality belonged to himself; and one of the tenants, a widow with six or seven children, who could not pay her rent, would be overwhelmed by this taxation. If the Government wished to pacify the country, let them take the opinions of the Irish Members; let them not govern Ireland with a high hand, and by rules that were utterly exploded and repudiated for England; let them govern Ireland as they governed England, and it would be as good as England, for it was quite as moral, except so far as its morality was affected by these agrarian outrages. He wished some one like the hon. Member for Birmingham, who could not be suspected of interested motives, would take up the question, and prevent Parliament separating for a week without applying a remedy. He did not hold the Chief Secretary for Ireland responsible for the present condition of the country, but it was remarkable that when Ireland had a quiet and conciliating Chief Secretary it was in a state of almost stupid tranquillity. He really thought Irish Members on both sides of the House would, without any disrespect to the Chief Secretary, join in petitioning the Government to let Ireland have back her late Chief Secretary, such as he was.

I can assure the hon. Member for Dungarvan that I am satisfied no Member of the House imagined that in the controversy, if I may call it so, between himself and my right hon. Friend, any question arose as to the veracity of either of them. Each of them made statements founded upon information which he believed to be correct, and that is all that any Member of this House can be expected to do. It remains to be ascertained whose information was the best-founded. The hon. Gentleman wishes for the production of a report made by Mr. Horsley to the Poor Law Commissioners. I have not seen that document, and I am therefore unable to say whether there is in it anything which ought or ought not to be made public. I will call for it, and examine it; and when the House meets again, I will inform the hon. Member whether there are in it any names or other matters which it would not be desirable to publish, and whether the substance may be given without making public matters the publication of which he would himself admit to be objectionable. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Scully) seems to wish that his countrymen should return to that state of stupidity, which, he says, is the only condition of mind in which Ireland is tranquil. I do not quite agree with him in that respect; but, no doubt, the events which have recently occurred in that country are most deplorable; they indicate something in the public mind of Ireland which must take its rise from sources that ought not to exist in society. My hon. and learned Friend objects to certain measures which have been applied to Ireland, and he objects to them on the ground that Ireland ought to be governed according to the same method as England. But I would beg him to recollect that there is one material difference between the habits of the two countries. In England, when an atrocious crime is committed, all the population who can do so join in the endeavour to detect the criminal and bring him to justice. In Ireland, unfortunately, when these atrocious crimes are committed, all the population join in screening the criminal. From what cause that different habit in Ireland proceeds, from what secret influence that vicious temper of mind arises, I am unable to say; but my hon. and learned Friend must see that when the habits of the population of the two localities are so diametrically opposite, it is impossible entirely to assimilate the modes of dealing with those localities.

I do not think that the statement of the noble Lord is satisfactory. The Government is inefficient in Ireland because—without questioning the general popularity of the Government of the noble Viscount—his Government is unpopular in Ireland, and has not the confidence of any section of the people. I think he is mistaken in what he has said regarding the mode in which the Government of that country can be assimilated to that of England. I think the laws in the two countries can be assimilated. I think scant benefit is to be gained from special commissions. I think the steady, impartial, regular administration of justice by those well acquainted with the country will go far to restore tranquillity. But, at the same time, I venture to insinuate, with great respect, that it will be very difficult to govern Ireland in the same way as the Ionian Islands are governed—that is to say, with all the inhabitants of one way of thinking and the local Executive of another.

said, that having property in Ireland, he was unwilling that this subject should drop without having from Her Majesty's Government something more tangible and practical than the speech of the noble Viscount. Nothing could be more appalling than the present state of affairs in Ireland. Within the last six weeks there had been six or seven agrarian murders, or attempts at murder, in that country. And what had been the effect of this? In the first place, innocent men's lives were sacrificed; in the next, property was depreciated to an immense extent, For every agrarian murder that took place in Ireland, every landowner's property was depreciated to the extent of a year's purchase at least. As to the occupying tenants, who were said to be the instigators of some of these hideous murders, and the perpetrators of others, what was the result with regard to them? If this state of things progressed much further, instead of being exceptional, it would become permanent, and extermination would become essential in order to vindicate the law. Surely that was a frightful state of things when the law could not be vindicated, when life was not safe, and when, in fact, the state of society was such as did not exist in any other civilized country. The noble Lord said there was a great difference between the state of social existence and of feeling in England and in Ireland; and in reply to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Scully) very properly pointed this great distinction, that in England, if a crime was committed, every man's hand was against the criminal; whereas in Ireland, every man's hand, so to speak, is raised in order to protect him. No doubt there was in Ireland a great connivance on the part of the neighbours of those who committed crimes. The noble Lord ought not to stop after stating these two propositions, which no one denied. Why not inquire into the cause of the state of society being so different in Ireland to what it was in England? That was a proposition which a statesman ought to apply himself to solve. Who were the classes in Ireland who could, if they liked, put down agrarian crime by arresting the criminals? It must be the residents in the country. Now, in the south of Ireland, where crime was so prevalent, who were the residents? They were, first, the landed proprietors and the local magistrates; secondly, the farmers who tilled the land; thirdly, the Roman Catholic clergy. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland what had been done in Ireland to enlist any one of these classes on the side of the law? With regard to the resident magistrates, who ever heard till this evening— when he heard the right hon. Baronet say he had consulted a resident as to which of three Crown lands should be mulcted for this crime—who ever heard in Ireland — though these agrarian outrages had lasted a considerable time — who ever heard of the Government inviting even lieutenants of counties to come to Dublin and give advice to the Executive? Had what was regarded by some as a bugbear, he Irish Parliament, been in existence, it would have been called together and consulted as to what they would do in order to check the progress of crime in the country. With regard to the local magistrates, they were completely superseded by a system of governing in bureaus. No one ever heard of a local magistrate being consulted, as long as there was a stipendiary magistrate in the neighbourhood. The result was to keep away a body of men who possessed a complete knowledge of the country; the lieutenants of counties and the local magistrates were entirely ignored by the Government, who put themselves in the hands of the stipendiary magistrates and the police. The result was, that minder after murder was committed, and the murderer could not be discovered. As to the occupying tenants, there had been much of unfair dealing with them. He did not mean to say that they had not had exorbitant notions of what was "justice to Ireland;" but year after year there had been legislative sanction to the notion of the possibility of giving them what they wanted, namely, fixity of tenure; till at last a measure was passed for regulating the relations between landlord and tenant, which was so futile and ridiculous that he believed no landlord or tenant in Ireland had ever made use of it in any shape or form. As to the last class—the Roman Catholic clergy — agrarian crime and disturbance would never be put down, until by some means or other the Government placed itself more in accord with that body of men. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland— how did he stand with regard to that body? He entertained opinions on the subject of education very similar in theory to those which he (Lord Fermoy) himself held, and therefore he did not mean in any way to attack his views on that question. But it was one thing to differ from a body of men and another to insult them. We all knew how much the Irish people looked up to and respected their clergy, and how much the subordinate clergy looked up to their superiors in authority. Any statesman, therefore, who knew what an important body of men the Catholic priesthood in Ireland were, would be much more disposed to put himself into friendly communication with them than to affront them. Well, the right hon. Baronet went over to Ireland as Chief Secretary, and before he had been one month in the country he put a personal insult on the head of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland—an insult which was aggravated by being given in the very centre of Orangeism. And what was the result? The majority of the people of Ireland had come to the deliberate opinion—however wrong it might be in point of fact—that the right hon. Baronet was acting as agent of the Government, and that he was sent over to Ireland to get up a quarrel with the whole body of the Irish Church. Many Roman Catholics then gave up their support of the national system of education. After that a season of great distress occurred in the country—such distress as he (Lord Fermoy) had not seen since the time of the famine. If any of the people of Ireland sympathized with criminals in that country, such a feeling had been produced by the mismanagement of those who ruled in Ireland. It had been said that the policy of the Government with regard to Italy was the cause of the feeling in Ireland towards the Government; but there never was a greater fallacy than that. There were large bodies of men in Ireland among the Roman Catholic laity who sympathized sincerely and honestly with the Italian people, in their struggles to obtain self-government. If Ireland had been dealt with as Canada, and the other Colonies had been dealt with, there then would have been no feeling against the Government. The Roman Catholic clergy of Canada were favourably disposed towards the British Government, because the Roman Catholics there had been dealt with with even-handed justice. Instead of that, however, Ireland had been dealt with under the old system of exclusiveness in that country; but if Ireland were to be treated as Canada was, the Government would soon have reason to be proud of her, and every Irishman to be proud of his country.

said, the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) seemed to imply that the efforts of the Roman Catholic clergy for the repression of crime depended on the degree of courtesy they received from Her Majesty's Government. That was certainly not the case. They used every effort to repress crime, as was their duty as ministers of the Gospel; and if they were ever so much insulted by the Government, they would continue to do so. The steps taken by them in reference to secret societies were sufficient to show that. But he agreed with his noble Friend who had just sat down, that the policy of the Government towards those bishops and priests was unwise and unstatesmanlike. The Government had endeavoured to blind themselves to the fact that Ireland was a Catholic country. He said "a Catholic country" advisedly, because law could not make a country one religion when the majority of the people professed another. Canada was treated as a Catholic country, and there was always a spirit of loyalty there. In Ireland, the Ecclesiastical dignities of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church were declared to be illegal; and if Her Majesty went to Dublin, it would be impossible for the Bishops and clergy of that Church to approach the Throne, because the dignities and the spiritual powers which they wielded were not only not recognized by the law of England, but were denounced and declared illegal by that law. The Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the penal clauses of the Emancipation Act were, it is true, a dead letter, because they could not be enforced, as they were directed against matters of opinion. Such laws ought to be repealed. The clergy of the Catholic Church enjoyed their titles from a higher authority than the Government. They derived them from the same authority as originally created the Archbishopric of Canterbury, the Archbishopric of York, the Bishopric of London, and all the Bishoprics of the Protestant Church. He meant the authority granted by our Lord to St. Peter and his successors. The Parliament could not overrule such an authority, and Ireland would not be satisfied until the law rendering illegal the dignities of the Catholic Church was repealed.

said:—Sir, no Member of this House regrets more than I do that the affairs of Ireland should be dragged before the House on every possible occasion. I am as anxious as any one could be that the affairs of that country should be fairly and properly considered; but I think that there are certain times when it is right to bring subjects like the present under the notice of the House, and that this is not one of them. It is from a feeling that Irish matters are too frequently and unnecessarily brought forward, in a way which very much intrudes upon the public time, that when such subjects are discussed I very rarely address the House. But feeling that I have as great an interest in that country as any hon. Member present, and that, from the circumstance of residing there, I have a right to express my opinion respecting it, I must venture on this occasion, when statements are made as to which I entirely differ, to trouble the House for a few moments. I feel I should not be discharging my duty if I allowed some observations which hon. Members have thought proper to make to remain unnoticed. My noble Friend opposite (Lord Fermoy) appears to me to have made, on this occasion, a most rambling speech. He has alluded to the unhappy condition of Ireland, and to the murders and other crimes which have recently taken place, and with respect to which I entirely agree in the sentiments of indignation which he has expressed. But, Sir, I cannot agree with him in the conclusions to which he has come on these subjects. He certainly has taken a very wide range in looking for the cause which has led to these murders. He commenced by doing that which has been, of late, so frequently done in this House—attacking the police. He has represented the police as an inefficient and useless body of men for that country, so far as repressing crime is concerned. I do not stand up entirely to defend the existing system of police in Ireland. It may be capable of improvement; and if it can be improved, I trust her Majesty's Government will turn their attention to the subject, with a view to introduce into that force such changes as they may consider beneficial. I must say, however, that it does not appear to me that this is a time to attack the police, when crime is rife in Ireland, and when, instead of attack, they require all the support and assistance that can be extended to them. The noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) also made an attack upon the police magistrates, who, he states, have altogether superseded the local magistrates. Well, there may or may not be some cause to find fault with that; but I do not see that my noble Friend has pointed out to Her Majesty's Government any course to pursue that would be at all suitable to the case. What does he propose? His proposition is that all lords lieutenant of counties—men whose views and ideas upon the subject may entirely and widely differ—should be brought up to Dublin in order to consult upon a matter which it is peculiarly the duty of Her Majesty's Government to deal with—namely, the best means of preserving the peace of the country, and affording protec- tion to life and property. As to that suggestion, I cannot for a moment agree with the noble Lord. But, Sir, the most important subject to which he has alluded has reference to the Roman Catholic clergy, and that subject has been dealt with in a still wider manner by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). He has gone far beyond my noble Friend, and has expressed opinions which, I am sure, many hon. Members in this House are very sorry he gave utterance to. I cannot help saying that holding up the Roman Catholic clergy as the men by whom and through whom the peace of the country is to be preserved, is a doctrine to which I can never subscribe. I should be sorry, if anything were wrong with the Protestant laity of Ireland, that her Majesty's Government should call upon the Protestant clergy to have the peace kept by their congregations. I believe it is the province of the Government to take measures for the preservation of the peace, and the duty of the clergy to attend to spiritual matters. I am exceedingly sorry that, with respect to the Roman Catholic clergy, I cannot agree in some of the opinions expressed this evening; and I do not say this from any feeling of prejudice, or from any unwillingness that they should have every consideration. But, Sir, I speak of them from the documents which they have issued. A proclamation was lately issued in Dublin by the heads of that Church, which has been sent to myself, and, I suppose, to other Irish Members of Parliament. It appears to me that the Roman Catholic hierarchy have been most unfortunate in their selection of subjects. They first allude to the subject of education. The National system of education in Ireland is not a very popular system, but certainly I cannot at all agree in the views they express. They then introduce a matter not at all relevant, and upon which, on this occasion, I do not wish to enlarge; but this much I will say, that if it is said that these are the persons to whom we owe gratitude for the peace of the country, I am exceedingly sorry I cannot concur in the statement. They allude to the land question, and say that its present condition has too much contributed to the unfortunate condition of Ireland. Now, Sir, it appears to me to be a very grave thing that gentlemen holding such a position, who should be the teachers of religion, the iuculcators of good-will towards men, who should be the first to impress upon the people their duty to obey the law, should hold out to the people that their crimes are to be excused in any way on account of the condition of the land question. I have risen, on this occasion, to protest against the doctrine that we are to be grateful to those who issue such documents, for preserving the peace of the country. I cannot at all agree in the attack that has been made on the Irish portion of the Administration. It has been stated that ray right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland said in his place in this House that there was no distress in Ireland. Sir, I was present on each occasion when the subject was under discussion, and I can state positively that he never said any such thing. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Baronet stated that the accounts of the distress had been greatly exaggerated; and if it be necessary to bring forward proofs that that statement is a correct one, I am prepared to do so. I do not intend to make any observations with respect to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan. It may be, as he stated, that the documents to which he referred should be produced; but I certainly think, that if the production of them is at all calculated to do harm to individuals, or to be attended with any other bad consequences, they ought not to be laid on the table of the House. In the present state of the country I do not think it is fair or reasonable for hon. Members to come forward on every occasion, and ask her Majesty's Government to produce documents, which, if produced, might be attended with dangerous consequences to individuals. I do not say that it is so on the present occasion, but I say that her Majesty's Government ought not to be attacked for not producing documents when no sufficient reason is given for producing them. I wish to say so much with respect to the observations made by hon. Members, and I cannot help again expressing regret that these matters should be so frequently dragged forward, and that remedies so ineffectual and so unsuitable should be proposed.

wished to explain that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood what he had said about the police in Ireland. He had found fault with the Government for putting the police over the heads of the local magistracy, but that was not the fault of the police.

said, he did not wish to prolong this somewhat desultory conversation; but he wished to remark that, whatever were the causes of the recent lamentable acts of murder and agrarian outrage in Ireland, there could be but one feeling among the Members of that House in regard to them—that of abhorrence of the crime and the desire that additional security might be afforded to life and property. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had correctly declared that it was the duty of the Government to take measures for that purpose. The Government had done, and were doing, all in their power; and he was not aware how they could take any further measures without proposing some special legislation, conferring extraordinary powers, which they did not think it their duty to do. The police were actively employed in endeavouring to detect the perpetrators of crime, and their exertions had been attended in many cases with prompt success. A Special Commission had been issued for the speedy trial of prisoners, where the Government had reason to think a conviction could be reasonably hoped for. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had recently pressed the Government to issue a Special Commission. [Mr. WHITESIDE expressed dissent.] At all events, the right hon. Gentleman had asked whether the Government were going to issue a Special Commission. His (Sir George Grey's) reply was, that such a question was premature, and that it would depend upon the evidence which the Law Officers of the Crown were able to collect. If that evidence were sufficient to justify the Government in placing the persons apprehended on their trial, he stated that a Special Commission would be issued on the earliest opportunity. It was gratifying to the Government to hear from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) that the Italian policy of the Ministry had nothing to do with their supposed unpopularity in Ireland; and that the great body of the Roman Catholic laity as fully sympathized with the people of Italy in their struggle for freedom, as did the great body of the people of England and Scotland, and to find that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) had not denied that statement. He was glad to learn, on such good authority, that there was such a generous feeling of sympathy for the Italians among the people of Ireland. The noble Lord, however, complained that the local magistracy in Ireland had been supplanted by the police magistracy. The statement was incorrect. The police magistracy had been established many years; they were under the direct orders of the Government; they were bound to obey the directions they received from them for the repression of crime, and to report to them the condition of the districts in respect to crime. He had, however, never heard that the local magistracy were prevented from assisting the police magistrates in the discharge of their duty; and he knew that in many cases they had rendered useful assistance. He had heard with great astonishment the statement made by the noble Lord, that the conduct of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland had been influenced by a speech made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary at Deny. It was, he believed, most unjust to them to say that any speech would produce such an effect. He need not say that there was no intention whatever in that speech to insult any Roman Catholic prelate or priest; and even if there had been, he could not think it would induce the Roman Catholic priesthood to look on with indifference, and not do their utmost to check that system of assassination and murder, which was a disgrace to a country with any degree of civilization. His noble Friend (Lord Fermoy) then spoke of the land question, which he said was one great cause of disorder in Ireland; and that the people of Ireland had been grievously disappointed by the rejection of measures introduced in reference to that question. It was true that during the last few years independent Members of the House had laid on the table of the House measures with respect to the tenure of land involving principles which the Government could never sanction. Nothing could be more mischievous, or more likely to perpetuate the present state of things in Ireland, than leading the people to entertain false expectations with respect to the land question. He hoped that no such notions would arise, and that no portion of the people of Ireland would suppose, that by a system of disgraceful and cowardly assassination they would force the Government to adopt a particular course of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin seemed to think that the present unhappy condition of affairs would be remedied by his return to the office of Attorney General, which he so efficiently filled; but if tranquillity was to be restored on the terms mentioned by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer), namely, a repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the placing of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland on the same footing as the Roman Catholic clergy of Canada, he asked the right hon. Gentleman, Was he prepared to go that length? But it was not the existence of one Government or another that caused these murders. The extravagant idea which existed in the minds of a portion of the Irish people with respect to the rights of tenants holding land was—he would not say the cause of all these crimes, but to some degree connected with them, and at all events they were irrespective of the religion of the victims; for in the majority of instances lately the sufferers were Roman Catholics. The last thing the House would sanction wolud be a change in the law giving to the tenants fixity of tenure, and possession of the land irrespective of the rights of the landlords. Those rights should be exercised with judgment, moderation, and justice, and he trusted that in the majority of cases they were so exercised; but nothing could justify the acts which had been committed. The Government had taken all the means in their power for the apprehension and bringing to justice of the offenders, and he hoped the result would show that the law was strong enough to repress crime without the necessity for applying to Parliament for extraordinary powers.

said, that what he had asked was, Whether the Special Commission was about to be issued on the eve of the assizes?

said, he should not have risen but for the statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that the people of Ireland were naturally inclined to screen murderers. To that statement he gave the most strenuous denial. There might be a semblance of a desire to screen offenders against the law; but it was the consequence of the state of fear in which they lived. There was no protection for any man. They were ruled by an old and effete stipendiary magistracy and a military police, and they felt that the Government did not give them the protection to which they were entitled. The Government would only receive reports of the state of the country from the stipendiary magistrates. This, and all the Governments before it, had re- fused to put any trust in the people. If the people were properly treated, they were ready and willing to protect themselves and their families, and to put down aggressors against the law with a strong hand. Some years ago several murders were committed in the county of Roscommon; the people formed themselves into a body for the protection of the part of the county threatened, and patrolled the district without the assistance of the police every night. He had himself done so every night for six weeks. The whole thing was crushed out, and nothing like it had occurred from that day. If the Government could be persuaded to understand and trust the Irish people, such complaints as they had heard to-night would not continue to be made.

believed, that the drift of one of the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) had been misunderstood, for he was understood to intimate that the only effectual method of detecting and arresting crime was through the agency of the Roman Catholic clergy, and that they had abstained from interfering in consequence of some foolish speech which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary. He altogether repudiated such an argument. He was quite sure that no speech could tend to relax the efforts of the Roman Catholic clergy to repress crime, and that they would not be influenced in the performance of their duty by any act of the Government or their representative. The efforts of Parliament ought to be directed towards strengthening the hands of the Government in their efforts to remove the stigma which now rested on Ireland; and he believed that the law officers of the Crown would not have advised the issue of a Special Commission if they had not sufficient reasons for believing that they had sufficient evidence to ensure convictions, because, if convictions did not follow, the step which had been taken would be productive of evil rather than good.

explained, that he did not attribute to the Roman Catholic clergy that they were accessory to these horrible crimes. In his argument he had endeavoured to account for the very widespread disloyalty to the law which existed in Ireland; and he said that one of the reasons for it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pursued a particular policy with respect to the heads of the Catholic Church and the Catholic clergy generally, which they believed to be a fixed policy of the Government, and which had given occasion for general discontent.

said, he was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that a large body of Roman Catholic opinion sympathized with the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and that there was a wide-spread sympathy amongst them for their co-religionists in Italy in their efforts to acquire that freedom to which they had proved themselves so fully entitled. The remarkable fact which had been admitted during the debate which had taken place, was that several of the persons who had recently been murdered in Ireland were Roman Catholics. Coupling these two facts, and remembering the spirit which animated the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), and the fact that he represented the opinions and purposes of the Ultramontane and dominant party of ecclesiastical Rome, it must be quite apparent to the House, that there were in Ireland persons at the head of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who wished to force on the Roman Catholics of Ireland claims on their part and submission on the part of others to which many Irish Roman Catholics were as adverse as the Italians were to the temporal power of the Pope. And it was a remarkable fact, that in speaking on the subject of these murders, the hon. Baronet should stipulate that certain concessions should be made to the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, in order to induce them to exercise their influence to mitigate those atrocious evils. [Sir G. BOWYER: No, No!] He (Mr. Newdegate) was speaking in the recollection of the House of what had become manifest during the debate. The hon. Baronet said plainly that these Roman Catholic bishops — he (Mr. Newdegate) rather believed that he might more properly have said that the Legate Dr. Cullen—claimed to exercise in Ireland an authority higher than that of the Imperial Legislature; the impression on the mind of the hon. Baronet evidently being, that this high authority would not be exercised for the preservation of life and property unless Parliament succumbed to that which the hon. Baronet described, and claimed should be considered, as a higher authority in matters temporal than the Imperial Parliament! ["No, No !"] The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy) had shown that that high authority claimed, not only to interfere with matters of etiquette, such as the assumption of Episcopal titles forbidden by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but also with the social and temporal interests involved in the relations of landlord and tenant; and when the House remembered that these outrages were agrarian outrages, and coupled this fact with the declaration which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dungarvan, he thought that every honest-hearted and loyal Roman Catholic in Ireland, and he was sure that every faithful Protestant in England, would feel it his duty to support the Government in whatever measures they might think necessary for the preservation of life in Ireland, and in arresting the intrusion of the temporal authority of the Papacy on such terms into the sister country.

, referring to an expression of the Secretary of State for War in answering the question as to Colonel Bentinck's retirement, wished to know, Whether the Crown had the power of dispensing with the provisions of a Royal Warrant? because he had always deemed the Royal warrants to express the laws of the army.

said, the government of the army was subject to two authorities—one was the authority of Acts of Parliament, and the other the authority of the executive Government, as expressed by warrants under the sign manual. The Government, equally with the Crown, were bound to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament; but there was a certain discretionary power in giving effect to warrants. The regulations made from time to time by Royal warrants were generally carried into effect; but it was clearly competent for the Crown, by whom those warrants were issued, to make individual exceptions to the rules and regulations which they contained. In this case the Crown had been pleased to do a single act which, unquestionably, was not provided for by the warrant to which reference had been made; but he apprehended there was no doubt of the legal power of the Crown to do it.

wished to know who was responsible.

said, the Secretary of State wag responsible to Parliament.

Sir, I wish to explain the circumstances under which the notice on the paper which stands in my name was given. It appears there is a young gentleman in Wales of the name of Jones. This young gentleman was lately seized with a desire to change his name, for which a variety of motives might be suggested. Probably the sort of reputation which Brown, Jones, and Robinson have obtained conduced to that wish on his part. He assumed the more aristocratic name of Herbert, and, under legal advice, made it public to all the world by advertising that he had taken this step. Like a great many other gentlemen in this country, he was exceedingly anxious to pay his respects to his Sovereign but was informed that he could not do so, because he had changed his name without Royal licence. Like the rest of his countrymen, he was desirous of giving his aid to the protection of his country, and of joining the militia; but Lord Llanover, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, informed him that he could not have a commission in the name of Herbert, because his name was Jones. There still remained that honourable course of usefulness which belongs to our English country gentlemen, and he wished to have his name put on the commission of the peace. The Lord Lieutenant, however, declined to apply to the Lord Chancellor to insert his name in the commission, for the same reason which I have just mentioned. It has been said that the Home Secretary used his high authority to assist the Lord Lieutenant in preventing this young gentleman, in these three separate instances, from indulging his very proper desires as a country gentleman, I hope that is not the case, as I should be sorry to see the power of the Secretary of State used for the purpose of personal spite, or of aiding any body of public functionaries in obtaining fees for useless forms. I lay it down as a rule of law that every man in this country has the right to take what name he pleases, and I will quote my authorities for that assertion. The following have been the decisions of eminent Judges of courts of law respecting the change of surnames:—

"That any person may take any surname, and the law recognizes the new names when assumed publicly and bonâ fide"—Chief Justice Tindal (1 Bingham, N. C. 618, &c.)

"That no Act of Parliament, or Royal licence, is needed in order to sanction a change of name, unless a new name is directed by a donor of land, or money, to be assumed by the donee, with such or some other particular sanction, and subject to the forfeiture of the donation if the name should not be assumed in the manner directed by the terms of such conditional donation."—Lord Chief Justice Tenterden (5 Barnwell and Alderson, 555, &c.)

Lord Tenterden's words are these—

"A name assumed by the voluntary act of a young man at his outset into life, adopted by all who know him, and by which he is constantly called, becomes, for all purposes that occur to my mind, as much and effectually his name as if he had obtained an Act of Parliament to confer it upon him."

"That when a name is assumed by Royal licence it is so assumed by the act of the person taking the name, and the name is not conferred by the licence."—Lord Chancellor Eldon (15 Vesey's, R. 100).

"That the effect of a Royal licence is merely to give publicity or notoriety to the change of name."—Chief Justice Tindal, &c. (1 Bingham, N.C. 618.)

"That when, by any Act of Parliament, Judges have the control of a particular roll of names, they will, on change of name, direct the new name to be added to the roll, though such name has been assumed without a Royal licence, and by the mere act of the person whose name is on the roll."—Chief Baron Pollock, &c. (22 Law Times, 123).

This was the case of an attorney who, having changed his name without Royal licence, applied to the Court to have his name altered accordingly on the roll of attorneys, and had his claim allowed. The following opinions have also been given:—

"There is no special law governing surnames. To establish or recognise an aristocracy of names—of names licensed by the Crown in opposition to names assumed without such a licence—would be a folly of the most contemptible kind. All persons, of all degrees, may change their surnames when they please. Asking for the licence of the Crown to change a name is a modern practice. It is a voluntary intrusion, which is simply to be well paid for."

"It has been said that persons are not received at Court if their names are changed without a Royal licence. There is nothing to sustain this opinion. All public functionaries are obedient to the law, and no public officer connected with the Court would assume to establish or to suggest a rule contradictory of what the Judges have declared to be the law, unless he were a Lord Chamberlain of the type of Polonius or a Court fool."

When I look around me in this place, I observe many persons who have, I know, changed their names, and have had that change recognised and admitted by the House. It is therefore a principle which is recognised both by the courts of law and the House of Commons. It happens, I believe, that Mr. Jones, of Clytha, has a cousin of an elder branch, who married the daughter of Lord Llanover, and thereupon changed his name to Herbert, in the belief that it was a name which the clan Jones might properly assume. When this took place, it is said that Lord Llanover wrote to Mr. Sidney Herbert, asking whether he had any objection to it. Mr. Sidney Herbert's reply was, that—

"He could oppose no impediment to the assumption of his family name, but that he hoped it was not the intention of all persons of the name of Jones in Wales to become Herberts."

Lord Llanover supposed, I presume, that that terrible change of names which Mr. Herbert apprehended had fairly set in when the second Mr. Jones took the same course as the first. But whatever might be Lord Llanover'a fear, he had no right to adopt the course he has done. The young gentleman had a right to call himself Brown if he chose. He chose to call himself Herbert, and in consequence of his audacity in taking upon himself the same aristocratic name which had been adopted by his son-in-law, Lord Llanover interferes with all the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and enlists into the service the greater power of the Secretary of State. I think that this is a very disgraceful proceeding, one to which the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have lent himself, and to which I hope that he has not lent himself. I want to see any lawyer bold enough to stand up in his place and say that to a change of name a Royal licence is necessary. I wish, therefore, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Mr. Jones, of Clytha, has assumed the name of Herbert without a Royal licence? Whether he is aware that, in consequence of such change of name without Royal licence, the Lord Chamberlain has refused to permit him (Mr. Jones) to be presented at Court? Whether he is aware that for the same reason the Authorities at the Horse Guards have refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. Jones to the Militia in the name of Herbert? Whether he is aware that he has himself refused to ask the Lord Chancellor to place Mr. Jones, in the name of Herbert, on the Commission of the Peace because he so changed his name without Royal licence? And whether he is aware that such conduct on the part of the Lord Chamberlain, the Authorities at the Horse Guards, and himself, is contrary to law?

I have taken no part whatever in reference to this matter, except to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from Lord Llanover, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, transmitting me his correspondence with Mr. Jones. The hon. and learned Gentleman has first asked me whether or not Mr. Jones, of Clytha, has assumed the name of Herbert without Royal licence, I do not know whether he has or not; all I know is that he has not applied for a Royal licence to change his name. I am not aware that the Lord Chamberlain has refused to permit him to be presented at Court in consequence of such change of name, nor do I think that such can be the case, because the change of name took place in March, and there has been no opportunity for his presentation at Court since that time. I believe I may answer the next Question also in the negative, because I do not know that the case has been before the Horse Guards. The names of officers of the Militia are submitted to the Queen upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, who, in this instance, I believe, refused to give that recommendation. I have not refused to ask the Lord Chancellor to place Mr. Jones on the commission of the peace, and never had any application from Mr. Jones that I would do so. The practice is for the Lord Lieutenant to recommend county magistrates; such recommendations never go through the office of the Secretary of State. I was wholly unaware of the circumstances of this case except from a letter which I received from Lord Llanover, dated the 11th of March, in which he forwarded to me a copy of the correspondence between himself and Mr. Jones; but I am requested by Lord Llanover to state that he did apply at the office of the Secretary of State to know whether Mr. Jones had made an application for a Royal licence to change his name, when he was informed that he had not; and he also inquired whether commissions must be made out in the; real names of the persons to whom they are granted, in answer to which he was told that they must. There is no doubt that a gentleman may change his name; and if the change is permanent, and is sanctioned by the usage of such a length of time as to give it a permanent character, may receive a commission in his new name. It appears, however, from the correspondence in this case, which the hon. and learned Gentleman is welcome to see if he pleases, that in the first instance Mr. Jones asked to be recommended for a commission in the Militia. The Lord Lieutenant undertook to make the recommendation; but he afterwards received an intimation that Mr. Jones wished the recommendation to be suspended until he was of age. With that request the Lord Lieutenant complied; and on the 22nd of last December Mr. Jones wrote to say that his father had expressed a wish to change his name to Herbert, and he therefore requested that the Lord Lieutenant would obtain his commission in the name of Herbert, instead of in that of Jones. Although the law is as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and a bonâ fide change of name, intended to be permanent, and sanctioned by public notice and usage is valid, it is not competent to any one to write to the Horse Guards on Monday, and say, his name being Jones, that he wishes that in the next Army List it should appear as Herbert, and on Tuesday say that he desires to be called Roebuck, or anything else. If this gentleman's father has taken the name of Herbert, and if he is generally recognized as Herbert, there may at some future period be no objection to place him in the commission under that name. Step-children are often brought up under the name of their step-parents, as was the case with those of the late Admiral Sir Charles Napier; but that is a very different thing from a gentleman saying, "I will take a new name, and I require that my new name shall be used in all public documents." I believe the law to have been correctly stated; but I do not think that there is sufficient certainty about this matter to permit an application for a commission in the name of Jones to be made out in the name of Herbert.

said, that he had been requested by the friends of this gentleman to state that these Questions had not been asked at his suggestion, but, on the contrary, that he was rather anxious that the matter should not have been brought before the House. Mr. Jones, having determined to take the name of Herbert, in- quired in the proper quarters whether a Royal licence would be granted. He was informed that such licences were not granted unless some question of property was involved, and that therefore he would not be likely to obtain one. He felt that this was rather hard, because in the case of the other Mr. Jones a Royal licence had, as he supposed, by the interest of Lord Llanover been obtained. He then executed a deed, which he had solemnly enrolled, declaring that he had determined to take the name of Herbert, he advertised the fact in the newspapers, and sent circulars to his friends in the country, and did everything he could in default of obtaining an Act of Parliament or a Royal licence. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he trusted that nothing urther would be heard about the matter.

thought that the simple word of Lord Llanover would be sufficient to satisfy the House that he had not acted improperly in this matter. He would read the following letter, which he had received from the noble Lord:—

"Llanover, June 1.

"My dear Clifford,—I observe by the papers that Mr. Roebuck has given notice that he will put several questions in relation to a matter connected with this county. The facts are these, as far as I am concerned as Lord Lieutenant. In December last Lieutenant-Colonel Vaughan, commanding the Royal Monmouth Militia, requested me to submit for the Queen's approval the name of Mr. William Reginald Jones for a commission then vacant in the regiment. This I consented to do, and directed the clerk of the lieutenancy to inform Mr. W. R. Jones of my intention to comply with his wishes so expressed. Mr. Jones, in reply (dated December 22), requested that his name might not be submitted until February, when he would be of age, as his father had expressed a wish to that effect. The matter was therefore delayed. On the 18th of February Mr. Jones again wrote to the clerk of the lieutenancy, stating that he attained his majority two days previously, and requested him to obtain the insertion of his name in the Gazette as Herbert, instead of Jones, which he had heretofore been called, as, on his coming of age, his father had determined to abandon the name of Jones. Having only seen an advertisement in the county papers, and a printed notice circulated in the county by Mr. Jones, the father, stating that he and his family had assumed the name of Herbert, without any authority being cited for so doing, it became my duty to ascertain whether the Queen had been pleased to grant her Royal licence and authority that Mr. Jones and his family might take and use the name they had assumed. I was informed that Mr. Jones had made application at the Herald's College, and had failed to obtain that which he sought for. I also applied at the Home Office, and was informed that no such licence had been granted, and that all commissions must be made out in the real name of the party to whom they were granted. I therefore directed the clerk of the lieutenancy to write to Mr. W. R. Jones accordingly, and also to inform him, that although I could not submit a name which he had assumed without Royal authority, as, if I did so, I should act in direct interference with the prerogative of the Crown, yet, if he still desired it, I would submit his real name, as I had previously promised. This Mr. Jones refused, and thus the matter stands. I forwarded a copy of the correspondence to the Home Office in March last, and Mr. Roebuck can move for it if he pleases.

"I remain, my dear Clifford, yours sincerely,

"LLANOVER."

He hoped that the explanation which he had given would satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Lord Lieutenant was actuated in the course which he had taken only by a sense of duty, and that he had no hostile feeling whatever towards the young gentleman.

rose to move

"That, whatever policy is adopted in regard to the Indian Navy, it is the opinion of this House that the guarantee given to the Indian Officers by the Act 21&22 Vict., c. 106, s. 50, shall be maintained in its integrity."

The hon. Baronet said, that a short time ago he brought the case of the officers of the Indian Navy before the House; but an Irish debate of six hours' duration sprang up, and he got no answer to the Question which he put to the Secretary of State for India. The subject to which he wished to call attention was the claims of various classes of gentlemen, numbering he believed about 250, who had done their country good service in the Indian Navy. When he asked the right hon. Baronet some time ago whether he could place on the table an account of the financial affairs of India, it was not with a view to obtain a copy of Mr. Laing's speech, but to see whether many important statements which had been circulated through the country were right or wrong. It was said there would be a surplus in India; but he thought the distinguished financier who had made that statement was under a mistake, and that as in this country, so in India, there would be no surplus but he referred to the statement now, because it assumed the abolition of the Indian Navy as an accomplished fact, and the gentlemen immediately concerned wished to know what their position was. He believed that the Indian Navy, composed as it was partly of Indian seamen, was peculiarly fitted for the duties that had been cast upon it. It had rendered good service in the Persian Gulf and in various parts of our Indian empire, and it was doubtful whether the same species of service could be performed better by any other body. When the House bore in mind the importance of suppressing piracy, and the number of treaties which they had with Arab chiefs, a strong case might be made out for keeping up a certain portion of the force; but what he wanted to know was what were the prospects of those gentlemen at the present moment. In the Indian press, and in Mr. Laing's speech, it was taken for granted that it had been for some time intended to abolish the force. But surely, when a body of men could quote the language of a statute for securing their rights, those rights were not to be ignored by silence on the part of the Indian Executive at home, and he wished to obtain a clear and distinct statement on the subject from the Minister for India. These gentlemen had been secured by Act of Parliament in the pay and privileges which they possessed in 1858, and it was only right that the guarantee which was given to them by Parliament should be observed. No one would pretend that the Act of Parliament to which he referred had been got up for the nonce, and that those gentlemen were to be thrown overboard as soon as a certain purpose was served. The profession had its prizes. There were four prizes in it, which would give those who gained them about £800 a year, and, like the military, the members of the force got up funds to provide for those who retired, and for other purposes. The older members of the profession had therefore naturally been looking forward to the speedy acquisition of the prizes for which they had served. He was, however, informed that great anxiety prevailed among those gentlemen, because some of them had received letters from the India Office offering them small sums of money, as if their claims could be disposed of in that way. If he chose, he could show that we had got into various serious wars in the East from the want of having competent Indian officers in command. The Burmese War, for instance, was occasioned because some umbrellas were not sent down on a hot day to meet the Commodore. He hoped that the change from a Company's Government to that of the Queen would not have the effect of injuring a meritorious class, who had not sprung from the aristocracy, but who had come from the middle ranks—those ranks which constituted the strength and power of this country. He now asked his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India to explain what the position of those officers was.

, in rising to second the Motion, merely wished to express a hope that full justice would be done to the officers referred to by the hon. Baronet. He thought that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India must be well disposed towards those gallant gentlemen; and he would remind him that when the transfer of the Government of India was about to take place, it was guaranteed that the pay, privileges, and allowances of military and naval officers would be considered and strictly adhered to.

said, that when the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) asked him what the position of the Indian navy and of the officers of the Indian navy was, he must reply, that as a matter of fact it was perfectly unchanged since the government of the East India Company had been superseded, because nothing whatever had been done. Whatever might have been said in the Indian newspapers or reported through other sources, nothing had been done. If the letters to which the hon. Baronet referred had been written by Indian officers, they were not official letters, and had no authority whatever. The Government of Bombay had differed from the Government of India in reference to the measures which ought to be taken with respect to the Indian navy, and he had deferred taking any step till he should have had an opportunity of conferring with Lord Canning, with Sir George Clerk, the Governor of Bombay, and with the gallant officer now at the head of the Indian navy (Commodore Wellesley). These two latter gentlemen were now on their return home, and he was anxious to have a conference with them before he did anything. He had not, however, the slightest doubt that there ought at any rate to be a considerable reduction. In saying that, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not understand him as differing in the slightest degree from him as to the services performed by the Indian navy whenever their assistance had been required. He was happy to join in what the hon. Baronet said in respect of those services; but the Bengal marine, which was constituted on a different footing from the Indian navy, had also performed ser- vices not less distinguished. It was not, therefore, a fair inference that, in order to perform good service in the Eastern Seas, it was necessary to maintain the Indian navy on its present footing. He would remind the House that he was bound to reduce the expenses of the naval and military establishments in India to a minimum in order to bring the finances of that country to a proper state. Great reductions had already been made, and he was happy to Bay that the prospects of this year, in respect to reduction of the military establishment, were satisfactory. It was equally necessary that the expenses of the Indian navy should be in like manner reduced, and he hoped that this might be done without dealing hardly with the claims of those connected with the service. All arrangements which it might be necessary to make would be effected without in any degree infringing on the guarantee given to the public servants in India when the transfer of government was about to take place. He must, however, be permitted to put a different interpretation on the guarantee from that which the hon. Member for Hertford (Sir M. Farquhar) had given it. When an army or a regiment was reduced the effect was to diminish to a certain extent the prospects of the junior officers. But, if the guarantee referred to were taken to extend to all advantages which every officer might obtain by promotion, the Indian army and navy must be kept up for the next twenty years. It would be necessary to preserve them for that length of time, if all the advantages which their existence might confer on officers who had entered them perhaps only six months ago, were to be preserved to those officers in all their integrity. He entirely admitted that full and fair consideration should be given to the case of those officers whose prospects would be injured. It was his anxious desire, and that of every member of the Indian Council, that the claims of officers in the Indian service should be considered in that way. When a regiment was reduced in England, the officers whose services were no longer required were put on half pay, whilst to the officers of the Indian army their full pay and promotion were continued as if the regiment to which they belonged remained in existence. It was impossible to go beyond this, and he could never admit that the House had bound itself to keep up the army and navy of India, so that no injury should be done to the prospects of the youngest officer throughout his life.

said, he was exceedingly glad to learn from the statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, that the just claims of the officers of the Indian navy would be fully, fairly, and liberally considered by the Government. That was all those officers desired. The Government certainly ought not to do less for these gentlemen than they had promised.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, When he will bring on the Vote or Loan for Fortifications? It was of great importance that it should be discussed in a full House; and if it was not brought on soon, he should raise the question in another form, which he thought might be inconvenient.

My hon. Friend asks mo as to the time when this subject will be brought on, A short time since he was very anxious to prevent an undue precipitation on the part of the Government—[Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: We had not the evidence then.]—and requested I would give an undertaking that the question should not be proposed before the Report of the Committee was in the hands of Members, and without full time to consider the evidence. The Report is printed; but I believe that the evidence is not yet circulated among Members. I had a copy brought to me to-day, and I believe there are two copies in the library. If I had named a day before Whitsuntide, I should have been told that the evidence was not yet in the hands of Members, and that the discussion was altogether premature. Well, then, I think I have shown that I have lost no time in not bringing on the question before the holydays. What I propose is, that on Thursday after the holydays I shall endeavour to fix a day. At the same time, it will, of course, depend on other business, which may be more urgent, whether I shall be able, with the consent of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, immediately after the holydays to name a day.

called attention to the increase on the Vote of last year. There was nothing on the face of the Estimates to show the items in respect of which the increase had arisen.

said, that the increase in the number of examiners and exhibitions had led to a necessary increase of expense. For instance, there had been appointed two Examiners in Forensic Medicine.

moved that the Vote should be reduced by £473, making it £5,000.

thought it would be best to put the University on a permanent footing. Since the House had been in Committee he had counted the number of Members in the House, and found there were six hon. Members on the Opposition benches, four on the Government benches, and—including himself, but not including the economical Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)— there were below the gangway six "guardians of the public purse."

said, that as an old member of the London University he would defend the Vote. The number of students who passed the last matriculation was nearly 400.

objected to the appointment of two Examiners in Forensic Medicine, and hoped the office would be suppressed.

objected to this haphazard method of striking off a few hundred pounds from a Vote. Such a course could lead to no useful result; and if the hon. Gentleman went to a division, he would vote against his Amendment.

thought there could be nothing more pettifogging than to object to a Vote of £500 for a University which was in association with so many colleges throughout the country, and which was conferring so much advantage in promoting the education of the middle classes.

believed that his hon. Friend was a member of the Council of the University. [Mr. J. R. MILLS: Not now.] His object was to prevent the constant yearly additions which were made to these Votes. Surely that was an intelligible principle. He saw an item of £120 for the salary of a new officer—an assistant clerk. Now, the salary of the Registrar had been settled after correspondence at £800; and it now seemed as if, by establishing this place of assistant, Parliament was asked to make up the salary of the Registrar to a larger amount. He saw no reason why this Vote should not remain at £5,000.

said, he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) should support this Vote; for the next Vote was for the Scottish Universities, which it was proposed to increase from £16,000 to £20,000. ["Order, order!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, a distinguished economist, called him to order. [Mr. WHITE: We have not come to that Vote yet.] But no doubt the hon. Member for Montrose, in advocating this small increase for the London University, had an eye to the Vote for the Scotch Universities. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter), like his hon. Friend (Mr. White), was a distinguished economist, and was always for reducing Galway contracts and Votes of that kind. Unfortunately, the Committee had not the advantage, now they were voting money in Supply, of the presence of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), or the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), or the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), or the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), or the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), or even of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who so distinguished himself the other night. The only Members on the Opposition Benches from whose presence the Committee could expect to derive advantage at the present moment, were the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole). He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had propounded an intelligible principle when he said, "Let the University have a certain sum, keep to it, and dispose of it as it pleases." On that understanding he was quite ready to Vote even £20,000 to the Scotch Universities.

could excuse the imputation of motives by the hon. Member who had just spoken, on account of the extreme ignorance he had displayed on the subject. It happened that he was almost the only Scotch Member who opposed the increase of the Vote to the Scotch Universities.

could not think his hon. Friend the Member for Truro was justly liable to the imputation of acting in a pettifogging spirit. He should support the Amendment.

took occasion to call attention to the large increase under that head which had within the last few years taken place.

said, the whole of the Vote did not apply directly to the Scotch Universities. Part of it was for the Royal Society, and the Royal Observatory and Botanic Garden; also for compensations to retired professors, and for the examination of parish schoolmasters; in all £6,000 must be deducted from the total amount of the Vote on account of those institutions. It was true, however, that an increase in the sum asked on their account had taken place of late years, an increase which was the result of recent legislation, in accordance with which a Commission had been appointed, which was empowered to nominate new Professors as well as to raise the salaries of those already in existence.

took occasion to ask what was the precise number of those who had obtained the degree of Master of Arts in the Sessions of 1860 and 1861? He found, he said, in the list of those who had obtained that degree in 1860 the name of a gentleman who appeared to have obtained it in a previous year, and who was Professor in a College at Belfast. He also found among the Masters of Arts the name of a gentleman who had acted with the right hon. Baronet in promoting this scheme, and he wanted to know whether the same person was secretary to the University? It must strike the Committee that the return of students could not be quite accurate. He found that the seven gentlemen he had just referred to competed for honours, and, with the exception of two officers and one other, each received a gold medal and money exhibition. The case of the Bachelors of Arts was more extraordinary. In 1860 twenty-four gentlemen got the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and upon that occasion twenty-nine gold medals were given to these twenty-four gentlemen. Notwithstanding this, the Chief Secretary for Ireland told the students, in a speech, that they were not rewarded with honours and prizes like the students of other Universities. He should like to know how many students got the degree of Doctor of Law in the last Session. He found in the list only two students—one of whom was Professor at Belfast; the other Professor at Galway. He also desired to be informed what was the total number of scholarships maintained by public money in the Faculty of Arts. He had got a return of the number of students of the second years' course belonging to Queen's College, Galway, who during the period from 1850 to the present year competed for scholarships in the Faculty of Arts, and he found that it amounted to 128; and these 128 students competed for 139 scholarships. Such being the case, he begged the right hon. Baronet, if he had endowed additional scholarships, to consider carefully in future the accuracy of the statements made by those who furnished him with information on such a subject. The right hon. Baronet got information from certain gentlemen who were anxious to promote a certain object, and, having acted on that information, the right hon. Baronet was now hound to acknowledge to Parliament that he made a mistake.

denied that he had made any mistake. He thought the sneering observations against the Queen's Colleges came with a bad grace from the hon. and learned Gentleman, seeing that he himself belonged to one of them. With regard to the number of students who entered Queen's College, Belfast, in the Session 1861–2, the Parliamentary Return was accurate in stating it at 152.

said, that in making his observations, he had showed himself the best friend to these Colleges. He found the Professors making before the Royal Commissioners similar statements, and one Professor proposed to take away certain scholarships, as the circumstance of the whole number of the scholarships being more than the number of students in the Faculty of Arts acted injuriously on education in Ireland, and did not operate to attract scholars to the College. Was it, then, fair in the right hon. Baronet to charge him with making sneering remarks against the Queen's Colleges? The Royal Commission recommended that the number of scholarships should be reduced; and the right hon. Baronet, if he thought that by going to Ireland and sending out circulars for subscriptions for endowing scholarships he was in any way assisting education in Ireland, was greatly mistaken. The course which the right hon. Baronet had taken had signally failed, and a member of the National Board of Education (Lord Dunraven) had not only refused to subscribe to the right hon. Baronet's scheme, but had protested against the conduct of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman defended his statistics. He (Mr. Hennessy) wished to know, whether in the year when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase the number of scholarships it was not already greater than the number of students; and he should also like to know how it happened that twenty-four gentlemen received twenty-nine gold medals—a fact of which the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice whatever?

It would seem as if there must be some peculiarity of constitution in the mind of Irish students, for it is certainly a strange argument that an increase in the number of prizes to be obtained in a university or college discourages students from coming to it. It may happen from various other causes that students are not so numerous, but I think it a very odd assertion that by the multiplication of prizes you diminish competition. Certainly, the feeling among Irish students must be very different from that of students in other parts of the world if they are discouraged on account of increased rewards held out for successful study.

I cannot agree with the principle laid down by the noble Lord. By multiplying prizes you do not necessarily increase competition; but you may, on the contrary, establish monopoly. I do not desire, however, to enter into any controversy on this subject, or at all to enter on the question of mixed education; but I think I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this question, who stated his case with great ability, and who brought forward facts quite worthy of the attention of the Committee, does not appear to have been replied to in that tone which the importance of the subject, and the temper and ability with which it was introduced to the Committee, deserve. With regard to the taunt that the hon. Member for the King's County was himself a pupil in one of the Queen's Colleges, I can only say I congratulate the Queen's College that produced a pupil who does them such great credit.

I think there is an old authority applicable to this case—

—"Quis enim virtutem amplectitur ipsam, "Praemia si tollas?"

likewise believed that an unfair attack had been made upon the hon. Member for the King's County. Complaint was made that the hon. Gentleman had used sneering remarks upon the Queen's Colleges; but what did the House think of the words employed by the noble Lord, who said that there must be a "peculiarity of constitution in the mind of Irish students"? He was afraid the noble Lord had been sitting too close to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose society he would advise him to get rid of at the earliest possible moment. He referred, of course, to his official society; his personal and private society, no doubt, was extremely agreeable, and perhaps it was its very charm which had induced the noble Lord to place the right hon. Baronet in a position for which he was wholly unsuited. For his own part, he had never expressed any opinion on the subject of the Queen's Colleges. He had received from the right hon. Baronet a circular, addressed to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, asking for subscriptions, which, considering that it was signed by ten or twelve very distinguished gentlemen, all Protestants or Presbyterians, he thought, to use an old Cambridge expression, the most "bumptious" letter he had ever seen. He returned the same answer to that circular that he once received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government to a letter which he addressed to him, asking why no Irishman was included in the Cabinet— that was to say, he returned no answer at all, and he thought the precedent an excellent one. He observed in the Votes that it was proposed this year to increase the salary of the Examiners in English Literature and History by £50; and, as no explanation whatever had been given with regard to the item, he begged to move that the amount be reduced by £50.

said, on the authority of a Professor of History, there were lectures on History in the Queen's Colleges, but no examinations in it. What kind of history could be taught in mixed Colleges of this kind? For instance, English history was in the curriculum, but it was a history in which the word "Reformation" never occurred; nothing about the action of the Church in ancient or modern times was ever taught. It was English history, but so emasculated as not to be worthy of the name.

pointed out that no explanation for the increase of the Vote on that of last year had been given. He believed that the large increase of the prizes did not tend to promote the desire to obtain them; for when the prizes were made more numerous than the scholars, it ceased to be an honour to obtain them.

thought the present discussion was a strong contrast to that of Tuesday evening. This was an instance of a great waste of public money. The hon. Member for the King's County had frequently brought this subject before the House. Instead of being met in the manner his ability and fairness deserved, he had been treated in a manner painful to all who witnessed it; but it had gained him, the sympathy of the House. Of all political blunders, the establishment of these Queen's Colleges was the greatest. It was an attempt to introduce a system of education for part of the community at variance with their religious feelings. It might have been an excusable blunder at the time, but what took place last year had made it inexcusable. If they adopted the opinion of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), the money voted for the colleges was a mere payment to students for acquiring a certain amount of knowledge. If so, the institution was a degradation of learning, and ought to be immediately abolished. The noble Lord had put the expenditure on a very low footing. When it was brought under the notice of the Government that the expenditure did not tend to the advancement of learning, ought it not to reconsider the question? The Vote on the paper was only in addition to the very large sum charged on the Consolidated Fund. He was almost afraid to say what was the whole charge for the University. It was so large that when the Government was told, by those who spoke in behalf of the Roman Catholics, that the University was a failure, it was its duty at once to reconsider the subject. If no useful result was obtained, so many thousands a year ought not to be paid for no satisfactory purpose. The whole discussion to-night proved that the proceedings of Tuesday were "a solemn sham."

wished to point out that the increase in the Vote was for the purpose of rendering the remuneration of certain gentlemen engaged in instruction, which was now very inadequate, more suited to their ability and attainments, A proposal was then under the consideration of the Government, not to ask for more money from Parliament, but to redistribute the money it had already voted, in order to make the remuneration of these gentlemen less inadequate than it had been. The present Vote was for the examinations of the pupils who had been educated in the Colleges. This expenditure had not been forced on the country by the Government. The Colleges had had great difficulties to contend with, having met much opposition; but the number of students was now continually increasing, and in the last year the number of pupils was 752. Those 750 pupils were nearly equally divided between Catholics, Protestants, and Presbyterians. He had heard it said that few of the pupils were worthy of any distinction. But the number of pupils who, in open competition for offices in the Indian and other services, had greatly distinguished themselves was a better test of the sort of education obtained at the Colleges than the opinion of any individual. It was also said that the number of degrees was not large in proportion to the number of pupils. Where the taking a degree was of advantage, as it was to young men intended for orders, for the bar, or for the medical profession, the degree was taken. In the first few years of the London University, the number of degrees was not greater; and in the Universities of Scotland, which no one pretended to be failures, the number was not exceeded. The reason was that young men went to the Queen's University, not for the purpose of obtaining degrees, but for the purpose of obtaining an education which would be of value to them in their future life. It was the legitimate object of all colleges and universities. They were not founded to give degrees, but to give a sound and valuable education. Then it was said there were more scholarships than students. If the Committee were really under that impression, they would of course hesitate to give the Vote. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told him that last year 311 pupils entered. There were in the three colleges exactly forty-eight scholarships, and, unlike the scholarships of Oxford and Cambridge, they were only tenable for one year. The highest was, he believed, £25, and that small sum was given to assist the pupil to maintain himself during the year, subject to a subsequent challenge and examination in the next year, when, if beaten, he lost the scholarship. He was not referring to the blue-book which had been quoted, but to communications with the Professors, and those communications had led him to believe that the Professors would go without any addition to the remuneration which they received rather than that the small sums given to the students should be diminished. The constant increase of pupils, the numerical equality in the religious opinions of those who entered, and the success of the students in public competition, at which they had to meet students from the older Universities, from Trinity College, and from every school and seminary in the kingdom, all showed that the sum granted was accomplishing the object for which it was voted—namely, educating indiscriminately the different classes of the people of Ireland; and as the Committee had just given a largely increased Vote for Scotland, he hoped they would not reduce the amount which was now asked.

said, the real question had been correctly raised by the right hon. Gentleman—whether these colleges had served the purpose for which Parliament voted the money. They were intended to include Catholics; but in 1859, of forty-five students who obtained degrees at the Queen's University, fifteen were Catholics and about twelve or fourteen others took degrees at Trinity College. Out of 4,500,000 of the population who were Catholics, less than thirty a year obtained degrees. The reason that so few Catholics took advantage of the Queen's University was, that no one could take a degree there unless he came from the Queen's Colleges; and the Catholics, upon conscientious grounds, objected to the system of education at the Colleges. He suggested that instead of the Government appointing the Senate of the Queen's University, vacancies should be supplied by election, and that any student, no matter where he had matriculated, should be allowed to come up for a degree. He admitted the right of the State, which gave the money, to fix an intellectual standard, and he did not care how high it was placed, provided those who reached it were admitted to examination for degrees. The refusal of permission, because persons in Ireland had an objection to education without religion, was a kind of persecution unknown in France, Belgium, or any other country. In the last volume of M. Guizot's Memoirs he found this anecdote. In 1848 M. Guizot was obliged to leave France, and he came with his son to London. He consulted with the late Lord Macaulay as to whether he should send his son to King's College or University College, where there was no religious education; and Lord Macaulay said, "As a Whig statesman, I have always supported University College; but if you ask me as the father of a family, I say, send him to King's College." All they sought was permission to follow the advice which Lord Macaulay gave to M. Guizot, and to bestow upon their children a religious education.

said, that no argument could be drawn from the number of students, as matriculation consisted merely in the payment of a 5s. fee. He had been told of a case where one of the College authorities went round the town getting shopmen to put down their names to swell the list of students. It had been stated in evidence by the Professor of Agriculture that one man had taken a scholarship in that faculty whom he never saw, and that for agricultural purposes it was worse than useless. A Parliamentary Return showed that at Queen's College, Cork, ten scholarships were competed for in 1860 by ten students; in 1861, by eight; and in 1862, by only five.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had not touched the real question—the salary of the Examiners. He required information why the salaries of the Examiners in English Literature and History had been raised from £50 to £100, and asked explanations with regard to other items.

hoped the Government would, during the recess, consider the undeniable fact that of late years a feeling had grown up that the principle of the Queen's Colleges was very defective. Unless some change were made, there would be a great waste, not merely of public money, but of valuable energies. He did not say this in a party spirit, but because he desired that the experiment should not fail for the want of proper development. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when speaking at Oxford of the middle-class schools, had urged the neces- sity of religious education, would look to this matter. There was a feeling abroad that the sums voted on account of these Colleges were rather in the nature of bribes, to absorb the youth of Ireland into them, and wean them from the ordinary channels of education.

hoped the Government would explain the reason of the increased Vote.

said, the reason was simply that the Examiner on English Literature could not be expected to discharge his duties for £50, while others were paid £100 for similar work. He thought a salary of £100 was not at all too high for the services rendered.

called attention to the circumstance that in many years there were fewer scholars than scholarships, and therefore the sums appropriated for some of them were not needed. He asked what became of those sums, and suggested that it might be desirable to increase the amount of the scholarships, so as to stimulate competition.

said, that what was required was more students. He saw no reason for altering the system.

wished to know what became of the surplus funds.

said, that the money which was not expended must, of course, remain undrawn from the Treasury.

complained that his Question had not been answered, and objected to any increase in the value of the scholarships.

explained, that owing to the increase of the number of Professors in each of these Colleges from twelve to twenty, without a corresponding increase of the sum appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for their remuneration, many of them were at present underpaid. The Government were prepared to consider a plan for reducing their number, so as to make the permanent provision for the Colleges suffice; but, in the mean time, as such a plan could only take effect gradually, and as this Vote, which was intended to defray the cost of museums and libraries and the general expenses of the Colleges, was at present more than adequate to meet their wants in those respects, it was proposed that the balance should be applied to increasing the salaries of such of the Professors as were now insufficiently remunerated, and that when the reduction was carried out, this Vote should be diminished from £1,600 to about £1,000 for each College.

said, he must call the attention of the Committee to the want of explicitness in the answers given to questions which had been asked. He wished to know what the Government intended to do with respect to professorships in the cases in which the Professors had little or nothing to do. At Belfast there was a Professor of Agriculture, who taught a class in practical agriculture consisting of one student, and a class in the diseases of farm animals which also consisted of one, and, as he was credibly informed, of the same student. The Professor also stated he made excursions with the students or student. He hoped that this was not one of the Professors who wore thought to be underpaid. In Cork the number of students attending a similar course was three only, of whom one was matriculated; the other two probably belonged to that class who put down their names to swell the list. In Galway there were six students attending the same class, but whether matriculated or not he could not tell. Then with regard to the Professorships of the Celtic Languages, in Belfast the chair was vacant at present, and he hoped long might continue so. In Cork there was no class, and not any prospect of one. In Galway, during five years, there were in some years two, in others three pupils, and during six years, at different intervals, no pupils at all. There was another branch of instruction nominally established, which strongly illustrated the fact that those institutions were supplying a description of teaching that was not wanted. In each College there were two Professors of Law. In Cork there were four students for two Professors, and in Galway there were in some way or other seven. Mr. Denis Caulfield Heron had been appointed Professor of Jurisprudence in Galway; he had a large practice in Dublin, and he had only to go down occasionally to teach his class. Having gone down one time he went to the porter and inquired, "Where is the Jurisprudence Class?" "Oh, please your honour, sir," said the porter, "he's sick." Like Dean Swift's congregation, he was sick—so the Professor returned to Dublin, and being a gentleman who would not hold a Professorship for the honour of it, he resigned his chair and its emoluments, in opposition to what the Premier had said. he hoped, then, that the Government would no longer attempt to keep up a staff of teachers that were not wanted, and also that they would weigh well the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and endeavour to conciliate the people. If they did, they would find that the difficulty in the way of mutual concession would not proceed from the people of Ireland.

said, the Government intended to recommend a reduction of three professorships in each College, making a total reduction of nine. He might mention that it was originally proposed that there should be only twelve Professors, though the number was afterwards increased to twenty. The original proposition also was that they should have, with fees, about £280 a year each; whereas, in consequence of the increase in the number, the salaries averaged only about £170—an amount which was wholly inadequate to the duties to be performed. It was true that some of the classes had not succeeded as it was hoped they would, and it was probable that the professorships which had been more particularly referred to—in particular the Professorship of the Celtic Language—would not be continued.

said, that the Professors of Greek, Latin, English Literature, and others had salaries of £250 a year; those of Chemistry, Modern Languages, Natural History, and Geology, £200, while others had only £100. [Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had given the average.] Those gentlemen were to receive fees as well as salaries, but they received scarcely any fees, because the students had not come. In a great many of the chairs the fees amounted to only £5, £10, or £15 a year, instead of £200, as they were expected to be at first. The Government would do well, then, to augment the salaries of the Professors, but that ought not to be done by suppressing certain chairs. The far better course would be to take the advice of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and they would then draw students to the classrooms and augment the fees. He was of opinion that those who were the real friends of the Queen's Colleges were not to be found upon the Treasury Bench.

said, the result of it all was that £360,000 had been spent in teaching 300 persons as much as they learnt in an ordinary University education. That was the result of this attempt to undermine the Roman Catholic religion —an attempt which had produced constant irritation in Ireland, and the sooner it was abandoned the better.

asked for an explanation of this Vote.

said, it was not intended to initiate a series of Votes for the purpose of establishing a National Gallery in Ireland. An understanding had been come to between the Government and the Trustees, to carry out which this Vote was proposed. The Vote was asked for on exceptional grounds, and would be for this year only.

said, he had serious objections to the principle of paying Theological Professors of Dissenting congregations out of the public purse. Seeing that all the great Dissenting congregations of this country and of Scotland paid their own Professors, he saw no reason why this House should continue year after year to pay for the Dissenting congregations of the north of Ireland.

said, the principle of this Vote had been often discussed, and accepted by the House. The money was productive of a great deal of good, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee.

did not believe that it was any benefit to these Professors to be paid out of the State funds.

then rose to move a Vote of £99,012 for the British Museum. The right hon. Gentleman said the alterations in the amount this year were few and not very important. The total amount of the Vote was £99,012 against £100,414, showing a reduction of £1,402 upon that of last year. There was an additional charge of £2,200 for the increased expenses attendant upon throwing open the reading-room to the inspection of foreigners and country visitors during the holding of the International Exhibition, and another £1,000 for additional attendants. That sum the Trustees proposed to provide out of the surplus arising from the Votes of the preceding year. The increase upon several items for the present year arose from the greater attendance in the reading-room, and from the necessity of appointing one or two additional officers in the manuscript department. Upon some other items there was a decrease, and he hoped the Committee would give the Trustees credit for a desire to observe economy under another head of expenditure—the building charge. The Vote for building had only come under the control of the Trustees within, the last three years, and whereas the Vote was at that time £22,000 odd, it was reduced in the next year to £19,000 and some hundreds. It was now £2,249 less than last year, and he hoped that there would be a further reduction in future years. There were only two points in addition which he need refer to. Under the former regulations of the reading room, gentlemen were admitted from the age of eighteen and upwards. The rooms would only accommodate 330 or 340 persons; but the daily average number of those who attended was beyond that amount. The consequence was, that persons who were employed in severe and more difficult studies were excluded from the accommodation to which they were entitled, by the younger students who could not properly be called readers. The Trustees, therefore, had felt it to be their duty to limit the admission of readers to persons of twenty-one years and upwards, instead of eighteen as at present. Those persons who now possessed the privilege of admission would continue to enjoy it, but no further admissions would be granted to younger students, except in special cases. He would only further observe, that as those Gentlemen who had always taken the greatest interest in the Museum Estimates — the hon. Members for Galway (Mr. Gregory) and Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), and the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord H. Lennox), were all now absent, he proposed, with the concurrence of the Government, to take the Vote now, but that the report should be taken later than the first day of the reassembling of Parliament after the recess, when those hon. Gentlemen might be able to attend, and to make any observations they wished.

asked, what steps had been taken to afford greater facilities to the working classes to visit the Museum? As there were such grave objections to the opening of the Museum on Sundays, he thought it hopeless to attempt it.

said, that for a portion of the year — namely, from May to the middle of August—the Museum was kept open until eight instead of closing at five. He wished that the facility thus afforded was more generally appreciated by those in whose behalf the arrangement had been made than hitherto had been the case.

said, the working classes probably felt tired in the evening, and had no desire to visit the British Museum. But he should like to know what had been done in reference to opening the institution on Saturdays, now that that day was generally observed as a half-holiday. The question of opening the building on Sundays had not been mooted this Session, and he was not anxious to raise it, because such a strong feeling had been exhibited against it last year by the hon. Members who came from north of the Tweed, and they were numerous in the House that evening.

hoped that some reason would be given for keeping up the zoological specimens at a cost of £1,500 a year. There was an excellent living collection in the Zoological Gardens; and whenever he saw those mangy lions and tigers in the British Museum, he regarded them as rubbish. Why have stuffed animals, taking up room, and costing so much money, when such excellent living specimens were to be seen in the Zoological Gardens?

said, that the Trustees would not, perhaps, feel themselves justified in opening the Museum on Sundays, seeing the difference of opinion which existed on the subject; but they ought to give in the week all the opportunities they could to persons who wished to visit the institution. He had heard with regret that the experiment of opening the Museum in the evening had failed. He thought that the institution should be kept open to a later hour than eight o'clock, and should be well lighted. Now, the returns from Kensington Museum showed that one-half of the visitors went in the evening, and he thought it was clear that the arrangements made for them must be much better than those made at the Museum. He thought the Trustees of the British Museum had not done their best in that respect; and if they would follow the course pursued by the Kensington Museum, they would soon double the number of the visitors to the British Museum.

said, he had been told by an officer of the British Museum that the people were only allowed to walk through a portion of the rooms, and that they could only see the backs of the books in the library.

hoped that every exertion would be made to make the Museum available to the working classes, and that it might be opened after two o'clock on Sundays.

wished to know what were the arrangements under which the Trustees of the British Museum had subscribed towards the publication of a very important and valuable work on the Antiquities of Halicarnassus with a view to the distribution of a number of copies among certain public institutions.

said, that the greater the objection was to opening the Museum on Sundays, the greater was the necessity for making it as available to the working classes on week days. He thought that it should be kept open to the latest practicable hour in the evening, and that the access to it should be facilitated in every possible manner.

said, it had been the constant effort of the Trustees to increase as much as possible the facilities of the public in visiting the Museum. The Museum was now open till eight p.m. He did not exactly recollect the facts relative to the publication of the book about Halicarnassus. It was a very expensive work, and the Trustees took a certain number of copies in order to assist its publication; a certain number could therefore be purchased at a reduced rate, and copies were also given to various institutions. He would make further inquiries on the subject, and inform the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) on the report. With respect to the zoological collection, no fewer than 25,000 specimens in natural history had been added to the collection during the year ending 1860; and if these had not been added, the collection would have been incomplete. When the gorilla was making a great stir in the world, the Trustees purchased stuffed specimens as well as the skeleton. With respect to the larger question, whether public exhibitions should be opened on Sunday, no body of Trustees would be justified in deciding such a point when Parliament declined to do so.

asked what had been the result of the Saturday opening.

said, he could not answer the question. The Museum had been opened on Saturday evenings. If kept open later, the general opinion of scientific men was that oil or candles would not give sufficient light, and that gas would injure the specimens.

hoped the Trustees would inquire what would be the expense of lighting the Museum with gas outside, so as not to injure the specimens.

suggested that it should remain open till ten o'clock on Saturdays.

observed, that according to the reports of Mr. Braidwood and a very able chemist, great dangers would arise from the use of gas; in fact, scientific people were agreed that the collection would be spoiled altogether.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, on the report, inform the House what precise sum had been granted by the Trustees for the purpose of aiding the publication on the Antiquities of Halicarnassus, and whether the work had thereby been rendered accessible to the public at a more reasonable price.

said, he would do so, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report would be taken.

said, the Report would be taken on Monday week. He hoped the Trustees would submit to the Government an estimate of the expense necessary to open the Museum in the evening lighted with gas. If the gas were placed outside, no injury could result from its Use.

asked what was the nature and object of the institution.

replied, that the Gallery was intended for the collection and exhibition of the portraits of persons eminent in British history.

suggested that the Estimate should include the names of the persons whose portraits were exhibited in the Gallery.

said, the effect would be to introduce a catalogue into the Estimate.

objected to the Gallery, because it was a separate establishment, with divided responsibility, and different rules of management. In 1857 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that if the Trustees were allowed a lustrum, they would be able to show an exhibition of portraits which would prove that they had not betrayed their trust. In 1859 the present Secretary for War, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that when the National Gallery was enlarged, it would be in the power of the Government to set apart rooms for the pictures now in the Portrait Gallery. Again, in 1860, when the opinion was expressed that there was no reason why the pictures in the Portrait Gallery should not be looked after by the officers of the National Gallery, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that there was something anomalous in having a separate establishment, adding that he thought its dissociation from the National Gallery should be regarded as provisional. The enlargement of the National Gallery contemplated by the Secretary for War had now been effected; the lustrum alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks had been accomplished by the fluxion of time, and on the present occasion he hoped the Government would say what they intended to do with the Portrait Gallery. There could be no doubt that the existence of a separate establishment was detrimental to the object in view. At present the Portrait Gallery was a small National Gallery without any of the advantages of the large one. It had no staff; it was open only eight or ten hours a week; the public could not go to it, and they could not see the pictures if they did go. The Trustees were always crying out for more money, and they evidently looked forward to a period when the annual charge would be far more than £1,000, the amount of the present Vote. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would seriously consider whether a separate establishment should be continued. The National Gallery was not absolute perfection; but the Trustees and their advisers had been taught to act with caution, and their purchases were not now so reckless as they used to be. Such was not the case with the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery. They had all their experience to learn, as was proved by a list of pictures, with the prices attached to them, which was laid on the table last Session. Before that time it was exceedingly difficult to ascertain from the Trustees what they had paid for their pictures; no account was submitted to Parliament; and the consequence was some of the most reckless purchases ever made by any body of men. Let him give the Committee a sample. In 1859, there was a sale in Eaton Square. At that sale Mr. Graves bought three pictures — a portrait of James I., as a boy, £20; a portrait of Queen Anne of Denmark, £30; and a portrait of the first Marquess of Winchester, who was Treasurer to Henry VIII., £17. Would the Committee believe that in a few months afterwards Mr. Graves sold these three pictures to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery for an aggregate sum of £680? Nor was that all. One of the pictures changed its name, and the portrait of Queen Anne of Denmark became the portrait of Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, by an unknown painter, costing the country £315. Why the Trustees should have paid so large a sum for a portrait of the Countess of Pembroke he could not understand. He had ascertained from the Biographical Dictionary that the Countess was most remarkable for having written certain books which nobody ever read or would ever want to read. A portrait of Mary Queen of Scots had cost the country £120, but the best judges believed that there was no authentic portrait of this Sovereign in existence. The National Gallery was administered upon an open system, and every one knew what the pictures cost. But the Portrait Gallery was a mystery, and no one knew how the money was to be applied. He did not move the reduction of the Vote, but he trusted the Government would announce its intention in regard to this Gallery. Why should not the administration be added to that of the National Gallery? As to the pictures, they might be sent to the South Kensington Museum instead of the Turner Gallery. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had suggested that space might be found for these portraits in the Palace of Westminster; and if they were not sent to Brompton, he trusted that suggestion would receive attention.

said, that in the last report of the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery there was but one note of complaint—of want of space. The Trustees recounted, with justifiable pride, that Her Majesty had presented them with a portrait, now doubly dear, of the late illustrious Prince Consort. For this, however, there was no adequate room; and the same was said of other pictures. There was a sort of Kensington-phobia on the benches opposite; but there were three or four rooms at the South Kensington Museum which had been used for the Vernon Gallery, and which were now empty. Instead of being seen by 10,000 persons in one year, these portraits would be seen at Kensington by 400,000, The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he believed, quite aware of the anomalous position of this institution, established in a corner in Great George Street, and only open for a few hours twice a week. His hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck) demanded that these pictures should be bought with good taste, and a fair price given for them. But among a body so constituted, whose taste would his hon. Friend accept—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, or the noble Lord the Member for Stamford? This gallery was another illustration of the truth that the national collections of a country, if they were worth anything, were worthy of being properly cared for. He trusted the Government would consider whether the object which they had all in view would not be carried out by the temporary removal of these portraits to South Kensington.

said, that the question of the proper accommodation of national collections was one not very easy of solution in that House, as experience had amply proved; for sometimes, when the Government made a proposal on this subject, they were met by a sudden desire for economy. He would, however, admit that the present position of the National Portrait Gallery was not satisfactory, and that the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Bentinck) were deserving of careful consideration. The difficulty about moving these portraits to a home of their own was, that the question of the final constitution of the body responsible for the Portrait Gallery would thereby be prejudged when it was not yet ripe for adjudication. The present condition of the Portrait Gallery was provisional, and was not unconnected with the final destination and development of the National Gallery itself, which was in its turn connected with the other question of sites for the national collections. It was probable these portraits might find more satisfactory accommodation at South Kensington; but he was unable to give any assurance or pledge on this subject, except that the suggestion deserved, and should receive, consideration. No doubt the portraits would there be seen by a greatly-increased number of persons. His hon. Friend had quoted the prices paid for some of the portraits some time back; but great care had been taken by the Trustees not to pay extravagant prices. The difficulty about laying the prices of the pictures before the House as they were bought was, that the Trustees would thus be raising the market against themselves. He had attended a great number of their meetings, and he could conscientiously say that they appeared to consider with all care the amount of money to be paid for pictures. Whether a statement of the price given for each picture should be produced, or whether, instead thereof, the judgment of the Trustees on the point should be acquiesced in, was a matter which it must remain in the discretion of the House to determine.

said, he was convinced, that if this collection should be sent to South Kensington, in another year the House would be called upon for a vote for additional officers. The best place for these pictures was in that House. They might be placed on the walls of the corridors, and no expense would be incurred.

disagreed from the suggestion to stow away the portraits of the great men of the country in the badly lighted corridors of that building. Regarding these pictures apart from their artistic merit, he thought it of importance to be able to form some notion of the appearance of the great characters that had illustrated English history; but with respect to the arrangements connected with the national pictures, the axe ought to be laid to the whole system. Looking at the several different places where those pictures were now kept, the matter was at the present moment in something like a mess, and he complained of the Trustees of the British Museum keeping apart from the collection of pictures the original designs and drawings of the great masters, which it was essential to study in connection with the paintings. In his opinion, the Government should take into consideration the question of providing a fitting depository for the whole of the national collections of pictures, which at present were very unworthily accommodated. The International Exhibition at Kensington had shown them the way in which a Gallery should be provided; and he would suggest, that if the portraits could be transferred to similar galleries at Burlington House, they would then be placed in a central position, acceptable to the community at large.

said, that public money was spent uselessly in maintaining the establishment of the Portrait Gallery, for all the pictures might be sent to the South Kensington Museum. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to say what the ultimate destination of this Gallery ought to be.

said, it might afford his hon. Friend some gratification to know, that as there was a balance to the credit of the Historical Portrait Gallery, it would only be necessary to take a vote of £1,000 this year. At the same time, he could not hold out any hope that the expenses of the secretary's office were capable of diminution. Two entirely different kinds of knowledge were required for the selection of portraits and general works of art. It would be absurd to expect that Sir Charles Eastlake should possess this special kind of talent.

thought a Director of the National Gallery ought to be quite competent to determine the value and authenticity of portraits. He was opposed, on principle, to the distribution of collections, because in time the fragments grew into great establishments. For that reason he believed the suggested removal of pictures to Burlington House would be attended with great expense. The true way to obtain space sufficient for all the pictures would be by turning the Royal Academy out of the National Gallery. They would never go unless they were compelled; and at present they were rather in straits, having taken to holding 6d. exhibitions in the evening, with a view of popularizing themselves.

said, the Royal Academy gave a conditional promise some years ago to remove from the National Gallery, provided they could obtain accomodation suitable for carrying on their school of painting. But from that time to the present nothing whatever had been done.

held that it was a mistake to condemn an important collection like the National Portrait Gallery, and to determine that it should proceed no further, simply because it had outgrown its present site. If it were not so already, it would one day become one of the most interesting collections in the kingdom.

wished to know whether the Government intended to take away the portraits from the zoological gallery of the British Museum and add them to the others?

replied, that that was one of the objects of the British Museum Bill.

said, he should certainly move to omit the entire amount of £2,000.

said, the Government only asked for £1,000, there being a balance in hand.