said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the efforts which have been made hitherto by the British Nation for the suppression of the African Slave Trade might not with advantage be extended to the continent of America; and whether the time has not at length arrived when it becomes the duty of Her Majesty's Government to enter into friendly negotiations with the Federal Government of the United States for the purpose of concerting measures for the gradual but total suppression of the Slave Trade in the Confederate States?

Sir, my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the Federal Government have concluded a Treaty with the Government of Her Majesty, giving a mutual right of search, for the purpose of suppressing the Slave Trade carried on under the Federal flag. The Confederate States have passed a law which renders the Slave Trade highly penal, but my hon. Friend must be aware that the Federal Government have no relations at present with the Confederate States—except the relations of war—which, of course, will not permit any intercourse with reference to a mutual arrangement such as that to which his Question points. I may add, that as Her Majesty's Government have not yet acknowledged the independence of the Confederate States, and that independence not being established in a way which would justify our interference, no diplomatic communications can take place between us and those States. If, however, in the course of time, things should alter, we should hope the Confederate States, if they should succeed in establishing their independence, would enter into arrangements on the subject of the Slave Trade similar to those which the Federal Government has concluded.

The Question I asked was, whether Her Majesty's Government might not enter into communications with the Federal States for the suppression of the Slave Trade on the continent of America?

I thought I answered that Question when I stated that the Federal Government have no relations at present with the Confederate States, save relations of war—a fact which, of course, would render useless any action such as that to which my hon. Friend refers.

said, he wished to ask Colonel French, the Chairman of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee, What steps they are about to take to improve the state of the Refreshment Rooms, with a view to the next Session of Parliament?

replied, that it was generally said in Ireland that the best way of answering a question was sometimes to ask another. That he believed was the most satisfactory manner in which he could answer his hon. Friend, inasmuch as the Committee were not able to give a direct answer without, in the first place, appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The attention of hon. Members had been already drawn to the great inconveniences connected with the refreshment department, owing to the rooms being so narrow and so badly ventilated, as well as to the fact that there was no certainty as to what number of Members would dine on any given day. It would, however, be seen by a Report which had been laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a plan had been prepared by Mr. Barry, with respect to which the Committee, which had met that morning, had reported—

"That having further considered the expediency of enlarging the dining-rooms, they were of opinion such enlargement was absolutely necessary; and having seen Mr. Barry's improved plan, they strongly recommended its adoption."

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether officials of Railway and Steam Boat Companies may lawfully remove from carriages or vessels under their supervision persons who are obviously labouring under smallpox; and whether individuals thus wilfully travelling from place to place at the risk of spreading so dreadful a scourge through a whole community are subject to any penalty on conviction before a magistrate? He (Sir A. Agnew) was aware of two cases in which patients, labouring under the disease in an aggravated form, were admitted as passengers in a railway carriage where there were other persons travelling.

said, he should like to know from the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there was no remedy in this matter. A case had come under his (Mr. H. Seymour's) own observation. He had seen a woman afflicted with small-pox placed in a second-class carriage which was filled with passengers?

said, he understood the hon. Baronet to mean, by the first part of his Question, that the persons described were those who were being conveyed in the course of a journey, the railway or other companies having undertaken to carry them. It appeared to him that by the Common Law the Officials of the company would not be justified in removing them. In respect of the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Seymour), he was not aware of any Act of Parliament having reference to the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have been officially informed that the Commissioners appointed by the Argentine Government to settle British claims with Mr. Doria refused to acknowledge as conclusive that which had been accepted by Mr. Thornton, Her Majesty's Minister, and the former Commissioners; that Mr. Doria has, in consequence, suspended his sitting with the Commissioners; and, if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter?

said, in reply, that it was true that the Commissioners recently appointed by the new Government of the Argentine Republic had refused to acknowledge the principle upon which claims bad been settled by a previous Government. In consequence of this refusal, Mr. Doria declined to concur in the sitting of the Commissioners. Her Majesty's Government had instructed Mr. Doria to inform the Government of the Argentine Republic that their proceedings in this case were contrary to international usage, and, if persevered in, might lead to serious consequences, He (Mr. Layard) trusted that they would see the propriety of taking such steps as would allow the Commissioners to resume their sitting.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the union of the two Colonies of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia under one Governor?

replied, that he could not answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman, because his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies would, in a short time, have occasion to bring into the other House a Bill relating to British Columbia, and would then make a full statement of his intention with respect both to that Colony and Vancouver's Island.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the statement which appeared in the public papers in reference to the outbreak of fire on Monday last in the corridor of the House of Commons is correct? That statement was to the effect that there was a brick out of the flue where the fire originated, and that it was supposed this defect existed since the construction of the building. If that were the fact, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for this. He also wanted to know whether the Government had directed any examination into the other flues similarly circumstanced, that was, with woodwork abutting on the flue? He happened to be in the library when the lire broke out, and he rushed into the corridor, where the woodwork was burning. There was a water main immediately over where the fire was, but the service tap was so stiff in the joint that no person there could lay on the water by reason of its being out of order. The water, however, was got in an adjoining corridor, and in that case no harm was done. But the delay of those few minutes might have caused great damage. He therefore wished to know who was responsible for the water service of the House being kept in an effective condition?

, in reply, said, the fire did originate from a hole in the flue of the chimney of the kitchen of the House of Commons. That hole was about four inches wide. It appeared that the soot had been forced through this hole during the process of cleaning the floe, and had accumulated outside the flue, just above the wooden panelling of the ceiling of the corridor. A large quantity of soot having accumulated for several years, it ignited, and produced fire. There were no means of ascertaining how this hole originated. But from the size, appearance, and position of the bole it would seem to have been made during the construction of the building to receive one of the iron girders. As it was not used for that purpose, it ought to have been filled up, but somehow or other the bricklayer had omitted to do so. He (Mr. Cowper) had given directions that all the flues in the building should be examined so far as circumstances would allow, in order to ascertain whether such an accident was likely to occur in any other place; and the recurrence of such an accident was very unlikely. The fire was very rapidly extinguished, but the stand-cock at the spot was certainly found too stiff to be worked at the moment when it was wanted. The persons present ran immediately to the next stand cock and procured a sufficient quantity of water to extinguish the fire. The first stand-cock was afterwards put in proper order in the space of two minutes. Those stand-cocks must be made very tight, in order to prevent the leakages of water from a tank which contained 12,000 gallons. The police who were employed in managing the fire arrangements of the Houses of Parliament, were required to examine those stand-cocks from time to time—about once a fortnight. When they were last examined, they were all found to be in good order. He thought it well to state to the House the precautions that had been adopted against the recurrence of a similar accident. The stand-cocks are directed to be examined at short intervals of time, and their condition registered every week. There was only a slight, stiffness in the stand-cock first tried, owing to its having been turned on too tight. But if no other stand-cock had been available, the stand-cock in question could have been easily made to act. The persons on the spot, however, thought, on the whole, that the most expeditious course was to go to the next stand-cock for the necessary supply of water required. There were thirty-seven stand-cocks in the building and twenty outside. The police force kept in the House during the night was one inspector, two Serjeants, and twenty-six men. A policeman was required to pass every portion of the building every half-hour. There were fire-hose places in various parts of the building and in the immediate vicinity of the stand-cocks. He believed the arrangements in this respect were perfect.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), Whether, of the six ladies who were left on the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, after the resignation of the majority, one is the wife of the Chaplain of the Asylum, two are the wives of the two Secretaries of the Patriotic Fund, one is at present in Canada, and a fifth has been prevented by illness in her family from ever attending; and also whether any ladies have been added to the Committee; and, if so, when, and how many?

said, that as the Question had been put to him, he would reply to it; but as his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had succeeded Lord Colchester as Chairman of the Committee, such inquiries would in future be more properly addressed to him. As the hon. Member for Bradford no doubt wished to have full information in regard to the state of the Ladies' Committee, he (Sir John Pakington) thought he should best answer his Question by making the following statement;—The Ladies' Committee originally consisted of thirteen members, of whom seven resigned, leaving upon the Committee six—namely, Lady Sarah Lindsay, the hon. Mrs. Wellesley, Mrs. Lefroy, Mrs. Fishbourne, Mrs. Morrison, and Mrs. Kirby. These six ladies had regularly visited the establishment from the disruption until the present time. To five of them the hon. Gentleman's Question had reference. Lady Sarah Lindsay had lately gone to Canada with General Lindsay, who had been appointed to the command of the Guards, and whose efficient services as a Royal Commissioner and a Member of the Committee had therefore also been lost to the institution. Mrs. Kirby was the wife of the chaplain, had not been in the habit of attending, and had now resigned. Mrs. Morrison was the lady to whom the hon. Member had referred, who had been prevented, by illness in her family, from attending; that impediment still existed, and she too had resigned. The two ladies mentioned as the wives of the honorary Secretaries were Mrs. Fishbourne and Mrs. Lefroy, who were still Members of the Committee, and lady visitors. The inference intended to be suggested by the Question, he presumed, was that they were not independent. The experience of the Asylum had, however, shown that husbands and wives were not, of necessity, of the same opinion with regard to the details of school management any more than with regard to other matters. He therefore earnestly hoped that they should retain the services of these two ladies, of whose independence of action he had no doubt. As, although the visitations had continued up to the present time, there was too small a number for the Committee, he had great pleasure therefore in informing the hon. Gentleman that on Tuesday last the Hon. Mrs. Lloyd Lindsay, Lady Pollock, Mrs. Jenkinson (the wife of the rector of Battersea, and sister of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary), and Mrs. Lawrence (the wife of Sir John Lawrence), had been appointed, and had consented to act upon the Committee. The number of lady visitors thus amounted to seven; but as the Executive Committee were of opinion that even that number was rather too low, it was intended to increase it to nine. Lady Radstock had consented to become a visitor, and Lady Havelock had been applied to. He hoped that she would consent; but if she did not, some other lady would be asked to join the Committee.

said, ha would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether it is clearly understood that the Vote for the purchase of land and buildings at South Kensington will be taken on Monday next?

Yes.

said, he thought it would be more convenient to take the discussion in relation to the International Exhibition upon Thursday next. Two very important Motions, one on the subject of China, and the other upon Poland, stood for Monday evening, and it was impossible Supply could be reached till a late hour in the evening. Would the noble Lord consent to fix the discussion for Thursday next, with a general understanding that no opposition would be given to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply?

We have no command upon Supply nights. It is competent for anybody who chooses to give notice preliminary to going into Committee of Supply; and if we are to wait till all these Notices are exhausted, this discussion cannot be taken till rather late in the Session. I am afraid, therefore, I shall not be able to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway.

said, in consequence of the reply of the noble Viscount, he felt bound to ask his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County, Whether he meant to discuss the affairs of Poland next Monday evening?

said, he should certainly take the liberty of proceeding with the notice which he had placed on the paper, on whatever day Supply was fixed by the Government. He believed it was intended to ask for Supply next Monday evening.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council of Education, Upon what conditions be in- tends to allow the publication of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools for the information of the House. As far as he could gather from the reply given to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch (Sir John Pakington) in the early part of the Session, the plan his right hon. Friend intended to act upon was to suppress everything in the Reports which did not coincide with his own views, and to publish only what he himself approved. Many Members held that, to save expense, as few Reports as possible should be published; but the present question was not at all one of expense. The printing of the Inspectors' Reports in a complete form would add only in an inappreciable degree to the expense of the blue-book. It had been deemed desirable by the House and the Government that the results of the experience of the Inspectors should not be confined to the Education Office, but should be communicated to Parliament. That had been the usual practice, until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), when Vice President, formed the opinion that the Reports were rather redundant, and contained irrelevant matter. He accordingly issued instructions to the Inspectors to divide their Reports into different heads, selections from which were to be given in the blue-book. At that time, the right hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Government side of the House sat on the benches opposite, and thought it very important that the House should receive the information furnished by the Inspectors exactly as they gave it to the office. His right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works moved that the Reports should be laid on the table of the House unaltered and unabridged. There was a debate on the subject, in which the noble Viscount, the President of the Board of Trade, and other Members of the present Government supported the Motion, and the result was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) gave way, and issued a circular in which he expressly requested the Inspectors, after giving a statement of the condition of their schools, to add any practical suggestions which their experience furnished. Last year, however, his right hon. Friend effected a great change, not only in the conditions of the grant, but in the mode in which the Inspectors conducted their examination of the schools. That was just one of those measures on which the House would desire to have practical information; but, at the very same time, the right hon. Gentleman issued a Minute which had never been published, but the sense of which, as he gathered from the reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, was, that if a Report contained anything of which the Vice President disapproved, it was to be sent back to the author for revision; and if after that it still contained matter which was objected to, it was not to be published. Now, in Yorkshire they had one of the ablest and most experienced of the Inspectors—Mr. Watkins—of whom a very high opinion was entertained in that part of the country, and whose Reports, he was sure, were all very valuable. Last year Mr. Watkins sent in a Report, which was returned to him to be altered; and as he declined to do so, the Report was not published. The Reports of two other Inspectors for last year were also suppressed; and he had heard that this year the Reports of Mr. Watkins and of two other gentlemen were to share a similar fate. In his opinion the House had also a right to complain that the blue-book had not been presented before they were called on to vote the money. There was no reason whatever for any delay, because the Inspectors were instructed to make up their accounts, and send in their Reports in January. If the blue-book was to be of any use to Members, it ought to be delivered before they passed the Estimates. He doubted, however, whether, under the peculiar management of his right hon. Friend the Vice President, the Reports would be of much value to the House, because they would either contain no opinions at all, or opinions all on one side of the case. He should, however, like to see the Report of the Committee of Council, and the Minute containing instructions to the Inspectors, the existence of which he should have hesitated to believe but for the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the right hon. Member for Droitwich. The right hon. Gentleman's reason why Mr. Watkins's Report was not printed was because it contained "controversial matter." He supposed that the House was not to infer that that meant polemical matter. He had never seen the Report, but he could not suppose that Mr. Watkins would do last year what he had never done before. No, Mr. Watkins's crime was that he had been so irreverent and blasphemous as to controvert opinions of the Vice President. What he wanted, then, was—first, the information, unaltered and abridged, which Mr. Watkins had communicated; and second, an interpretation of what his right hon. Friend meant by "controversial matter." This was really a much more serious question than it at first appeared. It was not a question between the Council and the Inspectors, but between the Council and the House. The Reports were worth nothing unless they contained a full and complete expression of the opinions and experience of the Inspectors for the information of the House, and he held that they ought to be produced in that form. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to publish the unabridged Reports. The House ought to be allowed to judge for itself. If the Reports were not such as should be placed before the public, the right hon. Gentleman would stand acquitted; but if they were practical suggestions by able and experienced men, the House would derive considerable advantage from them in discussing the Education Estimates.

Sir, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that this is a matter of considerable importance. It amounts to this—whether in the Education Department there shall or shall not be that discipline which exists, and is found necessary, in every other Department of the State. The facts may be briefly stated—The Inspectors of Schools report to the Council Office, and the Council Office, having received their Reports, is to judge whether or not it is expedient to lay them before Parliament, printed as an appendix to its own Report. The hon. Gentleman asked me on what conditions I propose to exercise that discretion, and he said, that according to the present mode of dealing with them, the Reports of the Inspectors are "cooked." Now the fact is, as appears from his own statement, that they are not "cooked," but are sent back to the Inspectors for alteration and correction. The Council Office declines to interfere with them.

explained that he did not mean to convey the impression that the Reports were "cooked." What he intended to say was, that the blue-book was "cooked"—as containing nothing but one-sided statements.

The blue-book contains the Reports, and the Reports, says the hon. Gentleman, are not "cooked." How does the cookery get into the book? Of course, I may not be able to give a very definite or satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give the best I can. It was in my time that the Minute was made to which he has alluded, and which declares that the Reports of the Inspectors ought to be confined to the state of the schools examined by them, and to practical suggestions for their improvement. That was no new doctrine, but was the result we drew from an examination of a great number of instructions issued by our predecessors. We accompanied that Minute with a statement to the effect, that if it appeared to us that a Report did not conform to the prescribed conditions, we should send it back to the Inspector, requesting him to make the necessary alterations. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless say, "Why not point out to the Inspector the parts to which you object?" That is an open question; but the reason why we have not acted thus is because we found, when we did point out the objectionable parts of the Reports, that we got into controversy with the Inspectors, who naturally defended what they had written, and refused to make the requisite corrections. They said that what we required was garbling, or, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, "cooking" their Reports. We therefore thought it best to send the Reports back without remark, leaving the Inspectors, who are gentlemen of great intelligence, and who know perfectly well what we mean, to make the necessary alterations themselves; but intimating that if the Reports were not made to conform to our Minute, we should not lay them before Parliament. That is the practice which has prevailed for the last two years. The hon. Gentleman represents me as saying in effect, that if the Inspectors agree with me, I will print their Reports, but not otherwise. I need hardly say that there is nothing of the kind in our Minute. I am afraid I cannot lay down any exact conditions under which we may think it proper to print the Reports; but I can tell the hon. Gentleman some cases in which we do not think it right that the Reports should be laid before the public. We do not think it proper to print and lay before the public a Report in which the writer states that the rural population of England are in the lowest state of vice and depravity, and that this is owing to their being of the Protestant religion. Nor do we think it proper to publish the Report of an Inspector who says, "I am not allowed to go into the discussion of matters on which your Lordships have made Minutes, but I may tell you what I constantly hear in my district; they say—" and then follows everything that could he advanced injurious to the policy of the Department. I do not say that these matters are not open to controversy, but I hold it to be almost impossible to work any Department of State unless those gentlemen who fill subordinate offices in it, and on whose assistance the chiefs must rely, are loyal to the Department. They are not to surrender their opinions, to which they have as much right as any other persons in the world; and, indeed, their opinions may be more valuable than those of the men whom accident may have made their superiors in office—but, at any rate, they should maintain silence if they cannot agree with the heads of their Department. No person will say that subordinates ought to be allowed to write controversial letters in the newspaper disputing the policy of their superiors. So with respect to official Reports laid before this House. I hold that it is the clear duty of every Department to prevent the writers of Reports from entering into controversy as to matters decided upon by the chiefs of the Office—in other words, as to the policy of the Department. It is also the duty of every Department to prevent these gentlemen from entering into arguments in support of its policy. If the one is to be excluded, the other should be excluded also. Such Reports—Reports, for example, in which you find something like this—"I know I ought not to go into these questions; but if I had been permitted to do so, I should have said" so and so, giving along string of objections to the existing system—are not fit to be laid before the public. That is the view upon which we have acted with respect to the Reports made to us. If the House chooses to say that the Inspectors are to report directly to it, of course we shall instruct them to obey the order; but if the Reports are to pass through our hands, I hold it to be the first principle of official duty to enforce that sort of reticence and reserve which all official men are bound to practise. Men do not necessarily agree in opinion because they act together. They reserve those opinions on which they do not agree; and no public Department, but particularly one which has a most difficult and even invidious duty to perform, can be expected to carry on its operations with success, if it is to be obliged to print controversies maintained against itself by the very persons whom it employs to carry out the objects intrusted to its charge. I come now to the Question of the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff). I have no doubt the case he has stated is true in all its outlines, and rests upon evidence that cannot be refuted; but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says he thinks that the proposal of the Commissioners on Education, with respect to the mode of dealing with charities, ought to be adopted. That proposal is, that charities ought to be handed over to the Committee of Council for Education, who should decide on all matters connected with them, subject to an appeal to another Committee of Council. I will not insist on the great anomaly of an appeal from one Committee of the Privy Council to another, but it appears to me that the Commissioners concluded rather hastily that a necessity existed for disturbing the present arrangement. I am one of the Charity Commissioners, and I have no hesitation in saying that a more excellent or a more efficient tribunal does not exist. I can make that assertion without any breach of good taste, because I have no part in their decisions, being merely the medium of communication between them and the House of Commons. They have effected, and are effecting, immense improvements, and I cannot understand, no case being made against them, why those powers which they are using with so much discretion should be taken out of their hands. I think, further, that it would be most objectionable to arm any political Department with such powers. That would be placing in its hands an immense amount of local influence, and it would be quite impossible to escape the suspicion of partiality and corruption. When trustees have to be elected for a charity, there is sure to be a contest between the Whig and Tory parties, and how could a Department composed of gentlemen belonging to one or other of these great parties give anything like satisfaction? It appears to me, with every respect to the Commissioners, that their recommendation was ill-considered. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could throw out any suggestions on this subject. Let me offer some suggestions in the direction of improving and strengthening the machinery we already possess. In 1860 a Bill was passed for extending the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. It has been attended with beneficial results; but I was obliged to omit a few things which would enormously increase their power of doing good. One is that the Commissioners should be allowed to intervene in the affairs of a charity, even though no inhabitant of the parish calls upon them to do so. The very cases which require interference most are in parishes where the people are so debauched, and so mixed up with the plunder of the charity, that not one of them will come forward and demand the assistance of the Commissioners. Let me suggest another improvement. It is now the law that the Commissioners can only intervene in the affair of a charity above £50 when they are applied to by a majority of the trustees. It is often very difficult to get a majority of trustees. I think that in such cases they should be permitted to act, unless expressly forbidden by a majority of the trustees. Again, the 14th section of the Act of 1860 allows a majority of the trustees to dismiss the schoolmaster, except in the case of a grammar school. If that exception were done away with, much litigation would be prevented. As to the charities themselves, it appears to me, upon the principles which regulate all kinds of property in this country, that it would be desirable to allow greater liberty to the Court of Chancery, after a certain period, to take cognizance of these matters. It seems to me desirable that not only the Charity Commissioners, but also the Court of Chancery, should have greater liberty in dealing with public bequests after a certain period had elapsed, and that in this respect charitable bequests should be put upon the same footing as private bequests, There should also be a larger power of dealing, with charities for which no one has a word to say. If anything is done, it should be in the direction of strengthening the existing machinery. With regard to educational charities, with which I feel more particularly concerned, I cannot wish very much that the number of endowed charities for the education of the poor were increased; for they seem to me very inefficient for their object, and to be likely to continue so It appears to me that the State has undertaken, by founding an Educational Department, to endow poor schools in the best way in which that can be done, if it is done at all—namely, by giving money only in exchange for efficiency as tested by examination and other means. It is precisely in that point that all endowed charities are deficient. Whether they are well or ill-conducted, they receive their money just the same. I may here mention that an alteration has been lately made by the Committee of Council in this respect. Heretofore it has been the practice in making grants to schools to take no notice at all of their endowments, and to apportion them their share of the grant wholly irrespective of their endowments. That has very often led to great mischief and waste, because grants were given to schools which were already possessed of abundant resources. A new regulation has therefore been adopted, by which, wherever a school has an endowment, the amount of such endowment is subtracted from the amount of the grant. By that means endowments will be applied in aid of the educational grant; and that is the utmost we can accomplish with our present powers.

I confess, Sir, that I am more struck with the courage than with the discretion of my right hon. Friend in vindicating the course which the Committee of Privy Council on Education has thought proper to adopt in regard to the Inspectors of Schools. I think that that course is an extremely invidious one, and that it must necessarily detract largely from the weight due to the Reports made to this House. Indeed, I cannot see the use of those Reports unless they afford us information on which we can rely, bearing upon a difficult question which from time to time comes under our discussion. The Department of Education has thought proper to adopt certain arrangements for carrying on the educational system of the country. Some of those arrangements I hold to be extremely impolitic and unjust. I wish to know how they work; and where are we to look for information on that point, except in the Reports of the Inspectors? I happen to know that some of the Inspectors agree with me, and do not agree with my right hon. Friend. I want to ascertain, for example, how the pupil teacher system works. My right hon. Friend says that the Department has determined on certain principles, and that the Inspectors have no right to inquire into them or call them in question. But I am anxious to know from gentlemen of experience, who have the best opportunity of seeing and judging of the practical operation of those principles, how they actually do work; for it is by that means only that we can get at the truth. I happen to know that the Reports of several of the Inspectors have been so garbled by the Education Office that when presented to this House, if they are to be presented, and I believe they will not, they would be quite worthless. But where, I repeat, are we to look for information to guide us, if not to the Resorts of these experienced gentlemen? Certainly, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) moves on a future occasion for the production of the Inspectors' Reports as sent in to the Committee of Privy Council, I shall give him my hearty support, and I trust the House will agree to that Motion. If any body will compare the Reports of the Inspectors as now laid before the House with those of the gentlemen on whose Reports he Report of the Royal Commissioners was winded, they will perceive a marked difference between the two. The Inspectors sent out by the Royal Commissioners, at all events, spoke the truth as it presented itself to their own minds. They complained of many things in the system of the Privy Council; Mr. Frazer, in particular, pointed out the preposterous length to which some of the Privy Council regulations were pushed. He showed that no school was allowed to receive the grant in which the desks were not of a particular pattern—namely, parallel desks—a restriction altogether absurd and ridiculous. That was the opinion formed by Mr. Frazer, after much experience. He also arrived at the conclusion that the masters' certificate was not necessary to be enforced. There are many points of that kind which these gentlemen, in making their Reports, lay before the Royal Commissioners; and those Reports are valuable precisely because the men who drew them up were perfectly free to express their own opinions. But if the Reports of School Inspectors are to be suppressed whenever they happen to be distasteful to the feelings or unfavourable to the policy of the Privy Council Office, they will not be worth a farthing; and it is mere playing with this House, and presuming upon its ignorance, to lay them before it. I trust, therefore, that the House will express itself so strongly on this matter that these Reports will not in future be kept back or tampered with, but that we shall be permitted to know, upon the authority of gentlemen most competent to judge, how the present system is really working.

presumed that the object of having Reports from the Inspectors of Schools year by year was that they might know the condition of the schools for which they voted public money. He must confess, that for years before he had the honour of holding office in the Education Department he thought the School Inspectors had made Reports full of most irrelevant matter, often almost degenerating into abstract disquisitions on the theory of Education, instead of giving an account of the condition of the schools to which public money was applied. He had therefore attempted to correct the character of the Reports by laying down a rule that they should be arranged under different heads, about five in number—such as the state of the school buildings, the state of education in the schools, the school apparatus; and the last head was a general one—namely, any suggestions which the Inspector wished to make. That proposal of his was brought under discussion in that House, when the House evidently thought it would be better not to lay down rules for shaping Reports in the office; and therefore he abandoned his proposition for reducing them under specific heads; but he distinctly retained for the Department the power—which he felt it not only his right, but his duty to do—of striking out of the Reports, notwithstanding that expression of the House's opinion, what appeared to be irrelevant matter, and such contents as were clearly not of the nature of a Report. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) sought to make the Inspectors the censors of their own Reports. Whether that plan was better than his he would not undertake to say; but the two plans had the same object—namely, to confine the Inspectors to a statement of the condition of the schools, and relevant suggestions about them. The House now seemed to take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, having apparently understood his remark, that the Inspectors had no business to enter into controversy with the office, to imply that he meant they had no right to impugn his policy. For himself, he still was of opinion that it was not the province of the Inspectors to enter into controversy on the theory of education or on the policy of the Government. The Minister who had the conduct of the Department was responsible to that House, which had laid down the general rules for his guidance, and intrusted the Department with by-legislation subject to their sanction. The School Inspectors were not responsible to that House, and their office was simply to inform the Department how their grants were being applied. It was natural, perhaps, that gentlemen of such high mental calibre and attainments as those Inspectors should travel a little beyond the sphere of the humble duty assigned them by the Department, and when they had the opportunity should indulge in the display of their powers to deal with the philosophy of education; but it was distinctly incumbent on the Minister to prevent the abuse of that opportunity. Would the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) say, that if an Inspector sent in, under the disguise of a Report, what was really a pamphlet on Education, it was the duty of the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council to publish that pamphlet at the public expense and lay it on the table? [Mr. W. E. FORSTER expressed dissent.] If, then, the hon. Gentleman would not lay down broadly the proposition that these Reports should not be revised by the Office in order that irrelevant matter might be expunged, the simple question remaining was, whether in any specific case the right hon. Gentleman had not gone beyond that length, and struck out of any Report sent to him what he ought not to have struck out. It was a specific and not a general question that was before the House. Instead, therefore, of laying down a general proposition which would be disadvantageous to the public service, let the hon. Member move for the particular Report in regard to which he maintained that a too strigent censorship had been exercised. That was the legitimate way for the hon. Member to proceed, and he concluded that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would not resist the Motion, and then the House would be able to judge whether or not the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion.

said, that unfortunately there appeared to be a natural antipathy between the Vice President and Inspectors. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given the weight of his authority to mislead the House as to the question before it. Nobody had said that Inspectors were to be allowed to put in their Reports just what they liked. All they objected to was that the Vice President should constitute himself, or force the Inspectors to constitute themselves, censors of their Reports, for the purpose of keeping out, not philosophical disquisitions, not matters which were totally irrelevant, but matters which were disagreeable to the Minister of the day. The Vice President had talked about the necessity of loyalty to the Department, and about not allowing subordinates to enter into discussion with the Department on delicate subjects; but there was one thing more important than loyalty to a Department, and that was loyalty to the House of Commons. This arrangement, by which the Inspectors were bound in every case to back up the Vice President, by which they were forbidden to say anything to which he might object, or in any way to condemn the policy to which he had pledged himself, seemed to him to be nothing less than a conspiracy for keeping truth from the House of Commons. The Vice President had no independent interest in the matter; he held his office merely to carry out the principles of which the House approved; and he came forward and said that he had a right to intercept, in its way to the House, the evidence on which they were to judge of his policy. A more—courageous it had been said, but he must say outrageous—proposition had never been submitted to them. It was perfectly right that discipline should be maintained in the Education Office as in other public offices, but it should be maintained in the same way He did not object to discipline, but he objected to the instrument by which discipline was to be carried out in this case. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine that the Inspectors wrote their Reports, not for the instruction of the House, but for their own personal pleasure; and that if an Inspector did wrong, the way to punish him was to keep his Report from the eyes of Members. But conceive; the application of such a rule to the other Departments of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged a comparison. Well, take the Foreign Office. Suppose a Consul at Aleppo, Belgrade, or Constantinople had done anything to displease the noble Lord at the head of the Government, would it not be thought an extraordinary answer, if, when the Consul's despatches were moved for, they should be told that the Consul had been a naughty boy, and that it was impossible to lay his despatches before the House. Papers were written for the instruction of hon. Members, and not for the amusement of the persons who wrote them; and if the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to practice severe discipline with those under his charge, he must find some way of doing it other than that of keeping from the House information which the House required. It was worthy of remark that this difficulty had not arisen before. They had had two or three Vice Presidents, and the system of Inspectors had been in existence twenty years, but never before bad there been any necessity to suppress the opinions of Inspectors. [Mr. LOWE: The necessity has arisen very often.] At all events, it has not been acted upon. [Mr. LOWE: Yes it has.] Then the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity, through one of his Colleagues, of stating the facts to which his interruption referred; but he doubted very much whether any previous Vice President had ever dared to mutilate a Report presented to the House, because it contained expressions hostile to his own policy, He could only remember one analogous case—that of the noble Viscount mutilating or suppressing despatches relating to Affghanistan; and he doubted whether among the noble Viscount's titles to fame that would take a very prominent place. He wanted the House to bear in mind bow the conflict had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman was an eccentric theorist; the Inspectors, being practical men, were obliged, in the execution of their duty, to report facts at variance with the right hon. Gentleman's theories. That was the reason why the difficulty had arisen. Previous Vice Presidents had not been theorists, and they had not quarrelled with their Inspectors. If they found the head of an Office, not brought up in it, systematically quarrelling with those in it, they might safely conclude that there was something wrong; and when practice and theory were so openly at variance, it was most probable that the theory was to be condemned. The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to a missive recently directed against the Inspectors. The Inspectors were men of education and high standing, and they were paid high salaries. This made them inconveniently independent men, who would not report what the Vice President desired. They would hold opinions of their own, and these opinions were disagreeable to the Vice President. It was therefore deemed desirable, if possible, to substitute for them a more dependent class of men. The right hon. Gentleman, fully alive to the necessities of his own position, had issued a Minute to constitute a set of assistant Inspectors—of men who had been pupil-teachers, who were to be paid only £100 a year, and who were to be intrusted with the power of sitting in judgment upon the managers of schools in the country, and of deciding whether they had conducted the schools in such a way as to deserve the continuation of the grant from the Treasury. These assistant Inspectors, however efficient they might be, he need not tell the House, would be more humble slaves to the Vice President than the Inspectors. He did not know whether these assistant Inspectors were to send in Reports, but the decision whether the schools should receive the Parliamentary grants or not was to be committed to men who were to receive £100 a year, and who themselves had been pupil-teachers in the schools which they were called upon to examine. It was a serious degradation of the office of Inspector, and a still more serious degradation to which the conductors of schools would have to submit. It was all a part of the bureaucratic plan of the Vice President, by which he hoped to master his own office, so that when he appeared before Parliament there should be no one to bear testimony against him, and all the information for the guidance of the House should be percolated through himself, to the exclusion of all that was disagreeable or discordant to his views. He trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would take an early opportunity of moving for the Reports, so that they might have a definite issue before them.

said, it would be much to be regretted if the statements made that evening should lead to a recurrence of what was a great evil some years ago—namely, the inordinate length of the reports of the Inspectors of Schools. Having, for several years, carefully looked at these Reports, he knew that as far as the convenience of Members was concerned, a great improvement had been effected, and, instead of a large mass of verbiage, Members had the views of the Inspectors submitted to their consideration in a clear and concise form. He had the highest opinion of Mr. Watkins, and he believed Mr. Watkins had done much for the cause of education, but he was a special offender in this respect. He found that in three years taken at random, the length of his Reports was respectively 78 pages, 84 pages, and 92 pages; while the average length of the reports of the other Inspectors in the same period was only 50 pages, and one most valuable Report did not exceed 40 pages. On the other hand, however, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President) would not persevere in his intention to refuse the House an opportunity of seeing what the views of the Inspectors were on the controverted questions which it had to decide. If he did, the Reports would be looked upon as garbled, and the very object he had in view would not be accomplished. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should say to the Inspectors, not "I will refuse to print your reports," but "I object to your going into long arguments and disquisitions upon matters about which the House does not want you to report." What the House wanted to know was the results of their experience as to the working of the present law, the requirements of the particular districts visited, and the recommendations which they deemed necessary to make for improvements in the system.

understood the right hon. Gentleman (the Vice President) to say that the Charity Commissioners possessed the confidence of the people, and that they should have larger powers on account of the power generally brought to bear in the election of trustees. In his own town he could answer for it that they had appointed trustees of a charity without any political bias. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Charity Commissioners should have more power in consequence of the political bias which existed throughout the country; but, in truth, it was the political bias of the Charity Commissioners themselves which had given such offence to the country. He had always looked upon the Charity Commission as a gross Whig job, and he believed that there was not a single Commissioner, assistant Commissioner, or other official connected with it who was not a Whig; while the vacancies which had taken place during the tenure of office of the present Government had invariably been filled up by the appointment of members of the Liberal party. That being the case, he should like to know from the Vice President of the Committee of Council how he could suppose, that if further powers were placed in the hands of the Commission, their duties could be likely to be discharged in a manner satisfactory to the country?

said, he had often looked into the Reports formerly published by Inspectors of Schools, and that he had been struck by the fact, that whenever an article appeared in any of the Quarterly Reviews on the subject of popular education, he was sure to find a reprint of the article in those Reports, and that the same statements and arguments were repeated in them year after year almost ad nauseam. For his part, therefore, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the course which he had adopted.

observed, that the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) seemed always to rejoice in the suppression of these Reports. At the close of the Session of 1861 he (Mr. Newdegate) complained to the House that out of three Inspectors of Roman Catholic schools the Reports of two of them were (suppressed, and one only was given to the House, which one was not of a satisfactory tenour. The hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) on that occasion declared that nothing could be more satisfactory to him than that the Vice President should keep the House in the dark on this subject. It now appeared that the same practice had been extended to the Reports of Inspectors of Schools other than Roman Catholic schools; and he really thought that the House was not justified in voting the public money upon the understanding that they were to be informed by Reports of the Inspectors, unless they had those Reports fully before them. If they were only to have one side of the question, and that the sunny side of this educational organization, presented to them, he thought that they would be better without any Reports at all, for such as were furnished would simply mislead them. It would be far better that the Vice President should give them his own account of what had been done, for then, at all events, the statement would be made on his own responsibility. He hoped that the House would represent to the right hon. Gentleman that they should find it their duty to express their opinion by a Motion and a division unless he corrected a practice which amounted to something like systematic delusion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman shielded and propped up his opinion by furnishing partial information—information that might assist his own views—whilst he suppressed those Reports which were adverse to his own opinion. This was a serious matter, considering the large sum which the House voted for education, and also considering that it was proposed to have an enlarged system of inspection; so that they would spend still more money on account of Reports which were furnished in so imperfect a manner.

asked for some explanation of this Vote. If satisfactory details were not given in relation to the item of £8,000 for the Little Basses Rocks Lightship, he should be compelled to take the course he had been about to press on a former occasion when the House was counted out—namely, of moving that the Vote be reduced by that amount.

said, that this sum was a re-Vote of the same amount voted last year, and which had been repaid to the Exchequer. The light-ship had arrived at Ceylon, but he did not know whether it had been actually moored or not. He knew that the ship was there, and that it must be paid for. The cause of the apparent delay in exhibiting the light from the ship was in consequence of a difficulty in securing a crew.

said, the Government were urged from the year 1826 to erect light-houses on the Great and Little Basses Rocks, which lay on the highway of the trade between India and this country. They took twenty-two years to consider the matter, and then from 1848 to 1854 inquiries were going on as to the best plan of lighting this part of the track. A proposal was made to place light-ships there; but on inquiry this was rejected. From 1854 to 1860 the Government came forward yearly asking Votes to place light-houses on each of the rocks, and thus £54,000 was obtained, and, he believed, spent. It was now said that the attempts to place the light-houses had been made, but had failed; however, he (Mr. Childers) had received different information, and believed that no efficient steps had been taken to put up the lighthouses. He thought that under the circumstances the Vote should he deferred for a year, to allow inquiries to be made. No inconvenience would result, as the lightship had been paid for by the Bombay Government. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £8,000.

supported the Amendment. There was no reason why the payment of this £8,000 should be thrown upon the taxpayers of England. Madras was the port which would benefit most by the proposed expenditure, and only 314 English ships annually left that port, as compared with 3,915 belonging to the island of Ceylon. There might have been some reason for showing consideration to the island of Ceylon at a time when its funds were not in a very flourishing state, but for the last five or six years it had enjoyed a considerable surplus revenue. He thought, therefore, there would be no hardship in making this charge fall upon Ceylon, which had by far the greatest interest in maintaining the lights.

hoped the Government would agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers).

thought that the Government were bound to answer the statements which had been made with respect to this light-ship. Last year, the House had voted a sum for the crew of the light-ship, yet no crew had been appointed—and he believed, that would be repeated this year. If they did not, he should feel bound to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract.

said, that two years ago the House sanctioned the lighting of the Little Basses Rocks by a lightship. A proposal was made for that purpose, and a sum of £8,000 was voted to carry it out. In accordance with the authority thus given to them, the executive Government had ordered the light-ship, which had been built at Bombay, on a plan approved by the Trinity House Board. The ship was now in Ceylon, and though the Government had no information on this point, it was very probable that she had been moored in her position. The money now asked for was necessary to pay for the ship. Whether it was right to attempt to light these rocks by a light-ship, he was not competent to say; but nautical men had given their opinion that, on the whole, a light-ship was the best plan of lighting for the place. Only one light would be placed there—on the Little Basses Rock—till it was proved whether a light-ship could remain there.

suggested that the Government should endeavour to make Ceylon contribute to the cost of this light-ship.

asked, on whose advice the plan of a light-ship had been adopted.

replied, that the advice was founded on the recommendation of a Commission of several officers, well acquainted with the coast of Ceylon, which was approved by naval officers in this country.

should like to see the Report of those officers.

said, that the papers containing the recommendation were in the Colonial Office, and he did not suppose there would be any objection to their production.

called attention to the item for the erection of a light-house at the Bahamas. He wished to know what was the nature of this lighthouse, whether it was to be built of stone or iron? He had been informed, that if built of stone, it would cost £35,000. There were already six light-houses in the Bahamas built for this country. As the ships which would be benefited by this light were chiefly colonial and American, he thought, that if more light-houses were required, the expense should be borne by the Colony. He would therefore propose that the Vote be reduced by this item—£9,000.

said, there was a charge for a light-house in the Ionian Islands. Now, as these islands were to be surrendered to Greece, he thought that no further liability ought to be incurred by this country for them. The item in the Vote to which he referred was £300.

said, that hitherto we had paid for the erection of these light-houses, and as yet no alteration had been sanctioned. With regard to the Bahamas, if England did not put lighthouses on the dangerous keys and rocks which surrounded those islands, nobody else could do it, as nobody else had jurisdiction in the matter. To call upon the Bahamas themselves to pay for light-houses, was out of the question, because the inhabitants were not only very poor, but had no special interest in the lights, which were for the general trade. The American Go- vernment had lighted the opposite side of the straits. This Vote had been always sanctioned, because it was felt that it was for this country to provide protection for its commerce.

did not see why the Colonial Government at the Bahamas should not be obliged to maintain these light-houses. The population only amounted to 27,000; but there was an increasing revenue of £36,000. If the Government of the Bahamas could afford to lay out £18,000 on a new hotel, they could afford to spend £9,000 on these light-houses.

rose to call attention to the Petitions presented from Deptford and Woolwich, complaining of the mode hitherto adopted in the distribution of the sum voted in aid of rates for Government property, and praying for an amended system of distribution. In 1858 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject. Sir George Lewis was chairman, and they unanimously recommended that all Government property should be liable to rates. A Bill was then introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who was then President of the Poor Law Board, which was read a second time, but did not proceed further. When the new Parliament met, Sir George Lewis, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was asked what were the intentions of Government in regard to the rating of Government establishments. Sir George stated that it was not intended to bring in a Bill, but that some arrangement satisfactory to the interests concerned would be proposed. With regard to the borough which he had the honour to represent (Greenwich), a valuation of the Government property in Woolwich and Deptford was made, and the Government, after some delay, paid the poor rates on that valuation. After paying the poor rates for two years, the Government, from some motive of economy, contended that they ought only to pay that share which actually went to the relief of the poor. They consequently cut off about one-third of the poor rate, which went towards the county rate, the police, lunatic asylums, &c. The inhabitants of Woolwich thought this a great hardship, but they had no choice save to submit. The case of the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, was however peculiar. It was a very small parish, consisting of only seventy-five acres, of which the Government occupied about forty. The poor rates used to be 10s. and 12s. in the pound; and when the Government consented to pay the local assessments on Government property, it was felt to be a great relief in the parish. For many years, while the Government did not pay any rates, the persons who had yards in Deptford and carried on business there were burdened in their trade by the heavy rates that fell upon them. And more than that, the rates of 10s. and 12s. in the pound had the effect of making £10 houses amount to £16; and the consequence was that artisans and workmen were driven out of the parish, and they bought their meat and drink out of the parish also. In that parish the poor rates, which in 1861 were reduced by liberal payments on the part of the Government, were now about to be increased by the paltry economy which it was sought to carry out. Her Majesty's building yard was in the parish of St. Paul, which happened to be opulent; the Government property was valued at £6,000; they paid the rates for two years, and then they found that unless the ratable property of the Government amounted to one-sixth of that of the parish they were not bound to pay. In these days, especially when property on the Thames was so valuable, it was only fair that the same rules which applied to private property should also be applied to the property of the Government. It might be said that the parish of Deptford derived great advantage from having Her Majesty's Dockyard there; but it was no advantage at all, and a greater benefit could not be done to Deptford than to remove the dockyard altogether, for then they would have wealthy shipbuilders coming there, and Deptford would become an opulent parish, instead of being almost eleemosynary as it was now, asking Her Majesty's Government to pay that portion of the rates which they ought. He would not dare to risk dividing the Committee; but he would appeal to Her Majesty's Government and to every hon. Member in the House to take this question into consideration, for there was no reason whatever why in these days Her Majesty's Government should take possession of this property and pay no rates at all.

said, as the Committee had heard the representative of those who lived near the dockyard, it was only fair to hear what the representative of persons who were remote from the dockyard had to say. Now, the county he represented (Wexford) had no Government establishment; but his constituents would be glad to have one, and were willing that the Government should pay no rates in respect of it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Alderman Salomons) would wish to see the property of his borough made valuable by being in the possession of the Government, but that the community at large should be called upon to pay the rates. That was not very reasonable. The fact was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury were worried by deputations from Woolwich and Deptford, and good-naturedly yielded to their representations. In order to test the feeling of the Committee, and to obtain an expression of opinion on their part, he should move to strike out the Vote altogether.

could not agree with the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford. It was a mistake to suppose that a Government establishment was necessarily any benefit to a parish. In the parish of St. Margaret's, Rochester, the land which the Government held was for the defence of the country at large. Men who were there in the public service might die and leave wives and children chargeable on the rates, and the Government contributed nothing whatever. Soldiers were taken down there for the benefit of the whole country, and not of the parish, and why should not the Government contribute to the rates?

said, he was surprised to hear his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) argue as if the dockyards were placed in Woolwich, Deptford, and elsewhere for the benefit of those parishes, and not of the whole community. It was as much for the benefit of Wexford as for Deptford that there should be a dockyard there. It appeared to him that a strong case had been made out in favour of those places. In one parish no less than one-half of the land and one-third of the ratable value of the parish was occupied by Government offices, the whole of which was exempted from the rates. That was surely a great hardship. A Committee of the House of Commons which sat on this subject in 1858, the late Sir George Lewis being one of its Members, bad reported that the non-assessment of Government property was an essential detriment to the other ratepayers, because it increased the common burden. It was very desirable, he thought, that their recommendation should be acted upon.

said, he was sorry to say that the Government were introducing their establishments into Lambeth, removing property which had hitherto paid rates, and so very considerably prejudicing the interests of the ratepayers. The Government seemed to have adopted a very singular principle with regard to the assessment of Government property, and he hoped that they would take the matter into consideration, and would revise their present arbitrary rule.

agreed in thinking that there might be more Government establishments in Ireland; but he did not think that they ought to be exempt from local rates, The burden entailed by public establishments ought to be borne by the public.

said, the principles on which the Government acted in this matter were two. First, they maintained the principle of the exemption of Government property from local rates; but they consented to make a voluntary contribution in certain places, having reference to the proportion of Government property in the parish, and to the amount expended by the parish for the support of the poor. The parishes were divided into two classes, assisted parishes and the parishes which were not assisted, the latter being cases where the Government property was not so considerable as to establish a case of grievance which would justify the Government in coming to the relief of the local rates. The proposition of the hon. Member was that in those parishes where the Government did not grant assistance they should pay the same as they did in the other cases. It was quite true that the Committee of 1858, presided over by the late Sir George Lewis, recommended that all exemption from rating in the case of Government property should cease; but he certainly thought that the authority which would otherwise be due to the recommendation of that Committee was wanting to it—first, because the late Govern- ment brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to that recommendation, but encountered so much opposition that they were compelled to withdraw the measure; and secondly, because when Sir George Lewis, the Chairman of that Committee, was afterwards at the Home Office, he suggested the very plan which they were now pursuing. In a letter to the Treasury, he recommended that the exemption of Government property from local rating should be maintained in principle, but that that exemption should not be claimed in places where the ratable value of that property exceeded a certain proportion of the whole ratable value of the parish. Afterwards, a limit was fixed of one-sixth. The proposal of Sir George Lewis was, that when this fixed proportion was exceeded, the Government should only pay upon the excess. Thus the assisted parishes now received more than was originally contemplated, because where the Government property exceeded one-sixth of the ratable value of the property of the parish, they paid not upon the excess, but upon the whole amount of Government property in such a case. He did not think that the tendency of Government establishments was to produce pauperism. Take Somerset House, for example, which occupied a large portion of St. Mary-le-Strand. It could not be said that that establishment had increased the pauperism of the parish; and even at the dockyards and arsenals, the practice of granting pensions to Government employés when superannuated must have the effect of preventing persons from becoming chargeable to the poor rates. It was a very exceptional thing for Government to purchase property already rated for the relief of the poor, and there erect establishments exempt from rating. In the majority of cases, the exemptions had continued for very many years, and the private property had been acquired subject to the rates being levied off part of the parish only. The hon. Gentleman said, that Government establishments were of no advantage to the parishes in which they were situated. In this statement he could by no means concur. He was convinced that the fact of the employment of a large number of persons in a Government establishment must have the effect of keeping a very considerable number of persons off the poor rates, and place at the disposal of the operatives lage sums of money, the expenditure of which was of advantage to the trade and commerce of the places where Government establishments existed. He did not think that a parish ought to derive any profit, in reference to the rates, from the existence of a Government establishment within its limits, because the Government did not go to the parish like a private person to make profit, but for the sake of the public good, in which the particular parish was as much interested as any other part of the kingdom. All that the parish was entitled to demand was that it should not be injured. The reason why no rate was paid by the Government in St. Paul's, Deptford, was because the ratable value of the Government property was not one-twentieth of the value of the other property. The ratable value of the property in that parish was £130,000, whereas the value of the Government property was under £5,000. It was said, that though the Government subscribed in some instances to the poor rate, they did not subscribe to other rates; but the fact was, that the Government took the poor rate as the measure of their contribution to the local funds. With respect to the statement that the Government had contributed at one time to the police and county rate, he must observe that the Government were not aware, in the first instance, that they were subscribing to those rates as included in the poor rate; and he certainly did not think they were called on to contribute to such rates. It must be remembered that the Government granted great assistance to the parishes in respect to the cost of the police, one fourth of the charge for which was defrayed out of Votes of Parliament; and though the hon. Member was inclined chiefly to protect the interests of his constituents, the Government looked to the interests of the taxpayers at large.

thought the case of Deptford a hard one, and deserving of a fair consideration. The Committee needed not to be alarmed by imagining that anything new was now demanded; because the Government paid certain other rates. It was not true that the exempted property had been exempt from time immemorial. There were large properties which had formerly paid rates, and which had only recently been taken by the Government. He confessed that the distinction which was drawn between one species of tax and another was to him perfectly unintelligible.

said, that this exemption from rating on the part of the Government was unjust and indefensible, us bearing upon the question of the fair adjustment of taxation, and the Government of Lord Derby introduced a Bill to abolish it; the friends of certain charities, however, made so strong an opposition to the proposal, that the Bill was withdrawn, and the Government proposed, in certain cases, to grant a contribution in aid. The principle of recognising the liability of Government property had therefore been admitted, but such rigid and arbitrary rules were laid down as, to a great extent, to nullify that recognition. In the case of Deptford there could be no doubt that the sudden reduction of the Government establishments caused great demands upon the parish rates. In 1860 the rates in the parish were 8s. 3d. in the pound and this year already they amounted to 2s. 11d. It had been thought fit tol egislate exceptionally for Lancashire, where the rates did not exceed 3s. in the pound. The payments which were made in respect of Government property were of a very limited amount, and none at all was granted Where the Government property did not amount to one-sixth of the whole property in the parish. In a parish situate in his own borough there was a considerable property which paid a large sum for poor rates. The Government became the lessee of the property, and, objecting to be assessed, made a contract with the landlord that he should pay the rates. The consequence Was, the landlord refused to pay the rates, and put the money into his pocket, to the detriment of the ratepayers. He thought the Government should not lend itself to such transactions, but should take care when leasing property to secure that that property should continue to bear the local burdens in the same manner as it had done before.

said, that the Bill of Lord Derby had not been withdrawn on account of the opposition which it had excited; but on account of the opposition excited by one clause, and Lord Derby's Government promised to reintroduce it minus that clause. He did not think that any large amount of money was involved in this question, but besides the Consideration of cost there was the Consideration of justice. The right hon. Gentleman had said that almost all the Government property had been so long recognised in that Character that there was no need to alarm the public by inducing them to think that the area of taxation was being diminished. But In St. Nicholas, Deptford, where the whole parish comprised sixty-six acres, two acres had recently been added to the Government property, and additions had been made in Woolwich and Plumstead. The area of taxation had also been reduced by a decision of the magistrates in sessions that officers' quarters were not subject to rating as they hitherto had been. That decision had been given after the Government assessor had been over the Government property to ascertain the quota which it ought to contribute. The payment made by the Government was now but a small contribution, and the present proposition was to still more reduce it.

said, he did not think, in the then state of the House, and especially of the benches of that side, that there would be any advantage in dividing, and therefore he should not press his objection. But he would remark that the case had been almost entirely argued by Members representing districts where Government establishments were located, and he regretted that more County Members were not present to express their views upon this matter. Did any one doubt, that if the Government establishments of Woolwich or Pembroke were moved to Cork, the people of that city would be quite ready to hold the Government harmless from any demand from local rates, in consideration of the advantages which would accrue to the district from these establishments? It might be that in and near London, where land was valuable, the Government establishments did not so much increase the value of surrounding property; but at Pembroke, for instance, the value of land had been enormously increased by the dockyard being made there. In the case of the parish near Rochester, which had been alluded to, he had no doubt that the value of land had risen since the Government appeared there, and consequently a corresponding benefit had attended an apparent injury. The wealth of the whole country was being poured into the metropolis, and he thought that some resistance should be offered to its demands.

thought the question should be treated on a spirit of equity and justice, and should not be left in the hands of the metropolitan Members. If a railway company raised the value of property, was that a reason why that property should escape rating? Where an exemption bad existed a long time, giving it up might be making a donation to the parish, and be a throwing away of money; but not so where Government property was being daily en- larged. It was admitted that they should pay for the new property, and he would treat all alike.

remarked, that at Woolwich a considerable amount of ratable property had been brought under the exemption through being taken by Government. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the question, and remove the dissatisfaction which prevailed throughout the whole country on this subject.

stated that the land in the parish near Rochester, to which reference had been made, was adapted for building purposes, and would, it was believed be doubled in value if the Government buildings were removed. No pensions were paid to dockyard labourers, and there was a current saying, "Out of the dockyard into the workhouse." The parish, therefore, received no relief in those respects.

Mr. Massey, after the very full debate which took place some weeks back on the subject of Education, it is not my intention to trouble the Committee with any lengthened address. This is a transition year, and cannot, therefore, be expected to possess as much interest as either the past year, which was one of considerable change, or the coining year, which will show how the change has worked. The Estimate for the present year amounts to £604,002, being £38,117 less than the Estimate of last year. The Estimate is not founded on very accurate data, but I believe it will not be exceeded. It is based on a calculation that half of the year will be under the old and half under the new Code, which comes into effect on the 30th of this month. Under the Revised Code the number of children is taken at half of the average attendance—that is, 457,000—and we anticipate that each will receive 10s., which is the amount the Commissioners recommended. The expenditure for the grants of 1862 was £774,743. The number of children found present in the elementary day-schools by Her Majesty's Inspectors was 1,057,426, while there was accommodation actually provided for 1,378,000. These are, on the whole, very satisfactory results. During the year we have had some experience of the Revised Code, for it applies to the new schools which come into existence. We have examined fourteen such schools, containing eighteen departments, under the Revised Code, The average aggregate attendance of children was 729, out of whom 512 were presented for examination. The House will observe that the practice here is different from that at the Universities, as the children have three chances of being "plucked,"—in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The number who passed in reading was 375, in writing 308, and in arithmetic 243; so that, dividing the children as it were by thirds, the total number who passed was 926. The proportion of those rejected to those who passed was as about two to three. The result was, that these schools earned by the examination, on the average, the sum of 8s. 3d. per child. That is, I think, a very gratifying act for the managers of schools, who feared they would be able to gain very little under the Revised Code. It must be borne in mind that these were all new schools, which had not had the advantage of being brought up to the standard of older establishments, and hence there is good reason to suppose that the children in the Council's schools would earn at least 10s. per head. The question of the training colleges is one which has given us much trouble. We offered some recommendations in regard to them last year, but in consequence of the urgent representations made to us we agreed to reconsider them. I hope we have now hit on a system which is, in the main, satisfactory to the colleges, and which will also, in a great measure, protect the interests of the public. It does not certainly err on the side of being too severe. It is so exceedingly lenient to the colleges that it could hardly, perhaps, be defended on abstract principles. We must, however, remember that we brought these institutions into existence by our own act, and that if we were suddenly to alter our relations towards them, we should be doing a grave injustice. There were three great evils pointed out in the system of training colleges. In the first place, they had almost entirely ceased to be voluntary institutions. On the average they received 80 per cent from Government, and some even as much as 99 or 100. Another evil was, that though these colleges provided an excellent education for teachers, they did not give any security that the persons who received that education would devote the knowledge so acquired at the public ex- pense to the business of teaching. It was possible that young men, educated in the training colleges, might apply their knowledge in other quarters. It might even happen that a school might go on under the name of a training college, receiving large assistance from the Government, and yet that not one of its students might follow the profession of a teacher. The third evil was one of principle. It is not the function of a Government to supply the demands of any trade. It was thought that in the business of teaching, as in the other departments of human industry, the ordinary law of supply and demand should be allowed to operate freely, and that the Government should not attempt to interfere with it. If the Government were to open its training colleges widely, and were to provide a large supply of teachers, it would always be liable to complaints of injustice on behalf of existing teachers, with whose labours these new teachers would compete. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act in a contrary spirit, and were to close the training colleges altogether, it was equally liable to just reclamation on behalf of the managers of schools, who would say that we were raising the market upon them. It was necessary to remedy these three defects—to reduce the contribution which the Government was to make within certain limits, which should not be exceeded; to apply the training colleges not only to the education of young men, but to the education of teachers; and to get rid of the responsibility of adapting the supply of teachers to the demand. This we have done by a Minute which has been laid on the table. The principle of that Minute is to consolidate the different payments made to the training colleges into one payment, that one payment to be made on the obtaining of the certificate, which is in about two years after a student has passed his examination, and only on condition that during those two years he has been teaching in a school, and has had the honour of receiving two favourable Reports of an Inspector. The difference, therefore, is, that instead of making the payment partly for the education of the student while in the training college, and partly on his examination when leaving it, we defer it till the student not only has passed his examination, but has committed himself by entering upon the profession of teaching, and been two years employed in it. It may be that even so some may escape us; but, on the whole, we take every security on behalf of the public, that a student trained at their expense shall really devote himself to the profession of teaching. The change has this further advantage, that it throws upon the training colleges, instead of upon the Government, the responsibility of adapting the supply to the demand. It will be for the college which takes a student in, to consider whether he is likely to become a teacher; for it knows that if he does not become a teacher, it will not receive on his account any payment from the Government. There are some other provisions in the Minute with which I need not trouble the Committee. For example, we limit the amount which the Government will contribute to the ample sum of 75 per cent. so that no training college can hereafter receive more. I trust this will be the means of some reduction; at any rate, it will prevent the increase of the Vote, will relieve the Government from the duty it has heretofore undertaken, of supplying the profession with teachers, and will, I believe, secure that those who receive public money for their education, shall devote the knowledge so obtained to the purpose for which the grant was made. We have also made a Minute with regard to our Inspectors. It has given me great pleasure to be able to propose a small increase to the salaries of our Inspectors. We have thrown heavier duties on them by the Revised Code, and we were anxious that they should receive some small equivalent for that increase of labour. For the purpose of assisting the Inspectors and lightening their duties, we have made provision for giving them schoolmasters as their assistants. It has been represented as if this were done with the idea of lowering the class of Inspectors. Quite the contrary was our object. These schoolmasters—not assistant Inspectors, as they have been called, but Inspectors' assistants—are only to act under the direction of the Inspector. Their functions are limited merely to the examination of children; they have no power to report on the schools, nor have they anything to do with the management of the schools, or with the working of the grant. We thought it necessary to provide some machinery of this kind, because some of the schools are enormously large. There is a Jewish school in the Commercial Road, for instance, which has 1,800 children. I think it would be great extravagance if we took an Inspector with £800 a year, and buried him, so to speak, in the examination of these children, which could be done almost as well by a person of the calibre of an ordinary schoolmaster, at a much lower alary. But we do not put this class in competition with the Inspectors. They are to relieve the Inspectors where the burden is too heavy for them. We do not contemplate introducing them largely at first, but there are a few populous districts where it is necessary to give the Inspectors assistance at once. Each case will be judged, of course, upon its own merits. I trust, therefore, the Committee will not share in the misconstruction which has been put upon this Minute. There are two objects in view—one is to assist the Inspector, and the other to save expense. All the duties of inspection, properly so called, as opposed to examination, will as heretofore be discharged by the Inspectors; and besides, each Inspector will himself examine, during the course of a year, at least 1,000 children. These are the principal Minutes made during the course of the year. It would be presumptuous to attempt to predict what will be the effect of these changes; but at present we see no reason to augur otherwise than favourably of them. The matter, however, is purely tentative, and we shall be ready to make any practical improvements that may suggest themselves to us. Before I sit down, I may point the little moral of my statement. The Committee will see how many favours the Inspectors have to ask and receive from the Committee of Council. If an Inspector is in indifferent health, it lies with the heads of the Department to give him leave of absence. So with promotion from one district to another. If, too, an Inspector has a heavy district, and finds his work too much for him, it depends upon the discretion of the heads of the Office whether they shall give him the assistance of a schoolmaster or not. I ask how the system would work if gentlemen, who have so many favours to receive from the heads of the Department, should, at the same time, be placed in a position of almost absolute independence as far as their Reports go. Would the tendency not be to make it be thought that something might be got by going, as it were, into opposition? Would the Department not be suspected of buying off a troublesome Inspector at the expense of his colleagues? I have only to add, in conclusion, that when I maintained, in an earlier part of the evening, that it is in the power of the Office to withhold Reports, I did not mean that observation to apply to facts or information of any kind. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"That a sum, not exceeding £604,002, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Public Education in Great Britain."

rose to propose a reduction in the Vote—the extraordinary item for pupil teachers. We had now 15,000 pupil teachers, and we paid for them £300,000 per annum. It would be an interesting sight to see this large army turned out in Hyde Park, and reviewed by the Prince and Princess. He understood they were intended to supply vacancies among the teachers in schools; but those teachers did not amount in number to more than 10,055. Every year we took in 3,000 apprentices. At the end of twenty-two years, which was the time a teacher was supposed to remain in his school, we should have at this rate 66,000 pupil-teachers to meet the demand in schools. He would suggest that they should take on no new apprentices for the next year; they would then still have a sufficient number of pupil teachers for any purpose for which they required them. It was impossible to employ the large number now annually turned out of the training colleges; and why, then, should so enormous a sum be expended on their education? It might be said, that if they did not all become teachers, still they were qualified to take situations for which, but for their previous training, they would not have been fit. That, however, he held was a pernicious system, and quite contrary to the natural law of supply and demand. Why should a certain class of young persons be educated at the public expense in order to be able to compete for clerkships and other employments which would otherwise fall to the lot of youths educated at the cost of their parents? He did not see why the State should undertake the training of teachers any more than that of surgeons or members of other professions. In the course of the five years' training given to these pupil teachers the State spent no less a sum than £180 upon each of them; and that not only without any advantage to the public, but counteracting the natural order of things, by which the work would be done better, and without any expense to the country. School managers should be left to employ the best teachers they could find, whether they were pupil teachers or not. All these trammels should be done away, leaving those who had charge of the schools to do the best they could. If that course were adopted, there would he no necessity for squandering the public money as was now done. He did not wish to repudiate any existing obligations; he only desired that they should enter into no new obligations with respect to the 3,000 apprentices who, under ordinary circumstances, would be taken on during the next year. By preventing the introduction of these 3,000 young persons they would not only do no harm to their system, but would positively relieve it from the superabundance which they were at present creating. He begged therefore to propose that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £30,000, thus striking off £10 per head for those 3,000 apprentices.

said, he agreed with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not seem quite to understand how things at present stood. The money taken in the Vote was for pupil teachers who were now apprenticed. The Department came under a pledge to the House last year in the discussions on the Revised Code, that they would pay the full salary of all the pupil teachers now apprenticed until they had served their full term of five years. The hon. Member did not wish them to go back in any way from that, but only that no new pupil teachers should be engaged. Well, he had great satisfaction in telling the hon. Gentleman that no new pupil teachers would be engaged; because on the 30th of this month the Revised Code would come into effect in England, and, as far as that matter was concerned, in Scotland also. Although it would be competent for school managers to engage pupil teachers if they pleased, they would receive no Government money payment for doing so:—they would merely obtain the capitation grant on examination, which they could apply in retaining a pupil teacher, or in any other way they thought proper. Therefore, no Government stimulus whatever would henceforth be applied to the engagement of pupil teachers. With that explanation he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, and not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a division.

thought that more time should have been given for the consideration of the annual Report of the Committee of Council on Education before the Estimates were proposed. There was great anxiety among the friends of education as to whether the Reports of the Inspectors were to contain a full and comprehensive statement of the educational facts of the country, or whether they were to be purged of all things which were not agreeable to the Minister. If the House could not have complete Reports, they might at least have specimen Reports, by which to judge of the state of education in the manufacturing, mining, and agricultural districts, and he would like to see all the Reports brought up to some fixed and uniform date, to enable a comparison to be made between them and the Reports of future years. He trusted that the Vice President would, either by enlarging the present machinery, or by devising special and exceptional means, obtain information as to the effect of the extraordinary increase of school children in the cotton, districts, consequent upon the failure of employment, with a view to show what improvement took place in the educational condition of those districts. He believed that the pupil teachers were the backbone of the system, and he hoped that nothing which had been said to-night would produce an indisposition among parents to allow their children to occupy that position. When it was said that many who were trained in the training colleges at the public expense afterwards turned to other occupations, it should not be forgotten that while learning their duties they performed the duties of teachers, and gave their services in that capacity. He hoped the House would not be led by any wild statement as to the probable increase of the Vote to adopt a system of false economy, as he was convinced that both the House and the country were willing to give liberally towards the education of the people, provided that the education was sound, and was conducted on just principles.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

asked, whether the attention of the Vice President had been directed to the unprotected position of young unmarried female teachers in parish schools, and whether some regulation as to age could not be introduced? At present they were removed from their friends, and were open to great temptations, and to the arts of designing persons.

said, it was a matter in which plainly the Government could not interfere. A case had occurred recently in which one of the female pupil teachers had sustained a very horrible outrage. The Committee of Privy Council were applied to; but although they deemed it a very proper duty for some one, they did not think it a duty which devolved upon them to prosecute the offender. There was less reason than ever for the Committee of Council to interfere, because these young persons were now entirely the servants of the managers.

said, that although the managers of the training colleges consented to carry them on for the present, they could not do so as a permanent system. It was difficult to get voluntary contributions to an object which did not appeal to local interest, and, without some change in that respect, this mainstay of the system of education would fail. There was no doubt that occasionally the students in the colleges turned to other occupations, but the instances were by no means numerous. He had requested the Principal of the Training College at Battersea to inform him of the number of Queen's scholars who had abandoned the profession of teachers. In the ten years, from 1851 to 1861, there were 342 Queen's scholars, of which number 16 had died, leaving 328 to be accounted for. Of the 328, 300 were actually engaged as teachers, while of the remaining 28, 18 were employed in colonial or private schools, leaving only ten not accounted for in a satisfactory way. Having said thus much, he wished briefly to state in reference to the Reports of the Inspectors, which have formed a topic for discussion in the early part of the evening, that he could not approve of the course in that respect which the right hon. Gentleman adopted. The right hon. Gentleman, it seemed, justified the withholding of those Reports from the House, not because of their perplexity or their tendency to philosophical disquisitions, but simply and solely on the ground that the arguments which they contained, founded on facts, sometimes advocated views which were opposed to the opinions held in the Education Department. Now, looking at the tentative position of the education question, and to the uncertainty of the results which the changes in connection with it made from time to time might produce, it would, he thought, be most unfair to the House to call upon it to vote £700,000 or £800,000 a year of the public money without the assistance which might be derived from some sixty gentlemen who were most competent to give information, and who were chosen for their attainments and talents from among the most rising men in our Universities, and spread over the country to collect facts and furnish Parliament with the impression which those facts made upon their minds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), who in 1859 filled the position of Vice President of the Committee of Council, in the course of a discussion which took place in that year stated that it might be frequently the duty of the Inspectors to report that certain regulations had failed to meet the wants of persons engaged in education in their particular districts; while they, upon the contrary, might have to report that the measures of the Committee of Council were approved, and that such observations, coming from independent and impartial witnesses, would possess the advantage of giving the authentic impression produced by the working of the system on different minds in different parts of the country. For his own part, he thought the greatest possible injury would be inflicted on the cause of educational progress if the House were deprived of that help which it had hitherto derived from the Reports of those Inspectors, which, so far as he could form an opinion, went to make up the most interesting of the blue-books which were published by the Government.

said, that though the House did not want a debate upon the National Education system, which was just now in a transitional or at least revisional state, yet now was the time to make a few remarks upon the process of change going on. The right hon. Vice President had given the Committee an interesting piece of information this evening with reference to the experiment that had already been made of examination under the Revised Code. The result was this, that the schools so examined obtained a grant upon an average of 8s. 3d. per child. He wished the Committee to bear in mind the proposition of the Royal Commissioners that 10s. per head should be the lowest rate in aid which a good school might expect from the public grants; and when they considered that the average cost of educating labourers' children was 30s. per head, unless they made the least grant in aid 10s. per head, he despaired of the remaining two thirds being raised by voluntary effort. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them one fact, whether the children who were found unable to stand the test were not of the age from six to eight years? He had seen the new system of examination under the Revised Code tried in schools with which he was connected, and he found that children of seven and eight years were incapable of passing an individual examination by the Government Inspector. The very appearance of a stranger and the manner of a highly-educated man were calculated to frighten a poor child of such an age. He confessed, indeed, his belief that his own children about that age would be unable to stand the test, if suddenly brought into contact with a Senior Wrangler, and examined even in the moderate subjects which children of that age could be at all examined in. He had come to the conclusion that the requirement of examination must be relaxed, and the age must be raised below which individual examination should not be required. Another point which had been alluded to was the new Minute respecting training colleges. It had been stated that they had almost ceased to be voluntary institutions. The fact was, that training colleges of all institutions were those least likely ever to be supported by voluntary contributions, and he doubted whether even 25 per cent of the amount necessary would be raised in that manner, as was proposed to be required by the new Minute. He concurred in opinion with those who considered these institutions most important, and believed that if training colleges were to cease as a part of the system, the best plan would be to drop the whole system at once. It was not at all likely that voluntary contributions would ever be adequate to the support of such institutions. England was the only country in which voluntary contributions had come even in aid of training institutions. In America, where all schools were supported by a popularly-voted rate, training colleges were not so supported, but were kept up by permanent endowments, and were taken out of the category of national educational institutions supported by taxation. If there was anything unsatisfactory in the Estimate, it was that Scotland did not appear under the same conditions with England, while uniformity became more and more essential to the success of the whole. With respect, also, to the item for industrial schools, it created great confusion to find it divided between educational grants and expenditure for the "Maintenance of Prisoners." It had been a grievous mistake removing any of the industrial schools because they educated vagrants, or the reformatories because they educated culprits, from the National Educational Department, which ought to embrace all aided schools. It was gratifying to find, that although the number of schools and teachers had increased, and the number of children had been brought to within 200,000 of the maximum number that it was supposed by the Commissioners could ever be brought within the system, the Estimate was £38,000 less than it was last year. On the whole, he considered the Estimate satisfactory, and trusted that he should live to see the day when England, Scotland, and Ireland, would all be placed under one system.

said, that the object of those who desired the production of all the Inspectors' Reports was not to encourage those officers in philosophical disquisitions, but to carry out the circular of the 4th of November 1858, which directed that the Reports should include all information, recommendations, and suggestions which were immediately based upon and could be illustrated by the Inspector's own knowledge and his experience in the course of his inspection. They complained that certain Reports were suppressed, and believed them to be suppressed, not because they were full of philosophical disquisitions, but because they were full of practical suggestions. If they were wrong, the right hon. Gentleman could demonstrate their error by the production of the Reports. This was a matter of great importance at present, and would continue to be so for a few years to come, because a great change was being carried out under the superintendence of the Inspectors, and it was impossible for them to show what was the effect of that change without giving their experience and their opinions. If the House only obtained such experience as was in accordance with the opinion of the Office, they would remain in the dark as to the effect of the changes.

considered the attendance at the schools very satisfactory. When hon. Gentlemen found fault with the amount of the Vote, he would ask them to consider the great advantages which the country had derived from the carrying-out or the system. No Petitions had been presented against it, and he believed that no hon. Member had been asked by his constituents to assist in putting an end to the Vote. In his opinion, no fairer system could be devised. If the system could be worked for less money than was at present voted, so much the better; but he believed it answered extremely well. The success of the system mainly depended on the employment of pupil teachers and certificated and assistant masters. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Bradford, that the Reports of the Inspectors should be presented unabridged to the House. He asked any hon. Member of that House whether on taking up the Report they could place any value upon it, when they were told that portions of it had been cut out, and therefore must know that it was but a garbled Report. He considered it of the utmost importance that everything that the Inspectors put forward in their Reports should be laid before the House Otherwise the materials necessary for forming a correct judgment as to the working of the present system of education would be withheld. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman below concurred generally in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council of Education. He (Sir M. Farquhar) would, however, maintain his own independent opinions, which were adverse to the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that the Vote for education in this country was increasing from year to year. Some explanation was due to the House why Scotland was allowed so liberal a contribution four or five years ago, and was placed in a superior position to the other parts of the Empire. Education was properly supported by the State, but it should be carried out with economy.

thought that an admission made by the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire—that the fact of 8s. 3d. being the average obtained by each child examined in eighteen schools argued that there was great difficulty in bringing young children of six, seven, and eight years of age up to the standard—was one of great importance. It was precisely the argument on which the opponents of the Revised Code relied last year. If that was the maximum, one of two things must happen—either they must be contented with inferior teachers, or the schools would go down. The success of the school depended on the qualifications of the teacher, and that was the reason why he had always supported the system, expensive though it was.

said, that the system of education prevailing in Scotland was superior to that which had been adopted for this country, and the people of Scotland, while they were not opposed to an enlargement and improvement of the system, would strongly object to the introduction of the English system.

thanked Her Majesty's Government for what they had already done, and expressed a hope that they would take into consideration the state of many of the Scotch schools, and render their educational system more applicable to the parochial system of Scotland than it was at present.

observed, that the new Minute altered the order of inspection. Under the Revised Code the Inspectors were not to proceed to an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, till they ascertained that the general state of the school did not require the grant to be withheld. The new Minute divided the general inspection of schools into two parts—one of which, religious knowledge, was kept in the first place; but, in all other matters, the general inspection was postponed till after the examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic. To Church of England schools this arrangement would make practically little difference; but it was just possible that, in some cases, where the children were examined by assistants under a written order, the grant might be paid without that general inspection, which, in many points, was of substantial importance.

complained, that the Western Islands of Scotland derived scarcely any advantage from this Vote.

said, that before the discussion closed, he wished to recall attention to what he considered the real point of controversy—namely, whether Parliament was to continue for any lengthened period to find money to provide the machinery by which these schools were to be conducted. Personally, he believed that principle to be entirely wrong, and he would put the point before the House in a very simple manner. The Government did not, and could not, undertake—and, even if it were willing, the country could not permit it to undertake—the education of the people. But the Government con- tracted with—or, perhaps, he ought rather to say, offered bounties to certain private individuals for undertaking that duty, and stipulated to pay a particular sum, called a capitation grant, for the production of certain manufactured articles in the shape of educated children; and the Government said this to the managers of schools, "We have on our hands a quantity of plant—namely, a number of pupil teachers and certificated masters, which we will compel you to use, on pain of forfeiting our assistance." Managers of schools made their bow to the Government, and proceeded to educate the children as best they could. In process of time Government sent round their Inspectors. In one school they found the children very Well taught, the proper instruments were employed, the Inspectors passed the school, and the Government was satisfied that its own machinery was in operation. The Inspector then went to another school, where he found results equally satisfactory, the children equally well taught, and the school—not, as an hon. Gentleman had said, "a Bedlam,"—but perfectly well conducted, clean, and orderly. But in this case, after the Inspector had expressed himself satisfied, the Government demanded to see the schoolmaster, with a view to discover whether he was of the Government stamp. The manager said, "No, he had tried the Government machine and it had broken down in his hands; he then tried a machine of his own, which answered the purpose much better, and with it results had been produced which could not fail to commend themselves to the approval of the Inspectors." The Government, however, replied, "You do not choose to use our machine, we shall not recognise the manufactured article you have produced." He put it to the House whether that was a state of things which could be fairly maintained. At the time he brought forward this question his right hon. Friend, among other arguments used in reply—and he believed it was the best of the arguments which he then put forward—suggested that the system had not had a fair trial. But his right hon. Friend now admitted that an Inspector would not be allowed to make a fair Report; and that if one of them ventured to state anything contrary to the policy of the Government, his Report would not gain publicity. Under those circumstances, how was the House ever to know when the system had received a fair trial? He wished his right hon. Friend would answer that Question, and state how, next year or in any future year, it could be shown that the system he maintained had received a fair trial?

said, this was a Vote which increased regularly year after year, and, after all, it by no means included the whole of the expense incurred. There were a variety of items of various amounts, and in reality there was about £20,000 more expended under this head than appeared in their Vote. With regard to the buildings at Kensington, he should like to know whether certain apartments called "rooms for officers" were not in reality residences for officers. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.

also expressed his opinion that some explanation on the subject of the buildings "for officers" ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council.

hoped that in answering the question just put to him the right hon. Gentlemen would state whether those buildings had not been sanctioned by a Committee of which his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck) was a Member.

said, that the buildings in question had been erected in pursuance of a recommendation of the Committee which sat in 1861. The buildings were for four officers—the Secretary of the institution, the resident engineer, the superintendent under the secretary, and another officer. The Museum was open to the public till ten o'clock at night, and the officers were there till that hour. With the exception of the House of Commons, it was, he believed, the only public institution in which business was conducted so late at night. The Committee thought it necessary there should be a residence for officers whose attendance might he required in case of fire or other accident to the Museum. The arrangement would, in the end, be an economical one for the public, because there would be a deduction from the officers' salaries, to go towards meeting the interest on the outlay for those buildings.

asked whether the Report on the scientific institutions of the city of Dublin would be laid on the table.

said, there was no objection to the production of the document; but this Department had not yet received the decision of the Treasury on the subject of the Report.

, in reference to what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord H. Lennox), said, that the recommendation of the Committee proceeded on the assumption that the buildings at Kensington were to be of a plain character. He now found that they were assuming an ornamental character, under the direction of a gentleman who was an officer of engineers, who was styled "the inspector of buildings." He thought they ought to be under the direction of some one who had undergone the professional education of an architect. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Department to allow them to continue under the direction of a gentleman who had not received such an education.

said, that the gentleman just referred to by his hon. Friend as the "inspector of buildings" was Captain Fowke. For the information of his hon. Friend and the House he might state that the gallant gentleman, who was a captain in the Engineers, had been first employed by the Government in connection with the construction of a barrack, which cost £100,000. He then became Secretary of the English Science and Art Department of the Paris Exhibition of 1855. He gave such satisfaction in that capacity that he was appointed one of the inspectors under that Department in England. He was not the designer of the iron portion of the structure. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Of the boilers.] He was not the designer of what had been called "the boilers," which were erected by Sir William Cubitt; but he was the designer of the Vernon and Sheepshanks Galleries, for which works he deserved the highest credit. He not only distinguished himself as an architect, but as an inventor. He first investigated and showed the true theory of lighting a picture gallery. He laid down a formula that could be applied to any gallery; and he applied it himself at Kensington. He also made the gas in those galleries—what it was much to be desired it should become in that House—not only a means of lighting, but also of ventilating the building. Captain Fowke had made the plan of the Irish National Gallery, which he believed gave great satisfaction; and his design for the Industrial Museum of Scotland had also received the preference. He had built the lower arcade in the Horticultural Gardens from his own plan, and that structure was considered to be an excellent one. He had laid before the Select Committee a plan for buildings for the Department of Science and Art. To him belonged the credit of building at the small expense of £17,000 those new quadrangular courts in the Kensington Museum, which presented such an exceedingly handsome appearance. From the works Captain Fowke had executed for his Department, he must say he had the highest opinion of him. He was a most excellent officer; there had never been any complaint of him; and he was superior to most professional architects in this respect—that he never exceeded his estimate. Under these circumstances, there was no intention to displace Captain Fowke.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. Captain Fowke might be a very excellent engineer but he denied that he knew anything about architecture. As long as he was employed in constructing sheds and devising plans for ventilation, he was a very proper person to be selected; but the moment the Government went out of this into art it was only right that the country should have the best advice. When he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was placed on the South Kensington Committee, he found that the only case put forward for Captain Fowke was the building of sheds; but the moment the Department of Science and Art rushed into what might be termed the height of art the buildings were the contempt of every one who knew anything about art. Some persons admired the Gothic, and others the modern style of architecture; because each of these represented what was beautiful in itself; but Captain Fowke's style was the barbarous, as was seen in his great masterpiece, the Exhibition, which the Government now wanted Parliament to buy—those melon glasses which were the scorn of Europe—and yet the designer of these was the man whom the right hon. Gentleman called the architect of the Government. [Mr. LOWE: The architect of my Department.] He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his Department in that it had such an architect.

desired, as a Member of the South Kensington Committee, to say, that the hon. Gentleman's estimate of Captain Fowke was not that taken by the rest of the Committee. The frightful building at South Kensington was not an original design of Captain Fowke. The Commissioners required a building to be put up here for one purpose, and another there for another purpose; and Captain Fowke was then called upon to prepare a plan for moulding them all into one. Hon. Members were told to look to the Society of Architects, or some other society, which enjoyed a pre-eminence of taste in this country. He (Mr. Locke) would be glad to know where any society which had this pre-eminence was to be found. He would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to point to any man who could put up a better building than Captain Fowke had put up? The fact was, there was nobody in this country who knew anything about taste in architecture, and no one who had any taste to guide them. If there was a man worthy of their confidence, that man was Captain Fowke; but he (Mr. Locke) had not entire confidence in him. That noble building of brick, the International Exhibition, was not built for the purpose of ornamentation. It was built so that it should have the most frightful exterior; and this in itself showed the ingenuity of Captain Fowke, for now he could say, "Is not this building which I have raised hideous? but now let me have the ornamentation of it." And why was he not to have it? He (Mr. Locke) did not see why Captain Fowke was not to be trusted as well as any other man; and no doubt hon. Members would all get accustomed to the building. Captain Fowke ought then to be allowed to go on in his course, and not be interfered with in his plan for the South Kensington Exhibition. He (Mr. Locke) hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would think over the matter before the Vote to the Exhibition Building came on, which the Government proposed to buy, but not, he trusted, at the expense of £484,000; and if the Government proposed to take the building down and put up another, Captain Fowke would do it as well as any other.

wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the manner in which the picture gallery at South Kensington was warmed. Such a stream of hot air entered the gallery just beneath the pictures that the varnish was contracted, and after a certain time became desiccated and fell off. He was told that some of the pictures had already been injured from this circumstance since their removal from Marlborough House.

said, he would give attention to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet.

said, he had heard nothing to diminish his objections to the Vote. He desired to know whether the "rooms for officers" were all in one house, or were in separate buildings.

rose to protest against the amalgamation of the Royal Dublin Society and the Museum of Irish Industry, both institutions of the city of Dublin. The Commission appointed to investigate the question of amalgamation was unfairly constituted, two of the gentlemen composing it representing the Treasury, and the other two being connected with the Royal Dublin Society. He also complained of the delay which had taken place in laying the Report of the Commissioners on the table—a thing which was most unusual in similar cases.

said, the Commission appeared to him to have been very fairly constituted, the gentlemen composing it being men of the highest character. They had made their Report, which was now before the Treasury; it had been moved for, and would be produced. It could not, in any way, affect the Estimate now before the House. As to a question put by the hon. Member for Truro, he begged to state that the residences were all in one house.

said, a very strong feeling existed in Ireland and especially in Dublin on the subject of the proposed amalgamation of the Museum of Irish industry with the Royal Dublin Society, and he trusted before the House came to a decision upon it they would allow the opinion of the country more immediately interested in the matter to be expressed.

wished to call attention to the item for the geological survey. It seemed to be a rule, that when an item once got into the Estimates, it was to be continued indefinitely. Only 8,000 square miles of the geological survey of Great Britain was completed, and would cost £7,861, when for half the money double the amount of work might be done by any private parties. There was great reason to complain of the slow progress of the work.

, reverting to the subject of the Exhibition building at Kensington said, it was all very well to turn professional architects into ridicule; but when they were about to erect a great building which, he ventured to say, was extremely ngly, it would have been well to have taken their opinion. When he looked at the building yesterday from the Horticultural Gardens, it struck him that a fine opportunity had been lost; and he believed, if a skilful architect had been consulted, very little difficulty would have been experienced by the Government in the purchase they intended to make. But when they saw a building such as that now at Kensington, everybody wished to have it removed.

rose to object to the Alderney Vote. He objected to the extravagant expenditure of money at Alderney, where no less than £800,000 had already been expended, and it was proposed to add a larger sum. He moved a reduction of this Vote by £80,000.