said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether orders having been sent for concentrating a large British force at Quebec, steps are also being taken to put that place in a defensible state?

said, in reply, that what he had stated was that orders had been sent to Montreal and Quebec to concentrate the forces. With regard to the fortifications of the Colony, the Secretary of State for War had recently received from Canada a Report as to the state of the defences. That Report was now under the consideration of the military authorities; but his noble Friend (Earl de Grey) was not prepared to announce any determination upon it at present.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a Barrack Master has recently been promoted from the Fourth Class to the Second Class without having served in the Third Class the period laid down by the Royal Warrant of 7th February, 1860?

replied that no Barrack Master had been promoted in the manner indicated by the question; but Captain Forbes, a Barrack Master of the Second Class, having retired before the issue of the Warrant of 1860, had, at his own request, been recently reinstated in his position as Barrack Master in that rank.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has inquired as to the traffic on Westminster Bridge, and will state the reason why the Police do not interfere in the regulation of the traffic, so as to divide the heavy from the fast traffic, there being Tramways laid down on the Bridge, which must tend to facilitate regulations which have had the best results on London Bridge?

said, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to lake up the Tramways, seeing that they only obstructed the traffic over the Bridge?

said, in reply, that the tramways were intended to separate the slow and heavy traffic from the fast and light traffic. He differed from his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Paxton) in regard to the alleged inconvenience of the tramways. It was the interest of the drivers of the slow and heavy traffic to go on the tramway, because the draught was easier for the horses. It was obviously for the interest of the drivers of slow and quick vehicles to accommodate themselves to the arrangement, and he believed they generally did so. Two policemen were usually stationed on the bridge, and they reported that no obstruction of a serious character had taken place, so as to justify their interference. The police had no legal authority to compel reluctant persons to go along the tramway except on account of obstruction. They could point out that it was for the general convenience that the light and heavy traffic should be kept separate, and he had no reason to believe they had failed in their duty in that respect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the traffic regulations of London Bridge, and see whether the same regulations cannot be adopted at Westminster Bridge?

said, that there was no tramway on London Bridge. The rule there was that the light and heavy traffic going in the same direction should take a particular side of the bridge. If that direction were not strictly observed an obstruction would arise. The police had authority to interfere the moment an obstruction occurred or when they had reason to apprehend that an obstruction would arise. There had been no such obstruction hitherto on Westminster Bridge as would justify any exercise of authority on the part of the police.

said, he would suggest that if the police had no legal power at present to regulate the traffic the right hon. Gentleman would do well to confer with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and see if some means could not be devised to give them that most necessary authority.

who had given notice to move—

"That in the opinion of this House the mode in which it is proposed by the Minute of the 11th day of March, 1864, to make Grants to Endowed Schools, and the distinction made by the same Minute between Endowed Schools in the country and in towns, are unsatisfactory and unjust."

said, it had been intimated to him that a Motion, similar in substance and effect, having been moved by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), and decided by the House, it was a serious question whether it was competent to him, consistently with the rules of the House, which forbade making the same Motion twice in the same Session, to move the Resolution which stood on the paper in his name. He, therefore, begged to ask for an authoritative decision from the Chair, whether it would be in his power to make the Motion or not?

According to the rules of the House, no Question or Amendment may be proposed which is the same in substance as any question which during the same Session has been resolved in the affirmative or negative. The original Minute of Council deducted the amount of the endowment from the grant in all cases. The amended Minute of the 11th of March made no deduction from small rural schools, but withdrew the grant from the schools in towns. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire objected to this amended Minute and to this distinction between town and country schools, and on the 2nd of June moved a Resolution in these words—

"That this House, having considered the Minute of Council of the 11th day of March, 1864, on Endowed Schools, is of opinion that it does not meet the objections made to the Minute of the 19th day of May, 1863."

This Motion was negatived. To-day the right hon. Member for Droitwich proposes a Resolution—

"That in the opinion of this House the mode in which it is proposed by the Minute of the 11th of March to make grants to Endowed Schools, and the distinction made by the same Minute between Endowed Schools in the country and in towns, is unsatisfactory and unjust."

I have not been able to arrive at any other conclusion than that this Resolution is the same in substance, as it is very nearly the same in terms, as the Resolution of the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire, which was resolved in the negative, and that it could not be put without a contravention of the rules of the House.

bowed to the decision of the Chair. He had not the least disposition to oppose the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, had he thought the House would agree with him that he would be unnecessarily intruding on their time if he entered into any argument on the Question. But before he retired from the Question, there was one remark that he desired to offer, and that was that distinctly for himself, and he believed he might say for many Members of the House, he entirely refused to admit that the decision of the House was a final decision of the Question. The division was a very narrow one, the majority being only eight or nine; it was taken unexpectedly; and it could not, in any sense, be considered as testing the opinion of the House upon the subject. In his opinion, the policy of the Government with regard to Endowed Schools was unrighteous and unwise, and he thought that if any hon. Member would refer to that part of the Report of the Royal Commission which related to the establishment of these Endowed Schools he could only arrive at the conclusion, that if we had an Educational Department, with a responsible Minister at its head, it would be impossible for that Minister not to feel that it would be his duty to avail himself of the endowments, in order to improve and extend education throughout many districts of the country, and not to lend himself to the unworthy policy of saving a few thousands of the annual charge at the expense of impeding the education of the people. While, then, he bowed to the decision pronounced by the Speaker, he thought it impossible that this subject could be left where it was; and in the next Session of Parliament he intended himself, unless it was done by some other hon. Member, to revive the discussion, and induce the House of Commons to reverse its decision.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that on the discussion of the Navy Estimates a Vote was taken with reference to the proposed school, and that he, with other Members, objected, not to the estab- lishment of such a school, for which he believed there were cogent reasons, but to the place in which it was intended to locate it. Since then he had made exertions at different times to get certain papers, especially a document by Sir W. Snow Harris, which had been submitted to the Admiralty, and laid upon the table of the House; but the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty objected on the ground that it was the production of a private person, and ought not to be printed at the public expense. Certain documents, however, had been laid upon the table, which, though exceedingly incomplete, fully confirmed the objections to the establishment of the school at South Kensington. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwitch (Sir John Pakington) had taken credit to himself for having been the first to propose the scheme to the Admiralty; but on looking back to the papers he found that the first document on the subject was from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, and was dated January 13, while the paper transmitted by the right hon. Baronet was dated the 12th of March following. But the right hon. Baronet probably intended to refer to what had taken place in the Institution of Naval Architects, of which he was president, and before which a paper was read last year by Mr. Scott Russell with reference to the establishment of such a school. He must do Mr. Scott Russell the justice to say that it was to him the scheme was justly to be ascribed. Last March twelve months Mr. Scott Russell read a paper to the Institution of Naval Architects, in which he pointed out what had been done in France in the matter, and expressed an opinion that such a school, if established at all, ought to be in this metropolis. But if hon. Members considered what the Ecole Poly-technique was, and the difference between it and the Museum at South Kensington, they would see that there were no grounds whatever for establishing such a school at the latter place. A report was subsequently made to the same institution by Dr. Woolley, in which he alleged that there were thirteen grounds upon which the school ought to be established. Dr. Woolley said, that half the time, or three days in the week, would be devoted to the study of the theory, and three other days to the practical application of the science. Dr. Woolley went on to say that that principle would be preserved in the new school at Kensington, but with this important dif- ference, that the time devoted to the practical study of shipbuilding at the dockyards would be six months in the year, and that for the remaining six months scientific instruction would be given at the school in London. He certainly did not think that arrangement at all advantageous, and he feared that the students would, in the six months during which they were practically working in the shipyards, forget a great deal of what they had previously learnt from lectures in the school. In like manner, he felt that students could not properly follow up a practical study of shipbuilding if they were taken away from it every six months. As the scheme, drawn up by a Committee of the Institute of Naval Architects, was presented to the Admiralty by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, he should like to be informed who the gentlemen forming that Committee were, because a great deal must depend on the degree of authority which would attach to their names. He certainly considered it most extraordinary that Dr. Woolley, an Inspector of Schools, should be selected to draw up a scheme for a School of Naval Architecture. His inquiries had convinced him of the truth of what he had stated on a former occasion, that almost everything that was required could at present be taught in the dockyards, where there was an efficient educational staff, who were able to give lectures on almost every subject included in the programme, and who, in case of necessity, might be supplemented at a very slight additional expense. At Portsmouth there was a naval college and a laboratory equal, if not superior, to any out of the metropolis. There was a similar establishment at Devonport. There was also the School of Naval Engineers. Surely much better instruction could be afforded at these establishments than at Kensington, where the pupils had no means of working out the lessons which they received during the time they were obliged to attend the lectures. The original School of Naval Architecture at Portsmouth had been conducted most successfully, and to that institution the country was indebted for some of the most able men connected with the Admiralty. The second school, established in 1845, and which was in existence for some four or five years, had been equally successful. There was an admirable building which had cost £35,000, which was comparatively lying idle; and yet the House was to be called upon to expend a large sum at Kensington on a building unfitted for the purpose to which it was to be devoted. The whole of the salaries would amount to £7,000 a year, and he should like to know whether they would be paid during the whole or only during the half-year. There were to be, he understood, only eight shipwrights and eight engineer students, with probably half-a-dozen private pupils; and he submitted that there was no justification for the establishment of such a large and costly new staff for twenty-two students, more especially as they had a sufficient staff already in the dockyards. The whole expenses of the former School of Naval Architecture did not exceed £2,000 a year, and it was given up because there were not enough openings for the pupils who were educated there. At South Kensington there was no educational staff suited to give lectures, as the noble Lord had led them to believe. He was not aware of any branch of instruction which could not be given at Portsmouth, with perhaps a little additional assistance, as well as, if not better than, at South Kensington, He hoped the noble and gallant Lord would tell them whether the scheme had undergone examination at the Treasury as well as at the Admiralty. The school ought to be established where there could be daily instruction in all the different practical operations of shipbuilding. It was very important that students should have the opportunity of watching the construction of a vessel, not for detached periods, but continuously from beginning to end. That could not be done under the system now proposed. He maintained that, whether or not South Kensington would, as was alleged, inspire students with a sense of the beautiful," it would not give adequate facilities for the inspection of machinery such as would be afforded at a dockyard. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman as to the great importance to our naval interests, that there should be established a good scientific school for the education of naval architects. The hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt whether the Government had I acted wisely in deciding that the proposed I school should be established in the metropolis instead of at one of our naval arsenals. Now he (Sir John Pakington) found himself in rather a peculiar position in having to speak for the Admiralty from that side of the House; he was bound to say that he did not share the doubt of the hon. Member on that point. In justice to himself and others he was also bound to say, that in the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman had fallen into several misapprehensions with respect to the part which he had taken in framing and promoting the scheme. Neither in that House nor elsewhere had he ever taken credit to himself for the establishment of the school. He did not presume to be competent to express a satisfactory opinion upon the various scientific questions involved, and if he had taken a rather active part in the transactions connected with the establishment of the school, he had done so solely in his capacity of president of the Institute of Naval Architects. What really led to the establishment of the school was a most able paper drawn up by Mr. Scott Russell, and read by him to the annual meeting of the Institute of Naval Architects as far back as March, 1863. The shipbuilders present on that occasion were much struck by the statements which the paper contained; but their attention was particularly attracted by the allegation of Mr. Russell, that he and other eminent builders had been obliged to send their sons to France in order to be properly instructed in Naval Architecture, as there was no institution in England where they could be trained. In consequence of that remarkable statement the Council of the Institute took the whole subject into their consideration, and the result of their deliberations was that they requested him, as their president, to enter into communication with the Admiralty, expressing their belief, in which he shared, that the best plan for the interests of the country would be to establish a new School of Naval Architecture on such a footing that it might be beneficial both to the Royal Navy and to the mercantile marine. Acting on the request of the Council, he had several interviews with the Duke of Somerset, and with the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, and he would not be doing justice to them if he did not acknowledge the frank and cordial manner in which they entered into the scheme, and evinced their readiness to meet the views of the merchant service as represented by the Institute of Naval Architects. The hon. Member had cited the authority of Sir William Snow Harris, in favour of the establishment of the school, not in the metropolis, but in one of our great arsenals. He had a great respect for Sir William Snow Harris, but he could not concur in his view. It might be all very well, if a School of Naval Architecture solely for the benefit of the Royal Navy were in question, to establish it, as before, at one of the arsenals; but the proposed school was to serve the interests of the mercantile marine as well as those of the Royal Navy, and for such an institution one of the arsenals would not be a convenient site. The hon. Member called for the revival of the old school at Portsmouth. He admitted that the late Sir James Graham never made a greater mistake than when he abolished instead of altering and improving the Portsmouth school; but the great objection to that institution was that, though capable of being made an efficient aid to the Royal Navy, it was not fitted from its site to confer the smallest benefit on the mercantile marine, as there was no means of giving any other instruction than what the dockyards afforded. The hon. Member wished to know who drew up the scheme for the proposed school. In reply he had to state that the whole subject was first of all considered by the Council of the Institute of Naval Architects; that the Council then appointed a Committee to go into the details, and that, as the hon. Gentleman would see by glancing at the names, the scheme was framed by the most eminent men in the shipbuilding profession. He would not say there was not an eminent man connected with the mercantile marine who did not approve the whole plan, but he had not heard of any gentleman of eminence as a shipbuilder who had expressed any dissent from the arrangement which had been made, and he submitted that when the Admiralty authorities and the great body of the merchant service were found concurring in a scheme, the fair inference was that no great objection could be taken to it. For his own part, he believed that, whether as regarded the interests of the Royal Navy or those of the mercantile marine, the best arrangement had been adopted, and that the Government had come to a wise decision in resolving to establish the school in the metropolis, which was the most convenient of access from all parts of the country, and where there were greater facilities for scientific instruction than could be found in any other part of the country.

said, he had only a very few words to add to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet. In the opinion of Dr. Woolley, whose valuable services were about to be transferred to the Admiralty from the Department of Science and Art, there existed at none of the naval ports either instructors or any of the appliances necessary for a good School of Naval Architecture. He supposed the hon. Gentleman would not demur to the opinion of so eminent an authority as Dr. Woolley. The hon. Gentleman thought it was desirable to combine the theoretical with the practical instruction. On that point Dr. Woolley said that at South Kensington the services of the most eminent lecturers in the subsidiary sciences of chymistry, metallurgy, physics, and practical mechanics were already secured, while competent instructors in the sciences more immediately professional were more readily obtainable there than elsewhere. He also said that the principle of devoting one-half of the time of the pupils to instruction in the theory, and the other half to instruction in the practice of their profession, would be kept intact in the new school. Mr. Scott Russell, whose valuable suggestion had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet opposite, after adverting to the immense advantages which the French possessed in their Naval School at Paris, which was a long way from any dockyard, and to which English shipbuilders sent their sons, said they should ask the Government to allow the young men to come to London without forfeiting their dockyard pay in order to attend the college and that in the dockyards there was now a preliminary training given for the higher instruction which should be obtained at the institution in London, The hon. Member said that o correct account of the cost of the school had not been given to the House; but in a paper which had been laid on the table at the hon. Gentleman's desire, there was a detailed estimate of the whole cost of the college, and also of the allowance to the young men, which estimate was a correct one as far as their knowledge went. Many persons supposed that the school would become self-supporting. All the scientific men, with the exception of Sir William Snow Harris (for whom he had the highest respect, but who was not an authority on that matter), and all the shipbuilders, whether connected with the Admiralty or with private yards, with whom he had been in communication, were extremely satisfied with the proposed school, and entertained the greatest hopes of its success. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not persist in opposing the school. They had taken the lecture rooms at Kensington on economical grounds. Those rooms might be capable of improvement, but they were already used for the Department of Science and Art, and there was no doubt that they were adapted for the purpose in view.

Will the professors be migratory as well as the students?

No; the lectures will take place in London.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the injury which the staple trades of Coventry have suffered, and are still suffering, from the operation of the Commercial Treaty with France, and to ask the Government, Whether they will use their influence with the French Government to obtain the same free admission into France of English Rib-and and Watches as is accorded by that Treaty, on the principle of Free Trade, to French manufactures of a similar description in England? His constituents were still suffering so much from the consequences of the French Treaty that, although labouring under infirm health, he felt it to be his duty no longer to delay bringing their case under the notice of the House. They had heard a great deal about free trade, and it was on that principle that he requested the favourable consideration of the Government. The value of an abstract principle depended entirely on the manner of its application. Free trade implied an intercourse carried on without hindrance or obstruction on either side; but in the treaty to which he referred, protective duties were retained for the benefit of one country and wholly abolished in the case of the other. That was the bargain which our Plenipotentiary had made for the disadvantage of the silk trade and certain other branches of our industry—a bargain contrary to the principles which Mr. Cobden himself had approved in the month of June 1859, when he endorsed the principles of the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, and which every fair-dealing man would also approve. About the year 1860 the city of Coventry began to experience such severe distress as, he believed, had not been exceeded in Lancashire or any other part of the country. He would not seek to harrow up the feelings of the House by a narrative of persons dying from want, nor would ha dwell on the fact that weavers, who had been brought up rather better than the common labourer, had been obliged to accept sixpence a day for grubbing up commons, and working with the spade and shovel, to gain a miserable subsistence. What he wished to urge upon the Government was, that they ought to do something for his constituents, and endeavour to put an end to a state of things under which Coventry ribands could not be sent into France without paying a duty of 7½per cent, whereas the French were permitted to send their ribands into England without paying one farthing of customs duty. The old saying, "Fair play is a jewel," was one by which Englishmen liked to be guided in their conduct. His constituents sought to bring their case under the consideration of Parliament, not pressing it unduly, not framing any condemnatory Resolution, but simply bringing the facts to the knowledge of the House, and asking whether they were such as to meet with the approval of the Legislature. And it was the duty of those who passed that treaty, and who urged the Emperor of the French to make the arrangements which had led to the hardships complained of, to see whether by further negotiation they could not obtain some welcome concessions. The city of Coventry, whose connection with the riband trade dated from the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, had for many years been a flourishing city. In 1801 the population was 16,049, in 1861 it contained no less than 41,647 inhabitants. Up to that time the weavers always had plenty to eat, and economized their funds for the purchase of looms, at which the father of a family worked, surrounded and assisted by his children, whom he was thus enabled to bring up decently and to educate well. These looms cost as much as £50 to £80 each to buy; but when pressure came upon them in consequence of the treaty, and the choice lay between starvation and selling their looms, they were obliged to part with these for £5 each. Although the town contained the very large proportion of 5,000 electors, as a class they were so high-spirited that until the last election, when distress was general, any one known to accept parish relief was sure to be taunted with it upon the hustings. Many years ago, when first he canvassed the electors, he had seen men eating potatoes and salt rather than apply for parochial aid. Now, on the contrary, men with their utmost exertions could not earn enough to support life. The ill effects entailed upon Coventry were by some attributed to a change of fashion, leading to consequent change in dress. But the consumption of riband, far from diminishing, had increased of late years, having become a prominent feature in the trimming of bonnets and dresses. The Coventry weavers were confident that they could still beat the foreign manufacturers if they only competed on equal terms; but from undue competition great numbers had been obliged to leave their native place for the colonies, and though the population had thus diminished, the inmates of the workhouse had increased from 169 in the week ending April 23, 1859, to 231 in the corresponding week of 1864, being at the rate of 40 per cent additional. Before 1860 there were seventy or eighty master riband weavers in Coventry; now there were not half that number, and from the want of private looms additional numbers of hands were driven to the factory, where nothing like remunerative employment could be afforded. Out of about 9,000 houses, 1,500 were without occupants, and yet some people with more money than wisdom were building twenty-five new houses; in fact, the place were a deserted appearance. It was said that Coventry had been greatly affected by the American war; but it was curious to note that in the watch trade, which that conflict must have affected, there had been a revival; while in the riband trade, upon which the war had no perceptible effect, there had been a marked falling off. At present a weaver, taking advantage of all the opportunities that were open to him, could not earn half as much in Coventry as a bricklayer's labourer. Even if peace were restored in America the watch trade would not be expected to be much improved, as an ad valorem import duty of 60 per cent was levied on English watches. The French import duty on English watches was 7½ per cent. Coventry was interested in ribands, but was not so much concerned in broad silks as Macclesfield, Manchester, and other places. The imports of broad silks in 1858 were 309,926lb.; in 1863, 1,504,848lb., being an increase of 500 per cent. The imports of foreign watches were, in 1858, 99,335; in 1863, 160,648. The imports of ribands in 1857 were 375,890lb.; in 1863. 849,835lb., being an increase of more than 100 per cent. On the other hand, the exports had fallen off. The exports of English ribands in 1859, the year before the treaty, were 25,580lb.; in 1863 they had dwindled to 13,709lb. He thanked the House for the attention it had given to the case of his constituents, and he trusted that the Government would, both on grounds of humanity and justice, take their claims into favourable consideration.

said, he was unfortunately able to bear testimony to the severe distress which had existed, and still existed, in Coventry. He was unable to take quite the same view with his hon. Colleague as to the causes of that distress; but he was perfectly satisfied that the French Treaty, coming into operation at the particular moment it did, had greatly contributed to that unfortunate result. Indeed, it had had a most injurious influence, not only upon the trade of Coventry, but upon the silk trade of the country generally. He was told that at the present time at Macclesfield there were 2,000 houses unoccupied. No doubt there had been various times when the silk manufacturers of Spitalfields, Coventry, and Macclesfield had been in great distress; but the French Treaty coming into operation at the very moment when the riband trade was already in a state of great depression had greatly aggravated that distress. He argued at the time, that if the duties on the importation of riband had been gradually lowered instead of being taken off at once, the whole tax of 15 per cent, the abolition would not have pressed so severely on the riband manufacturers. His hon. Colleague had expressed an opinion that English ribands should be admitted into France upon the same terms as French ribands were admitted into this country, and he (Sir Joseph Paxton) thought that if proper representations were made to the Government of the Emperor of the French, that might be done. The manufacturers of Coventry could not compete with the French in the production of the finer kinds of ribands, but they made an inferior kind of riband cheaper than it could be made in France; and they believed that they could carry on a considerable trade in this article if it were admitted into France on equal terms. With regard to the present distress in Coventry, he was bound to bear his testimony to the marvellous patience and forbearance with which the weavers had borne their sufferings. The whole inhabitants seemed to be actuated by a pride and determination to abstain, even under circumstances of the deepest privation, from seeking relief from the parish; and there was no place in England of equal population where the poor rates had been on an average so low as in Coventry. The freemen would rather starve than accept relief from the parish; and they were no doubt to some extent influenced in that resolve by their extreme reluctance to forfeit their right to vote. He should be glad if the request of his hon. Colleague could be complied with. One of the French Chambers of Commerce most interested in the question had declared that they had no wish to maintain the protection; and it seemed a strange omission in the treaty that the French duty should have been maintained when so great a reduction was made in the duty levied upon French ribands in this country. He felt sure that if vigorous representations were made to the French Government they would consent to forego the duty now placed upon this article imported from this country.

said, it was quite true that it had been repeatedly urged upon the Government that they should exert their influence with the Government of France to procure a better market on the Continent for the cheap ribands manufactured at Coventry. His hon. Friend, however, had made a remark in which there was much force—namely, that the Coventry manufacturers, in their turn, must submit to the application of the prin- ciples of free trade; and seeing that the manufacturers of nearly all other articles had been required by the Legislature to submit to free competition, it was clear that the same principles would ultimately have to be applied to the silk and riband manufacturers of Coventry. The Coventry manufacturers were about the last to whom the principles of free trade had been applied. It was put off in their case for a long period; but no doubt, whether there had been a French treaty or not, it would have ultimately been the policy of Parliament to apply to the silk manufacturers the principles which had been applied to the other manufacturers of the country. The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion put in a word for the paper manufacturers, and said that riband manufacturers and the paper manufacturers had been unfairly treated. But the hon. Gentleman had forgotten that his own constituents were much interested in free trade in paper, because they said it was no extensively used in packing their manufactures that its price ought not to be enhanced by a protective duty.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He had alluded to an agitation which he had heard was going to be got up in the spirit of free trade.

All he could say was that it was an advantage to the riband makers of Coventry to have free trade in paper. He deplored the distress which prevailed in Coventry, and if any representation which could be made would have a tendency to mitigate that distress, such representation should have his support. But although there was a duty upon ribands imported into France, that duty was not very low. The French Government had adopted the policy of entire freedom of trade in the import of goods into France; but while they retained a duty on manufactured goods imported into France, it could not be said that the duty was very large. For instance, on velvet ribands it was 5 per cent, ad valorem; on other descriptions 8 per cent, ad valorem; and on mixed kinds 10 per cent, ad valorem. These duties did probably stand in the way of the trade of the cheap ribands manufactured at Coventry being carried on in France; but he was glad to find that there was a tendency to increase the export of British silk ribands. Take, for instance, the returns for the first five months of 1864, as compared with some months of 1863. In 1863, during the first five months of the year, the value of goods exported was £24,000, while in the same months of 1864 the amount had risen to £50,000, or more than double. He did not say this increase would go on throughout the entire year, yet the return at present bore a very favourable aspect. He believed that there were symptoms of a revival of trade in Coventry. With regard to the imports into England, although he admitted there was an increase, yet one fact must be taken into consideration. He was informed that the weight given of ribands imported included the packing paper, and therefore the whole quantity of ribands was not so large as appeared on the return. And then the sale of ribands was affected by the fashions: it must be remembered that ribands were not now so extensively worn as formerly; and he was informed there had been considerable distress in the trade in France. The hon. Gentleman said he did not think the American war had any effect upon the riband trade. He very much doubted whether that statement was correct. He should rather say that the American war had had a considerable effect upon the demand for silk goods in France, and consequently the English market being open would be flooded by French goods and prices unduly depressed. There had been many causes which had been operating together to produce the present depressed state of the riband manufacture, and it was not fair to say that the only cause of the alleged distress was the operation of the French Treaty. He felt that this was one of those cases in which the House could really do little. He entirely sympathized with the hon. Gentleman and his Colleague, but he was afraid it was beyond the power of legislation to meet that distress in the way that, perhaps, some hon. Members thought it might be met. The policy of the country would not admit of that course of proceeding. Any representations that could be made at a fitting opportunity, he, for one, would be most happy to back. Speaking for the Government at large, he would say that they would only be too glad to see the same freedom in the importation of British manufactures into France and other countries that we permitted those countries to enjoy into England.

said, he was not about to enter into the history of the protracted distress which had existed, and was still felt, in Coventry and a large district of Warwickshire. It was impossible to dispute the facts, because, as his hon. Friend had said, 4,000 people had left Coventry. He had had some experience, having acted upon the relief committee for three successive years. A computation had been made, that from eleven to twelve thousand people had left Coventry and that district. He was happy to say that neither the people of the city of Coventry, nor the upper classes of North Warwickshire, had sat down idle under the distress. They had made every exertion. They had promoted other manufactures. The very clothes he (Mr. Newdegate) were had been made by riband weavers, who had turned their hands to cloth manufacture and to other sources of obtaining a livelihood. But, notwithstanding all these exertions, the depression had been very severe, and he was sorry to say the trade was sinking. He did not wish to go back to all the circumstances that occurred in 1860; but he remembered urging the hon. Member for Coventry opposite (Sir Joseph Paxton) to do all he could to delay the change. He was sorry to say that in 1860 the hon. Member did not agree with him; but he was willing to bear testimony to his exertions to obtain such a change in the stipulations of the Treaty as should place the riband trade of England exactly on a par with the trade in Franco. He voted with the hon. Gentleman when he asked that the change should be simultaneous, and that the same terms should be adopted by either country; but they met with no success. This matter had not rested with the House of Commons. He was sorry to say that the House had been precluded by the fact that the Treaty had been negotiated, as they were then precluded; and they could not do more than express a hope that her Majesty's Government would approach the Government of France, and represent that as France had gained great advantages from the Treaty, they would use the discretion which they possessed in order to place the export of English silk goods, particularly ribands, upon the same terms as the imports from France were received in this country. That was the request they made, and he was afraid, from the tone of the Government, that there was little prospect of its acceptance. When his constituents were now told that years ago they should have foreseen the change which has befallen them, and the distress which they had suffered in consequence of that change, he would ask, whether any class of manu- facturers was justified in trusting to the faith of the Legislature? The faith of the Legislature had been as much pledged to the continuance of the protection of the silk manufacture as they were now told it is pledged to the abolition of every import duty which could afford protection to any branch of native industry. If it were not for the French Treaty it was his firm conviction that there would have been a modification in that rigid rule. He admitted that if it were possible to abolish import duties throughout the whole world that would constitute free trade; but that supposition rested upon a fallacy. It rested upon the belief that all the world would be governed by one system, or that there would spring up some gigantic power which should govern all the world. When they looked at the import duties levied by the United States, and when they looked at the stipulations of that very Treaty—under which import duties of 7 per cent at present, with power to raise them to 30 per cent for a time, and then to fix them at 15 per cent—he could not believe that we had yet reached that period when the nations of the world would consent to be governed by one absolute system of free imports; he was afraid it was chimerical to look forward to that period. In the United States import duties were the main source of the Federal revenue, for by the constitution they could not impose export duties; and the levying of direct taxes upon real property within the states was the privilege of the states themselves, from which the Federal Government was debarred except in cases of war and great emergency. There fore he thought it was idle to look forward to a period when the system of free imports would universally prevail. Believing that, he had only to hope that the Government would take into consideration the long period of patient suffering which his constituents had undergone. He spoke it to his honour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his private capacity had extended to them his aid, and they were grateful to their fellow-countrymen for the sum of £50,000, which had preserved thousands from absolute destitution. The depression had not ceased, although it was abated. The people were willing to turn to other trades; but the period of transition was one of great suffering, for it was impossible to divert a population who had been brought up to an occupation requiring skill in one generation from the prosecution of that trade. He thought it most unreasonable that the House should declare that we should have no silk or riband trade in this country. It had been a profitable business, under which had grown up an intelligent, thrifty, and worthy population, who shrunk from parochial relief. Could it be sound policy to crush such a population? He thought not. He hoped that the Government would accept as a fact, proved by four years' experience, that there was great depression, and that they would ask the French Government to I reciprocate more closely the extreme liberality which induced us to abandon the whole duty upon the importation of silk goods and ribadns.

said, that he was desirous of putting a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the view of clearing the honour and character of a public servant. On a former occasion he had referred to a document emanating from the Inland Revenue Department as a proof of the demoralizing effect produced by the operation of the Income Tax. That document, dated the 1st of March, 1849, directed the collectors who received the drainage rent charges in Scotland not to suggest to the payers that they were entitled to allowances for Income Tax, but to make the allowances only in case they should be asked for. He had chacterized the document as discreditable, and he understood that Mr. Fletcher, at the head of the Inland Revenue Office in Edinburgh, feared that he might be supposed to be involved in the censure then expressed. He, therefore, wished to state that he had been informed that Mr. Fletcher, so far from being implicated in drawing up that document, had taken the earliest opportunity of remonstrating against its tenour, and had suggested that the instructions should be reconsidered. He believed that they were reconsidered and withdrawn, and he, consequently, thought it right to I state what had come to his knowledge I with respect to Mr. Fletcher; but he regretted that in a matter of this kind, when I character was at stake, there should not be the possibility of acquitting every one; of the public officers concerned with the document, and he would be glad to see all of them eagerly rush, one after the other, to disclaim any responsibility with regard to the document in question. He was unwilling to fasten on any one the responsibility of a paper so discreditable. Holding very high the character of the public servants, he would be the last to cast any imputation on them. He believed that the country was singularly happy in having public servants distinguished for their high character and integrity, and, therefore, the blame was to be thrown, not on any one of the public servants, but upon the miserable law which the officers of the Inland Revenue Board were the unhappy instruments to carry into execution. In order that Mr. Fletcher's character might be entirely cleared, he would now beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be true that Mr. Angus Fletcher, the head of the Inland Revenue Department in Edinburgh, is in no way responsible for originating the Circular to Collectors of Drainage Rent Charges, dated the 1st of March, 1849; that, on the contrary, Mr. Fletcher remonstrated against the tenour of the Circular, and obtained authority for the Collectors to allow the Income Tax legally due to the parties paying the Drainage Annuities, whether they claimed it or not; and if he will lay upon the table of the House the instructions of the Board of Inland Revenue for the issue of the Circular, Mr. Fletcher's Remonstrance, and the Reply of the Board?

had great pleasure in answering the Question, as far as regarded the character of Mr. Fletcher; but he confessed he was sorry that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to give utterance to the highly fanciful doctrine that the vice of the document he had referred to had actually affected the moral tone of the officers of the Inland Revenue Board. When he first heard that doctrine he thought it might have been broached in the heat of debate, and he regretted to find that it was the hon. Member's permanent and serious conviction. The fact was, that the Board of Inland Revenue made a mistake, to the effect of requiring that the burden of applying for the deductions should be thrown on the parties, instead of the deductions being allowed at once without application; but to imply that that proceeding had a connection with any moral deterioration was a wholly unnecessary and gratuitous assumption. It was simply an error, and nothing but an error; and it was in the' nature of Revenue Boards, as it was in the nature of all persons engaged incessantly in business, occasionally to make errors. His hon. Friend could not have been so fortunate as never to have made a mistake. For his own part, he committed many mistakes himself, and found that others did the same. It did not, therefore, produce such marvellous astonishment in his mind when he learnt, that those performing such difficult duties as the Board of Inland Revenue once perhaps, in a thousand years, fell into an error. There was no necessity for making such a charge as the hon. Gentleman had done. A circular was issued to the effect that deductions would be allowed only to those persons who made application. Mr. Fletcher, so far from being responsible for it, no sooner learnt what had been done, than he wrote to the Board of Inland Revenue pointing out the error, and the Board immediately corrected it. That was the whole affair, and he could not help thinking his hon. Friend's charges were out of place. His hon. Friend had acquitted Mr. Fletcher; and he might have extended the acquittal to all parties concerned. As to the papers, he would have no objection to produce them if his hon. Friend moved for them; but he trusted that, after that explanation, he would not deem it necessary to do so.

said, he wished it to be understood that he made no attack on the officials. It was the system which they had to administer that was to blame.

in rising to move the Vote for the furtherance of Public Education, said, that the exceptional circumstances under which the Vote had been administered last year—two different systems, the Code of 1860 and the Revised Code having both been in operation—rendered it impossible to form a perfectly accurate estimate as to the expenditure for the coming year. The estimate, however, was fixed at £705,404. His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) who moved the estimate of last year, was under circumstances of similar difficulty to those in which he was now placed, and calculated the amount required at £804,002. In this estimate he had taken an ample margin, for the expenditure of last year was £721,391 against £774,743 in 1862, and there was, therefore, a diminution of £53,351. The reduction in the expendi- ture arose chiefly on two items—building grants, £24,831, and annual grants for the maintenance of schools, £37,143, Against those reductions, however, had to be placed increased payments of £9,516 for normal schools, which occurred mainly in Scotland, where far more persons were educated as teachers than were required for the purpose, and of £2,160 for the cost of inspection and administration. The cause which interfered with the accuracy of the estimate was, first of all, the fact that the Revised Code did not come into such general operation as was expected, 457,000 children being the number estimated as likely to be in average attendance and entitled to payment, while the actual attendance was only 180,005, Another reason was that all new schools which received grants during the past year were examined for the first time, and the scholars in these schools being necessarily less advanced than those under inspection the amount of grant paid in these cases was not so high. The result was that the payment per head, instead of being, as his right hon. Friend anticipated, 10s., was only 8s. 1d. There seemed to be good reason to believe that the payment would be greater in the coming year, and they had therefore, taken it at 9s. 3d. The number of children present at inspection in 1863 was 1,092,741, as against 1,057,426 in 1862, the increase being 35,315. During the year the building grants to elementary schools paid out of the Vote amounted to £36,681; but besides that there was contributed for building purposes by voluntary contributions £128,129; so that, altogether, £164,811 was expended on that account 125 new schools were built, 50 schools were enlarged, and 82 teachers' residences were erected. The number of scholars for whom additional accommodation was provided was 27,098; thus bringing the total accommodation up to 1,512,000 children, which probably corresponded pretty closely with the number on the books. The number of schools visited by the Inspectors was 7,739, or taking departments of schools—dividing them into boys, girls, and infants—11,230. These schools were taught by 10,136 certificated teachers, and 14,180 pupil-teachers, making a total of 24,316. The Inspectors also visited 40 training colleges, in which were 3,109 students, 179 schools for pauper children, with 12,454 scholars, which had been transferred to the Poor Law Board, and 26 industrial schools, with 2,159 children now transferred to the Home Department. These were the figures relative to the transactions of the past year. But it might interest the Committee to know the statistics with regard to two other years—1854, of which they had accurate Returns, and 1861, when the Vote was at the highest. The number of inspected schools was 3,825 in 1854, 7,705 in 1861, and 7,739 in 1863. The accommodation in the schools was in 1854 for 558,000 scholars, in 1861 for 1,396,000, in 1863 for 1,512,000. The number of scholars actually under inspection was 473,000 in 1854, 1,028,000 11,1861, and 1,092,000 in 1863. The cost in 1854 was £326,000; in 1861, £813,000; and in 1863, £721,000. It would be observed that of late years the ratio of increase was not so great as in the earlier years during which the Education Grant was made. No doubt, one reason why a lull had taken place was duo to the system on which the Vote rested—namely, that voluntary efforts were required to precede State grants, and certain securities were taken for the efficiency of the schools. Another reason was that in the first instance schools were established in the great centres of population, where they were most needed, and where the means existed in the greatest abundance for founding them. There were in England 14,877 parishes. More than half of the population of England and Wales—that was 10,000,000—were contained in 618 of these parishes. All but 53, or 8 per cent of the 618, were provided with schools more or less abundantly—all with one, and some with more. These 618 parishes had each 5,000 or upwards of population. There were, however, 8,761 parishes, having each a less population than 500; and only 765 of these, or 8·8 per cent, had schools receiving aid from the State. Of these 8,761 parishes, 4,149 had a population of less than 200. Consequently, it was in these cases almost impossible to provide schools according to the requirements of the Privy Council, unless means were taken to unite some of the parishes. The difficulty of doing so had been insisted on by the Royal Commission, and, although various attempts had been made, they had proved unsuccessful. It seemed extremely difficult to devise any plan, under the existing system, by which aid could be extended to small parishes. Another reason why educational progress had been less rapid of late years than formerly, arose from the religious circumstances of the country. One of the Articles of the Revised Code was, that the religious denomination of a school should be suitable for the families relied upon for supplying the scholars. Now, in most of the smaller parishes the clergyman was the person who took the most active part in the promotion of education, and he was generally supported by the landed proprietors. After connecting himself with the National Society, which represented the Church, he usually applied for aid to the Committee of Privy Council. But the difficulty which arose was this—that there were few small parishes in which there were not some Dissenters, for whose children a school under the regulations of the National Society was not suited. In the larger parishes where there was room for more than one school, schools might be founded upon the Church principles, and placed in connection with the National Society without doing injustice to the Dissenting population; and in those parishes where no Dissenters existed the difficulty would not arise at all; but wherever a certain proportion of the inhabitants—say, for example, one-fourth—were Dissenters, the question presented itself whether a school in connection with the National Society could, under the Revised Code, be properly assisted. The practice of the Education Committee in such cases was not what it had been asserted to be—to insist upon the insertion of conscience clauses which should protect the religious opinions of Dissenting children. In such cases they simply refused to make a grant; and when asked their reasons they stated that they were founded upon the obvious injustice of giving public aid to a school where the children of Dissenting parents were compelled, under pain of exclusion, to learn the Church catechism and to attend the Church. Wherever the promoters or managers of a school consented to give security for the protection of Dissenting children a grant was made; wherever that security was not given a grant was refused. It had been represented that this was an interference with religious teaching on the part of the Committee. No charge could be more unjust. All the Committee asked was, that a Dissenting parent should have the right of withdrawing his child, if he so pleased, from the religious teaching of a school in connection with the National Society; and the Royal Commissioners had pointed out the manifest injustice of compelling Dissenting children to attend the Church and learn the catechism. The French law, introduced into a Roman Catholic country by a Protestant Minister, was wise and liberal. It provided that the wishes of fathers of families should always be consulted and followed in that which related to the participation of their children in religious instruction. Surely in an eminently Protestant country it would be admitted that every man should be the director, not only of his own conscience, but of that of his children. Those who objected to the practice of the Privy Council said that no hardship really arose, because such was the liberality of feeling on the part of the clergy that rarely, if ever, did any clergyman or manager of a school insist upon the children of Dissenting parents learning the catechism or attending the Church. He admitted the zeal of the clergy in the cause of education, and the great liberality with which they had generally acted, even when in connection with the National Society, and seemingly under an obligation to insist upon attendance at church. Cases of violation of liberty of conscience were not frequent, but some had occurred, and within the last week he had heard of one where children of Dissenters were taken from school because the clergyman, acting under a conscientious sense of duty, insisted on their going to church. That intolerant feeling was not general; but religious sentiment on such points changed from time to time, and although at present the prevailing feeling among clergymen might be liberal, yet ten, twenty, or thirty years might produce a great alteration in their convictions and policy. It was, therefore, the duty of the Council, in every parish where only one school could be established, to see that perfect security was taken against the violation of the religious feelings of a Dissenting minority. In memorials and periodical publications, the course pursued by the Council had been untruly stigmatized as unjust and impolitic. Unjust he was sure it was not, while the impolicy rested with those who were guilty of intolerance. The past year was the first in which the examinations under the Revised Code had been brought into large operation. No fewer than 1,828 schools, at which the average attendance was 280,474, were examined. Out of these 280,474 children, 180,005, or about 64 per cent, were presented for examination; and it would be recollected that the children qualified for examination must have attended 200 times. There were examined under the first standard 70,407; under the second, 45,180; under the third, 35,991; under the fourth, 22,137; under the fifth, 4,671; under the sixth, 1,619. The total number of failures, excluding distinction of standards, was in day schools 17 per cent. There were failures in reading to the extent of 13 per cent; in writing, to the extent of 15 per cent and in arithmetic, to the extent of 23 per cent. The number of children under six years of age to whom grants were made without examination was 43,798, or about 15 per cent of the average number attending the same schools. The examinations were conducted in accordance with the supplementary rules issued as an authoritative answer to a vast number of questions addressed to the Council, both by managers and by the Inspectors themselves. Those rules were in strict conformity with the spirit of the Revised Code, and they were necessary in order to prevent confusion. The Royal Commission of 1861 reported that the children remained at school under more favourable circumstances till they were about twelve years of age, and under less favourable circumstances till they were ten years old; and the highest standard under the Revised Code did not go beyond what, in the opinion of the Commissioners, a child of ten years and upwards ought to be able to do on leaving school. The sixth or highest standard for the most advanced class, required that the scholars should be able to read a short paragraph in a newspaper, to write to dictation, and work a sum in bills of parcels; and if the children arrived at that point which, in the opinion of the Commissioners they were capable of reaching under a good system of examination, the number who presented themselves would not have been 1,589, or only about 2¼ per cent of the whole, but 70,000. The opinion of the Commissioners was supported by several of the Inspectors, and by one of those gentlemen whose opinions were much quoted in that House during the discussion of the Revised Code—he meant Mr. Fraser. Mr. Fraser's view of what a child of ten years old might fairly be called upon to do, and what it ought to be able to do, if the education he received was to be of permanent profit to him, was expressed in these terms—

"I venture to maintain that it is quite possible to teach a child soundly and thoroughly, in a way that he shall not forget it, all that is necessary for him to possess in the shape of intellectual at- tainment by the time he is ten years old. If he has been properly looked after in the lower classes he shall be able to spell correctly the words that he will ordinarily have to use; he shall read a common narrative—the paragraph in the newspaper he cares to read—with sufficient case to be a pleasure to himself and to convey information to listeners; if gone to live a distance from home, he shall write Ins mother a letter that shall be both legible and intelligible; he knows enough of ciphering to make out or test the correctness of a common shop bill; if he hears talk of foreign countries he has some notion as to the part of the habitable globe in which they lie; and underlying all, and not without its influence, I trust, upon his life and conversation, he has acquaintance enough with the Holy Scriptures to follow the allusions and arguments of a plain Saxon sermon, and a sufficient recollection of the truths taught him in his catechism to know what are the duties required of him towards his Maker and his fellow man."

That that standard was not reached under the present system was obvious, from the figures which he had adduced; and he knew not what stronger argument could be presented for the introduction of the Revised Code and a system of individual examination, than the fact that out of 70,000 children over ten years of age less than 1,600 of them on leaving school were able to pass the standard which, in the opinion of the Royal Commissioners, all such children ought to have reached. The question had been raised whether these supplementary rules under which the examination was conducted ought or ought not to be laid on the table. It was provided by the Revised Code that any new rule involving a material alteration of or departure from the Code should be laid on the table; and it was for the Department in the exercise of good faith and good sense to determine whether a rule was such a material alteration as that it should be submitted to the immediate consideration of the House. Sooner or later it was laid on the table, for the supplementary rules found their way into the annual Reports, and were submitted to the criticism of the House and the country. But he maintained that in that case there was no material departure from either the language or the spirit of the Code; that these rules were merely declaratory, that they were laid down for the public convenience, and that without them or some similar rules the system of examination that would have been enforced, had the narrowest interpretation been put upon the Revised Code, would have been a mere mockery. The examination had been determined, not by the choice of the Inspec- tors, but by the mere fact that the inspection fell due at a later time of the year; and, therefore, they might accept the results as a fair specimen of the state of education throughout the country. The Privy Council had not overlooked one danger which might arise from a too strict adherence to the letter of the Revised Code, and they had given instructions to their Inspectors not simply to examine into proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but to pay the greatest attention to the other requirements of a good school. That, he believed, was a regulation which would not be found fault with from any quarter. The instruction ran as follows:—

"The grant to be made to each school depends, as it has ever done, upon the school's whole character and work. The grant is offered for attendance in a school with which the Inspector is satisfied. If he is wholly dissatisfied (Article 50), and if the reasons of such dissatisfaction are confirmed (Article 51 E), no grant is made. You will judge every school by the same standard that you have hitherto used, as regards its religious, moral, and intellectual merits. The examination under Article 48 does not supersede this judgment, but presupposes it. That article docs not prescribe that if thus much is done a grant shall be paid, but unless thus much is done, no grant shall be paid. It does not exclude the inspection of each school by a highly educated public officer, but it fortifies this general test by individual examination. If you keep these distinctions steadily in view you will see how little the scope of your duties is changed."

The House would agree that if these principles were acted upon, not only would the schools throughout the country be firmly grounded in that which was admitted to be the basis of all learning, but the higher essentials of religious and moral training, order, and attention to those studies which opened and enlarged the mind, as, for example, geography, and such history as could be taught in a few years, or in the form of reading lessons, would be as well secured under the Revised Code as under the former system.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the causes which, in his opinion, had contributed to the lull which had taken place in the ardour of the promoters of education. Without disputing the existence of some of those causes, he could suggest one cause which was more powerful than them all—he meant the unwillingness evinced in many places to go on with the great educational work of 1839, from the distrust created in the minds of managers by the treatment they had received at the hands of the Department. From all he could learn of the state of opinion throughout the country, he thought there was growing up in the minds of those who took an interest in education a feeling that there was no sympathy for them in the Department at Whitehall; that they were there looked upon as plunderers of the public purse, as greedy harpies who desired to get as much as they could out of the Exchequer; and that the Department which they formerly regarded as their auxiliary and protector only viewed them as its enemy, and was contriving by every means in its power to diminish the grants by which their efforts were to be assisted. That was a most unfortunate impression to get abroad, yet it was one not without justification from the acts of the Department. To some of those acts the right hon. Gentleman had himself alluded at considerable length. First, as to the supplementary rules. There were two reasons why the supplementary rules needed a more ample defence than the right hon. Gentleman had offered for them. One of those reasons was the time at which the rules were issued. It was a characteristic of all the great changes in the educational system of late years, that they had always been reserved till the moment when Parliament disappeared. Those great changes were not brought forward in the spring, when the feeling of managers could be ascertained and expressed in Parliament. The Revised Code had been brought forward in July or August, and now those supplementary rules which had so modified that Code had also been left for July or August. Now, what was the effect of this? The Blouse would remember the severe contests which had taken place in respect to the Revised Code, and which terminated in a compromise. One of the most material points in that contest was that the test of age was no longer to be applied, but that the children were to be taken as presented by the managers of the schools. Trusting to the good faith of the Department, which the right hon. Gentleman told them—almost he thought with some irony—was its characteristic, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) withdrew his proposition: and though the right hon. Gentleman had, he believed, a large majority at his back, he consented to let the experiment, so modified, come into practice, and the Code became practically a law. Was he wrong in saying that the arrangement of which the children were to be taken as they came was one by the material points of the compromise? He held in his hands the words of Earl Granville, and he supposed it was not possible to bind the Department by a stronger pledge than the words of its head. Earl Granville said—

"With regard to the mode of examination, the grouping by age was given up; and what was now proposed was, that instead of four standard examinations two should be added, making six standard examinations altogether, and the children were to be examined according to those standards in the manner in which the managers or masters should present them."

That was the distinct statement of Earl Granville, and that pledge had been directly broken by the supplementary rules. Instead of being taken as the manage is presented them, the managers were obliged to present them in certain standards fixed by the office, and a heavy pecuniary fine was levied on them if they did not so present the children. As he understood the figures, in nearly 97 per cent of the schools the managers had been unable to comply with those supplementary rules. Were those supplementary rules necessary? The House would see that according to the rules of the Revised Code—no child in a successive year being allowed to be examined in the standard which he had been placed in the year before—if the Committee of Council had waited for six years, as the children came up from standard to standard they would have had what they wished, and there was no occasion for that arbitrary and harsh rule. The course which the Department had adopted was one of inducing the managers of schools to invest their money in additional undertakings, then suddenly corning down upon them without notice with a rule for which they were unprepared, and thus depriving them of that in the hope of which they had pledged themselves for payments which often they were very badly able to meet. There were other cases also which had weakened the faith of managers in the Department. He did not know whether managers of schools would continue to entertain the hopes with which they flattered themselves when coming under the sceptre of the right hon. Gentleman; but he would venture to express a hope that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to issue any new rules or minutes by which he intended to mulct those managers of what they received, he would at once make a clean breast of it, and inform the House what he proposed to do in August. Let not hon. Gentlemen be sent back to the country under the impression that a certain code of regulations was to be adhered to, and then when it was too late for remonstrance find out that there was an entire change of regulations. There were many other points with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware there was great discontent. There was the question of evening schools. Would the House believe that in many cases the Department required as a condition of aid to evening schools that the scholars should appear in the daytime to be examined? Why the very object of an evening school was to enable those who were not able to attend in the day to receive an education in the evening. He had heard of places in which the Committee of Council had directed the examination of evening schools to take place in the month of May. Evening schools were essentially a winter institution, in summer there was but little chance of getting those who attended them together, so that the Department fixed a time of day and a season of the year when it was impossible that the children should come together. There was one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which he had heard with regret. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had let the National Society alone. It was very well known that unhappy differences had existed between the National Society and the Privy Council Office; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had narrowed the issue very much and very unfairly in the way he stated them. It was not merely a question of a few children being allowed to go to church or not being allowed to go to church. What the difference was he believed to be this. There had for many years been a persistent effort on the part of the officials of the Education Office to get rid of the necessity of teaching a direct, clear, sharply defined form of religion. He believed those who worked the system at Whitehall would be glad if some system of amalgamated religion could be devised, by which the denominational principle would be done away with and the difficulties of the Department shelved for ever. Against this the National Society had protested. They believed there could be no earnest religious zeal unless it was based upon a particular religion, and that in an earnest and religious zeal were the whole bone and marrow of the educational movement of this country. If the Government once discouraged men of earnest religious principles from taking part in education, the whole spring of education would go. He therefore thought it would be wiser of the officials of the Education Office to refrain from trying to make religious men abandon the dogmas and the tenets which they held, and to oblige them to teach a mere diluted and general religion. By some of the regulations, there was a direct premium to managers of schools to teach religion in some form to which parents who were Dissenters would not object. There was a direct premium to amalgamate Dissent with the Church of England. He ventured to think that if the right hon. Gentleman held by the principles acted upon by his predecessor in this matter, he would foster an opposition to the Department which even his ability and kindliness of heart would not enable him to overcome.

said, it was not his intention to move any Resolution on that occasion in the direction of those which he had moved in the last year and the year before; nor should he trouble the Committee with many remarks. But he wished to take that opportunity of saying that, even on the showing of the Privy Council, the great inequality which still existed in the distribution of the Parliamentary grant was most unsatisfactory, and deserved the serious consideration of the House. He also wished to give notice, that should his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Department and himself be in their respective places in the following Session, he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the unassisted schools and the best mode of bringing them within reach of the Government grant. He thought it could not be considered satisfactory that there should still be 10,961 parishes without annual grant schools. The Privy Council in their Report had tabulated the parishes throughout the country, and had divided them into four classes—namely, the parishes with upwards of 5,000 inhabitants; the parishes with less than 5,000 and more than 1,000 inhabitants; the parishes with less than 1,000 and more than 500 inhabitants; and the parishes with less than 500 inhabitants. Of the parishes with more than 5,000 inhabitants 91½ per cent, according to the Report, contained one or more annual grant schools. Then, by tacking on the next class of parishes—those with less than 5,000 but more than 1,000 inhabitants—the Council made out that nearly four-fifths of the parishes of 1,000 inhabitants and upwards contained one or more annual grant schools. But if the House would allow him to make a different division, and separate parishes with more than 5,000 inhabitants from those with less than 5,000, they would find that out of 14,249 parishes containing less than 5,000 inhabitants each, with an aggregate population of 9,291,170, there were no less than 10,961 parishes, or upwards of 66 per cent of the whole, without annual grant schools. No one could contend that that was satisfactory. There was no other instance in which so large a sum of money was voted out of the annual taxation of the country for local purposes in such a way that only about one-half or two-thirds of the population received any benefit from the expenditure. If the parishes which were thus assisted paid for their schools out of their own rates he should not have a word to say; but they took money out of the pockets of the smaller parishes, which got no grant at all; and yet a great number of these smaller parishes were substantially fulfilling all the requisites of education, though, because they were either unable or unwilling to comply with certain arbitrary rules laid down by the Privy Council, they were deprived of any share in the expenditure. It had been thrown in his teeth by the Inspectors—at the instigation, he presumed, of the Privy Council—that he was anxious to apply some portion of the grant in aid of schools wholly undeserving of assistance, and he must say that the Inspectors had shown great fidelity to their employers in raking together a number of utterly worthless schools, kept by drunkards, by persons with one leg or one arm, and so on, and assuming that that was the class of school which he was anxious to assist. Now, he had never said one word to countenance any such doctrine. The doctrine which he had ventured to lay down had always been that which was understood to be the very foundation of the Revised Code—namely, payment by results; and he contended that the inspection, if it were good for anything at all, ought to be able to prove these results. Any Inspector who knew his business could tell in the course of an afternoon what the discipline and moral condition of a school were. He had had an opportunity of seeing a school examined—an Inspector having been sent down to visit his own school, which had no certificated master—and he could, therefore, speak with more authority than he formerly possessed as to the nature of the examination. He said distinctly that any Inspector accustomed to his business could tell in an afternoon what the condition of a school was, and whether it was entitled to a grant; and he maintained that the proof of a schoolmaster's claim to assistance was the condition of his school, and not any examination which he might undergo at Christmas or any other time under the direction of the Privy Council. One point of very great importance was brought out forcibly in the Report, and to this he wished to call attention—he meant the condition of the pupil-teacher system. He had always complained of the rule of the Revised Code, which either rendered the employment of pupil-teachers compulsory, or subjected the managers to loss of the grant if they did not employ pupil-teachers. Now, it was right that the Committee should know what was the state of the case as regarded the pupil-teachers. In the first place, as to their intellectual status, Mr. Brodie, one of the Inspectors, had on several occasions dwelt very much upon the knowledge of grammar possessed by the pupil-teachers, and last year he stated his opinion in the following words:—

"I noticed in several of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors for last year complaints as to pupil-teachers' grammar, and in a former Report I also called attention to this point. I regret to add that I do not think them improved in this respect. As a body they have no notion, I will not say of composing (the term is too exalted), but of making any simple statement, describing any intellectual process, as of the operations in arithmetic, answering any question, either orally or on paper, in a short, clear, grammatical way. Their papers generally, indeed, disclose far worse grammatical faults, from which they do not get free even in their fifth year—at least, very often—while they retain also strange idioms of their own."

Such was the knowledge of grammar possessed by the boys and girls who were considered indispensable to any good system of education in this country, and of whom he believed there were still 24,000 on the staff. It seemed, however, from the account given by Mr. Brodie, that the system was breaking down. That Inspector gave a frightful list of the number of pupil-teachers disabled by sickness during a very short period. Out of 542 to whom he referred, 214 had been disabled by sickness, and many of them had died. Mr. Brodie said, indeed, that, though it was not his own opinion that pupil-teachers as a rule, and if properly selected and watched over, were overworked, many other persons most competent to judge, such as physicians, surgeons, and the most thoughtful among the managers and teachers in his district, held a different view. That statement was not to be wondered at, and in the appendix to the Report of Mr. Brodie, who was, on the whole, an advocate of the system, some striking letters were to be found on the subject. One of his correspondents, a Mr. Steele, said:—

"I think my girls have all been most tried in the institution. I have had nine there, and all have come away with their constitutions greatly shattered with the exception of two. I do think the study there is quite too much for any young person to bear. Some of them left me quite strong, and came back completely worn out in mind and body."

Mr. Rowntree wrote—

"My observation at Hope Street has convinced me that the work which our pupil-teachers have to perform is excessive, and that the majority of young men cannot stand such work without injury to health, while not a few are deterred from becoming pupil-teachers by a knowledge of what they would have to perform. If by the present system you secure a higher standard of literary acquirement, it is, I believe, often at the cost of that freshness and elasticity of spirit without which there can be little sympathy with children, and no great success in the imparting of knowledge."

Such being the case, he was not surprised at the statement made by Mr. Moncrieff, who, in his Report for 1863, said —

"On the whole, it seems that pupil-teachers are likely to disappear, or be reduced to a very small number, confined, probably, to a few town schools. There is no evidence as yet that they will be replaced to anything like the full extent by second or assistant masters. The causes are chiefly two—the increased scarcity of candidates and the still greater scarcity of funds. It is in vain to tell managers that the pupil-teachers will pay for their stipend by the increase of the grant; the answer is conclusive; on the one hand it is more than doubtful whether the services even of a good pupil-teacher will increase the grant by £10, which is equivalent to twenty-five children passing in all subjects; on the other hand, this is at least uncertain, and school committees are seldom in a position to incur certain liabilities on the strength of contingent, not to say improbable, income."

That being the case, as reported even by the Inspectors themselves, he thought it would be wise if his right hon. Friend could dispense with that regulation at least which rendered the employment of pupil-teachers all but compulsory on school managers. He wished, in the next place, to say a word or two respecting the mode of examination—a subject which was referred to by Mr. Matthew Arnold in his Report. This gentleman observed that the new method of examination did not afford Inspectors the same means of drawing out the children and of ascertaining really what they could do that was afforded under the old system; and when he (Mr. Walter) lately had an opportunity of seeing a school inspection, it struck him forcibly that that was the case. If it were not a breach of confidence, he might add that the Inspector was very much of the same opinion, and observed to him that under the new system of examination it was impossible to get at the intelligence of the children, to ask them questions which would draw out their minds and prove what they really understood, so well as under the old system of inspection. The children were required to read a certain number of lines, to do a sum, and write a copy, but as to putting any question which would test their general knowledge and understanding, nothing of the kind was attempted, and when he (Mr. Walter) suggested that such a course of examination might as well be attempted, the answer was that there was no time for it, and that it would be impossible to get through the work if that system were pursued. He should postpone what he might have to say on that and other points connected with the subject, but on a future occasion he hoped to enter more fully into the question, and should certainly move for a Committee to inquire into the best mode of bringing all the unassisted schools within the reach of the Government grant.

said, that following the example set by others, he would confine his remarks to a few objections which he entertained to various parts of the educational system, and especially to the proceedings of the past year as reported in the papers just laid before the House. On two occasions he had brought under notice the course pursued with regard to the endowed schools. On one occasion he was so strongly supported by the opinion of the House, that the Government were obliged to modify their proceedings. On the second occasion, when he protested even against the modification, he believed with the right hon. Member for Droitwich, that he was only defeated by an accident. Be- lieving that if the House attended for a moment to the subject they would alter the minutes passed by the Committee of Council respecting endowed schools, he wished to announce his firm intention not to rest until he had convinced the House that the minutes must be withdrawn. He could not believe that the House would for an instant countenance the rule that schools being supported by private contributions and by Government aid, where private persons had secured their own private contribution, the Treasury should step in and reckon any such secured private contribution in relief of the public charge. That was a proposition which he believed could not be maintained. He hoped on the earliest occasion at the meeting of Parliament in the following year, that the question would be brought again before the attention of hon. Members, the forms of the House precluding the possibility of their raising it a second time during the present Session. If it should not, however, be brought again before the House, and if the principle were really to be established, that the moment a man's subscription was secured that subscription was to be regarded as belonging to the public treasury, they ought, in common justice, to pass a law enabling those liberal individuals by whom contributions had been secured to schools, to cancel the deeds which they had drawn, and place their subscriptions upon the same footing which they occupied before they had met with such rough treatment. He had several exceptions to take to the practice of the Department, and the first matter to which he would advert was the issuing of supplementary rules. He would give one or two illustrations, though it was chiefly to the principle that he objected. The principle had been laid down that "supplementary rules stand to the code in much the same relation as cases decided under a statute to the statute itself." The Report from which he quoted those words was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President; but he presumed the Report was rather that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne. [Mr. Lowe: No!] Decisions of the Judges, however, were simply interpretations of the law, and not, as in the case of the supplementary rules, additions and alterations. Unless the House abrogated the functions which it possessed, the decisions of the Judges could be nothing more than the determination of doubtful intention, and when once decided the decision was recorded and considered so fixed amongst Judges, that no other Judge ventured to alter it except upon very strong grounds. In no case in England did a Judge pretend to vary a law, or make a new law. That power existed in America to a certain extent, but that was only the result of the imperfections of democratic legislation. Supplemental rules were not justifiable then if they ever departed from or added to the minutes they intended to supplement. It was hard enough to understand the minutes, confused, complicated, and obscure as they were, and their concoction was quite sufficiently removed from the control and cognizance of the House; but it was still worse to have supplementary rules besides, which in every respect were open to greater complaint. Take, for instance, the supplementary rule about an imperative standard under which children were to be examined. All that the Revised Code said upon the subject was that every scholar was to be examined according to one of the standards, and that no pupil was to be examined a second time on the same standard. The Report which came out the same year, and which was meant to be explanatory of the law, went further, and said that children were to be presented for examination according to standards selected by those interested in their success. The supplementary rules stated still further that no grant would be paid to a school, not being one for evening scholars or infants only, unless one class was presented as high as standard 3, and that a deduction of at least one-tenth would be made from the grant to a school unless one class was presented above standard 3. He maintained that the supplementary rules were not capable of defence if they went further than the terms of the minute, which they pretended to supplement. He would mention one or two other cases, though in the state of the Committee (about sixteen Members were present) he should not go into the subject as fully as he might otherwise have done. He might, however, say, that complaints were made by the managers of schools in all parts of England of what they considered to be a departure from the understanding conveyed by the Revised Code. But besides these supplementary rules, there was another way of altering the code, and that was by means of instructions. One of these papers, issued in 1862, contained forty-one instructions. One of them, No. 7, directed that, an infant school, forming part of a larger school under a certificated teacher, must have a certificated teacher itself. At the close of the letter the intention appeared; it was to bring the infant school as well as the larger school under certificated teaching. But if this object were good it ought to have been carried out, not by instructions, but by a new minute. There was a condition introduced without the knowledge of any one, which condition in many cases had a penal operation. He recollected reading one letter from a clergyman, the tone of naive remonstrance in which greatly amused him. The writer complained that the nature of the grant had totally changed from what it was under the Revised Code, and he was told in reply that he did not appear to be acquainted with a certain letter of 1863. The clergyman frankly confessed that he had not seen the letter, and had never even heard of it. Laws issued in the course of twelve months did not even come under the notice of the House until the following year, much less could a country clergyman be expected to be thoroughly acquainted with them. There was a stipulation in the Revised Code as to the number of pupils for whom one pupil-teacher was required, and it was expressly stated that the number was to be reckoned according to the average attendance at the school. But the 37th instruction stated that the attendance was to be decided by "the largest number of scholars present at one time together." That alteration would press most severely upon the rural schools, which, in reality, ought to be dealt with the most leniently. The attendance at one season of the year would naturally be much larger than at another. He had now only one other objectionable mode of proceeding to mention, and that was the circulars, which he regarded as being quite as objectionable as either the supplementary rules or instructions. In the Revised Code of 1862, Articles 123 and 124 provided that the allowances to normal schools in respect to each student examined should be so much for the first year and so much for the second, without any reference to the fact of their being Queen's scholars or not. In the edition of 1864 those two articles were omitted, and this omission was explained in a circular which was issued several months before in 1863 from the secretary's office, in which it was said that it was thought necessary to explain those two articles, and that they really meant that no candidate who failed to pass the examination for admission should gain the grant to the college on his account as a certificated teacher. That made a most material difference, whether it were right or wrong. There was this fact also to be observed in connection with the circular which explained the article in question, that it anticipated the decision of 1864 by six months, the secretary who issued it taking upon himself to pass a Minute in anticipation six months before it came out. He also observed that in the Report it was stated that the grants for evening schools were still under consideration. He had received many letters of complaint that in other respects there had been a material departure from the conditions laid down in the Revised Code; for instance, that the number of days during which evening schools must be open had been considerably increased, and the conditions rendered much more severe. Now his proposition had always been that supplementary rules and alterations, whether issued in circular letters or by instructions, if they amounted to an alteration in the minutes which had been sanctioned by the House, should be put forward in the shape of new minutes, and submitted to the House. He went still further, and contended that it was most essential that some steps should be taken to make the House more acquainted with the introduction of new minutes. He would wish that the Minister, having laid upon the table a new minute, should give notice that he had done so; but he had been told upon the highest authority that it was not usual to pass a rule to compel a Minister to make a speech. It might be difficult to prescribe the exact form, but he thought there should be some way of making the House aware that a minute had been laid upon the table, which, if not objected to for a month, should become law. Then, as to a passage in the Report referring to the National Society, he, being a Vice President of that Society, wished to say a few words. The Report seemed to say that the terms of the National Society in some places excluded public grants, and that the grants would have been larger this year had it not been for those terms of the National Society. He presumed that it was meant that the Education Department felt that it could not properly vote public money to exclusive schools—to schools that were so exclusive in their terms as to shut out the children of Dissenters in places where the population was not sufficient for two schools. Supposing that to be the principle intended, he would observe that that principle had never been distinctly laid down, and it would be much better, in his opinion, to lay down definite and intelligible principles than to enter upon long and inconclusive correspondence with the National Society. That, however, would be assuming that the terms of the society were exclusive, which he denied. In cases such as were referred to he knew that in practice the children of Dissenters did make use of those schools. It might be said that if such were the case why did not the society take credit for their liberality and say so; but there was an obvious reason. The society was willing to admit Dissenters' children, but if they were to advertise that every Dissenter might make an objection to his child following the ordinary religious teaching in the school, it would be inviting objections which would impair the efficiency of these schools. The society was willing to meet objections when they were made, but they did not want to bind themselves and invite interference. At the same time he was willing to agree that the Department should lay down a rule that places, where there was not population sufficient for two schools, and where there were Dissenters who wished to send their children to school, should not receive a grant of public money without the conscience clause being introduced in the deed. He wished to call attention to another point—one to which he had referred upon former occasions—the removal of some public schools from the Educational Department to another. That evil was, he was sorry to find, still on the increase. In the Report he found it stated that pauper schools and industrial schools were now placed under the Home Office and the Poor Law Board, on the pretext that the reasons which dictated the association of the Education Department with those schools no longer existed. He should think rather all schools supported by public money should be placed under the control of the National Educaational Department, which would produce a complete Report and lead to a simpler system of inspection. It was difficult to understand why there should be separate Inspectors for the Home Office, the Poor Law Board, and the Education Department, to visit different schools in the same town. Such a separation of account also placed it almost beyond the power of the House to know how much money was expended altogether on schools. In conclusion he wished to congratulate the Vice President, or rather the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe)—upon the satisfactory remarks of the Inspectors upon the working of the Revised Code. He had himself supported the changes made in the Education Code, and had never foreseen the disadvantage which some had anticipated would flow from its adoption; but he had not expected that so early as 1863 all the Inspectors—as far as he had seen—in their Reports should express such strong approval of that measure of which many of them had felt great misgivings. With the cordial cooperation of the Inspectors additional vigour would be imparted to local management, and the result would be a useful check on the expenditure of public money. He hoped the Department would take into consideration the recommendations made that evening for a more uniform system of working, and for making more prominent all intended changes of rules, and he had no doubt their efforts would be rewarded by a great advance in the cause of education.

said, he was almost at a loss to conceive what was the cause of the apathy observable on a question of such great importance. During the last hour the Benches opposite had been occupied by only three hon. Members, although the Vote under consideration involved an expenditure of £1,300,000, while the Ministerial side of the House could only show a number which he would not specify lest it might be a provocation to the arrest of public business. He believed the apathy was caused partly by the deadening effect which money granted by the State invariably produced, and he was of opinion that it would be much more satisfactory if the State would leave education alone.

observed, that the theory of the hon. Gentleman that diminished interest was owing to the largeness of the sums voted did not hold good in all points, for they were discussing Estimates which were considerably less than those of former years. The sum they were then called on to vote was £705,000 as against £804,000 last year, and £840,000 two years ago. The decrease was no less than 16 per cent on the whole sum granted for the promotion of education. But while there was that reduction on the Vote for education as it stood two years ago, the expense of the administration of the system had increased 17 per cent during the same period. The year before last they had voted £66,299 for the expense of the office; last year the expense was £72,000; and that year it amounted to £77,800. That increase was a little remarkable, and might give some clue to the solution of the difficulty proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said the interest had diminished, and that was explained by the fact that the House found itself unable to deal with the matter, and more and more at the mercy of the Department which administered the grants. The House had, as well as it could, expressed its views and enforced them on the Government, but only to see them quietly set aside, having no power to resist what was going on. Hon. Members, therefore, gave it up very much as a bad job. There were one or two points in the dealings of the Committee of Privy Council during the last two years which were unsatisfactory. Against some of those dealings he considered it necessary to enter a protest. He did not wish to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President, or with the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President (Mr. Lowe), who, he thought, had very hard measure dealt to him by the House. He was not disposed to use severe language either with respect to him or to the administration of the office; but they were dealing with a system which was excessively complicated and difficult to understand. The House had not been able to apply its mind to all the details of the system. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that a great deal of trust should be reposed in the administrative body; and so long as there was a want of harmony between the House and that body there would be continual complaints. There were two points to which he would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, which very much affected managers of schools. It should be remembered that managers of schools were not mere bloodsuckers endeavouring to get all the public money they could for purposes of their own. They were men labouring, giving their time, money, and abilities to carry on a system which they deemed for the public good. The particular system they were administering was not invented by them. It was created and forced on them by the Government. It was the agitation in that House, aided by the Committee of Council, which led to the establishment of schools on principles which two years ago were universal as regarded all the schools connected with the Government. The Report of the Committee of Council admitted the propositions which he had laid down. The Department thought it desirable to inoculate the whole country with its system of training masters and pupil-teachers and other modes of promoting education, and these were engrafted on the old system of education in the country. What was the consequence? The managers incurred responsibilities both moral and pecuniary. Then in 1862 the Department of the Government which had fostered that feeling swept away the old system, and adopted an entirely new one. In these circumstances the Government should have been as tender as possible in their dealings with those who had been placed in this position in order to carry out the views of the Department. An effort should have been made to make their position as little painful as possible. He was sorry to say very much the reverse of this had been the case. The managers had contracted obligations with the masters, and also with the pupil-teachers. When the Department came to alter the system, how did they deal with each of these cases? The managers found themselves bound at the time to secure certain payments to the master, which payments had been fixed with reference to the mode which the Department had adopted with regard to the augmentation of salaries. They had agreed to give a salary of £40, because they knew there was an augmentation of £20 from the State. There were also pupil-teachers who received payment from the State. The right hon. Member for Calne said he would endeavour to meet the case of the masters by making it a condition of the grant, that the managers of schools should give to the masters a certain amount of payment, which amount should be adjusted to the amount of their former payment from the Department—that was to say, that the managers should pay to the masters three times the sum that the augmentation grant represented, so that if the augmentation grant was £20 they were bound to pay him £60. Then came the question with regard to pupil-teachers, and after some consideration and discussion the Government pro- posed to continue them to the end of their apprenticeship, and pay them the same as they otherwise would have been paid, and that their salaries should be paid as a second charge out of the earnings of the school. And further, that if the earnings of the school, according to payment by results, were not sufficient to meet the charges for the pupil-teachers, the Government promised to make good the deficiency. The interpretation, and the natural interpretation, that was put upon the two offers of the Government by nineteen-twentieths of the Members of that House and the managers of schools was, that if the school had earned a certain amount from results, the portion which the Government had proposed to secure to the masters should be first paid to them, and afterwards the amount due to the pupil-teachers, the Government making up any deficiency that might arise. To the astonishment of the managers, however, the Government said otherwise. They said the first charge was—and he could not really use any other word—mere moonshine, and that the only charge they considered themselves bound to pay was to make up any deficiencies that might arise with regard to pupil-teachers, which thus became practically the first and only charge. An illustration of the consequences following from the course the Government had taken was afforded by the case of the school of St. Ive, at Liskeard. The Rev. Mr. Hob-house, writing to the Committee of Council on Education, said—

"Our school and its master satisfy every condition of Article 51 B, and he has, therefore, under that article, a claim upon the grant now received, amounting to £21 10s., the value of his certificate under the Code of 1860. When he shall have received this, there will remain in our hands out of the grant now announced by you the sum of £9 18s. But the pupil-teacher has a claim (as second charge under Article 54) for his stipend of £17 10s., and the master for his gratuity of £5 for instructing the pupil-teacher. There thus appears a deficiency of £12 12s."

Mr. Hobhouse wrote to ask that these twelve guineas might be paid over, but the Privy Council refused to do so. That, he feared, was one case out of a large number of a similar character, and on a former occasion he gave notice for a Return of all the refusals that had been made under the Revised Code of the same kind; but he was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, as no doubt would have been the case, that it would entail a search through a large amount of correspondence, and it would put the Department to a deal of trouble—which he had no wish to do—that there was no distinction in the principle in all the cases, and that there were several of them; and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) fancied there were a great many of them. [Mr. Lows: No.] At all events there were several, and they all turned upon the same point—namely, that the master was ignored, and the pupil-teacher alone recognized. He had given the subject his serious attention, and he had examined carefully all that passed in Parliament on the subject. Some discussion took place upon it last Session, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne gave him an answer on the subject; and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) was bound to say that, after carefully looking into all that had passed, he could not say that the Department had been guilty of anything in the nature of a breach of faith in the case, but at the same time he thought there had been harsh and severe treatment adopted towards the managers. In point of fact, by the requirements of the Privy Council the managers were placed in a difficult position, for they were bound to continue payment to pupil-teachers whom they had not themselves engaged; and there was a case illustrative of the difficulties sometimes arising within his own knowledge. It had not been brought under the notice of the Privy Council, and never would, because the person primarily interested was well able to bear any claims that might be made. The school was supported by a country gentleman in a small parish; it had worked extremely well, and attracted a number of children from other parishes. After a time the manager asked and obtained leave to take first one pupil-teacher, and then a second; and, after some time, the school grew to a considerable size, and the master received payment for both those pupil-teachers. When the Revised Code was issued the master became alarmed, but the manager promised that he should be no loser, and that they would tide over the difficulty. But when they came to settle accounts, having only seven months to deal with as the inspection on account of the change had taken place unusually early, the manager found that he had lost his capitation grant of £14 or £15 a year, and though 95 per cent of the children attended and passed their examination he had to pay nearly £20 to the master to put him in the same position as before. That was the case of a school wealthily supported, and no complaint had been made, but suppose the case had been one of a parish school in a remote district, where the loss must fall cither on the master or the clergyman who could not hope to raise additional subscriptions. In the case he had mentioned the two pupil-teachers were just under their time, and by restricting the operations of the school a little, the manager would eventually get back pretty much to his old position. But cases constantly arose where for three or four years the pupil-teacher's apprenticeship had still to run, and it was during those periods that consideration was most needed. He did not ask any favour for managers, or that they should be bloated with money; but when by a course of legislation they had been brought into a certain position and saddled with obligations from which it was impossible to withdraw with honour, it was but charitable and just that Government should make such arrangements as would enable them to tide over the difficulty. Had the propositions of the Government been carried out in the way they were understood by the House and the country, he believed the dissatisfaction and complaints which had arisen would have been entirely obviated. He rejoiced that the attendance in the Committee was limited that evening, for last year, when he brought forward the question in a full House, it was impossible to gain the attention of hon. Members. How was it possible to expect that 500 or 600 Gentlemen would enter into all the minutiæ of that widely ramified system? Many considerations led him to believe that they were erroneously endeavouring to achieve a complicated work by a centralized administration, and that the difficulties could not be met unless they were prepared to enter upon a different system. [Mr. ADDERLEY: Hear, hear!] He knew what was meant by the cheer of his right hon. Friend; but that field of discussion was too wide to be entered upon just then. He would pass to another point—that of the standards; and he must say that there he did charge upon the Department something as near to a breach of faith as was consistent with the habits of the Board. How they could reconcile to their consciences having put out these supplementary Estimates he was at a loss to understand. An opinion expressed by Earl Granville in the House of Lords had been quoted. In the debates in the House last year, the subject of grouping by age was a good deal discussed. Much might be said both for and against grouping by age. The House was, however, opposed to grouping by age, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) gave way, and stated that a system of payment according to standard would be adopted. [Mr. LOWE: Examination according to standards, not payment.] On that occasion Mr. Puller, whose death was a great loss to the House, put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. Mr. Puller was alive to all the difficulties and intricacies of the subject, and he asked the Vice President of the Council whether it was right that John Thomas, a boy of the first-class, but very young, should be presented for a standard below that of the first-class. It was obviously for the credit of the school that as many boys as possible should present themselves for the first-class, but it was for the pecuniary interest of the school that he should be at first in as low a standard as possible, and present himself for a higher standard afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question whether it would be in the power of the master to place him in any standard, said that it would be so, but that when he had been once placed the minute would take hold of the child and fix his position. From that question and answer and the debate altogether the Committee had a right to assume, that it would be in the power of the managers of schools to present a child upon any standard they pleased on the first occasion, and that they would not be bound by rules contrary to the statements made in that House. And yet the supplementary rules, that professed to be an exposition and explanation of the Revised Code, went into minute details that rendered it utterly impossible for any child to be presented for a different standard from the class in which he was examined. He would not go into the policy of such a regulation; he only contended that it was a violation of the understanding arrived at by the House. When hon. Members found, after so many nights' attendance and discussion, that it was impossible to bind the Government to an understanding so distinctly come to, it was sufficient to account for Houses as thin as that of that evening. He wished to press upon the Vice President of the Committee of Council that he must consider the feelings and infirmities of those with whom he had to deal. The present was an artificial system. He should have preferred a somewhat different system, but that which existed was a centralized system administered by a body sitting at Whitehall, and knowing very little of the feelings of the managers of country schools. He trusted that the present Vice President would lay aside that primness and stiffness that almost of necessity belonged to an official system. He did not sympathize with all the indignation felt against the Education Department by the country managers. But the Privy Council had no doubt sinned on the side of unnecessary harshness, sharpness, and severity towards the managers, who were giving a great deal of their time and money to the work of education. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. A. Bruce) in his official administration to endeavour to smooth over the suspicions and feelings that had been excited, and to give peace again to a body of men who were labouring in a good work and assisting in the education of the poor.

said, he might as soon find his way through Bradshaw's Guide as attempt to master a Revised Code which hardly a dozen men in the House understood. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down truly called it an artificial system, and said they all knew from the complaints that were made how difficult it was to work out the rules and regulations of the Board. Perhaps some explanation of these complaints would be found in the distribution of the grants. The sum devoted for education in England and Scotland was £721,391. Of that large sum the Church of England schools received £416,392, while all the other school's in England only got £137,670. Now, would any one tell him that the members of the Church of England were as 416,000 to 137,000 of the population? The difficulty arose from the whole system being denominational. In Scotland the sums distributed were—to the Established Church, £52,477; the Free Church, £39,897; Episcopalians, £4,476; and the Roman Catholics, £2,230. The total exceeded £99,000, of which the Established Church got more than half. To say that the Established Church had one-third of the number of children was giving it a large allowance. The Free Church and the United Presbyterians were each of them near it in numbers, and nothing could be more unfair than that it should have more than half the grants. The Episcopal Church got £4,476, and the Roman Catho- lie only £2,230. Now, the wealthiest persons in Scotland were Episcopalians, while their number was very much smaller than that of the Roman Catholics. It appeared from the Census that there were eight marriages among the Roman Catholics to one among the Episcopalians; which shows that the Roman Catholics were greatly more numerous than the Episcopalians, and they needed aid most; but, for all that, the wealthy body with the smaller number of children got twice as much money from the State as the poorest and the more numerous class. Now, as the whole system seemed to him one of inequality, and therefore of injustice, it was high time to look into it. If a plan could be devised by which they could have one school in every parish or educational district, it was not necessary that it should be called Church of England, Presbyterian, or denominational of any kind: were this disregarded, it would be so much the better. If he were a manager he would take the best master he could find, no matter to what denomination he belonged, whether Quaker or High Church There would be some difficulty with the Roman Catholics, but there would be none in getting Protestants of all denominations to read the New Testament in the school, and then, if a man of sound religious principles, no matter what sect he belonged to, were put at the head of it, religion would be better taught than when the master was obliged to teach the children some sectarian creed. The denominational system was not successful in teaching religion, and therefore he would have no creed at all taught in the school; that might be done by the clergyman or parents at other times. But according to the present system they gave grants to those who did not want them, and withheld them from those who did. He had taken great interest in a ragged school where Roman Catholics and Protestants were taught together; but they could not get a small sum from the Board to enable the school to be maintained. The Board said, "If the children are paupers, let them go to the poorhouse; if they are criminals let them be put into gaol." At the last examination of the school he made some inquiry into their funds, and found that more money was got for the school through the Industrial School Act than they had actually asked for before; but he found that it was got in this way—some of the children were brought up before the magistrates for petty offences, and then, when they were branded as criminals, a grant was given for them. But would it not have been better to save the children from the brand which, through the fault of some, to a certain extent, was attached to the whole school?

Sir, I have listened with much attention to the interesting discussion which has taken place upon this subject, and I confess that I am glad to see so thin a House upon the occasion; because I do not think it possible to have a good practical discussion in a crowded House upon a question in the abstract so dry. I have no desire to enter at any length into the subject after the able speeches that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and the hon. Member for Edinburgh. But there are nevertheless one or two points upon which I am desirous of saying a few words. Now it appears to me that, from some cause or another, the present system of National Education is regarded throughout the country with dissatisfaction and distrust. I am not disposed to attribute this dissatisfaction and distrust to individual feeling, but rather to the system itself. But while I am conscious of the defects of the system I am willing to admit that it is very difficult, after a certain system has so long existed and grown up to such an extent as the present one, to tear it up by the roots, and substitute for it another system of a wholly different character. If the evils complained of could be corrected without resorting to so strong a remedy, no doubt such a correction would be most desirable, and I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has a great opportunity before him. The whole of this interesting subject has been dealt with in a most able and argumentative manner in the Report of the Royal Commission. There is scarcely one of the defects of the system that is not boldly handled, and if the right hon. Gentleman would but direct his attention to that Report, with a determination to act as the really responsible head of the Department of Education, I believe that he would find that the recommendations of the Commissioners afforded elements for the engrafting upon the present system material improvements which would go far to correct the evils so generally complained of. I heard with much satisfaction the notice which was given this evening by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), an- ticipating as I do the most beneficial results from the Committee of Inquiry which he proposed next Session to move for. The fact that the unassisted schools derive no benefit from the grant is one of the most serious character. It is a mystery to me how hon. Members representing in this, House the whole of the population, can consider it consistent with their duty to vote away nearly one million of money taken from taxes contributed by the whole population, and devote it to the interest of not more than one-half of them. I think it is inconsistent with our duty to give our consent to a distribution of the public money so partial and unequal. If there be one cause more than another which leads to the total neglect of a great portion of the population, it is, I believe, the excessive centralization of the system. I have again and again entreated the right hon. Gentleman opposite to reflect upon this fact, and have said that I do not believe that you will ever get the education system satisfactorily worked until you have largely called local assistance to your aid. We employ local assistance in almost every other branch of our administration; why, then, should we exclude it in regard to National Education? I believe that the elements of local assistance exist at present in a manner deserving of our consideration. I allude to the diocesan boards now established in almost every county, and which I think might be made available for the carrying out of the system. I have thought if a plan could be framed by which those diocesan boards could be brought into harmonious action with a central department, that you might rapidly organize a system which would go far to correct a grave defect—namely, the want of the assistance to those small schools which cannot at present come into your terms. If you will look to the Report of the Royal Commission you will find some such suggestion made. I think that this suggestion is well worthy the consideration of the Government before the arrival of the next Session, when a Committee of Inquiry will be moved for by the hon. Member for Berkshire. Such a question could not be placed in abler hands than that of the hon. Gentleman, who has so long distinguished himself by the manner in which he has promoted the cause of education. I am quite sure that if that Committee be moved for, neither the Government nor this House will refuse it. Before, however, the time arrives for that Motion, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he cannot obviate the necessity for such an inquiry by proposing some scheme which will correct the evils which have been so often adverted to, and which it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to deny. My hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) has alluded to another subject, which is well worthy the consideration of the Government. I mean the present system under which new minutes are from time to time laid upon the table. I think that we ought not to submit to the continuance of this system, believing it to be open to grave objections and serious inconvenience. Now the 150th and 151st sections of the Revised Code were passed in order to give security against the possibility of surprise; notwithstanding which, I think we have reason to complain of the many and sudden changes that are made from time to time in the system. It appears to me that whatever new minutes may be thought necessary during the year, they should not be made until the month of January, when they might be embodied in the new Code, and then laid before Parliament, so that Parliament should have a full opportunity of considering the changes. Unless such a construction is put upon those articles I confess I see much evil arising from them. It is impossible to expect that the attention of this House can be constantly directed to those frequent changes from day to day and from month to month, indicated by the new minutes laid before the House, while it would be a great advantage if it were understood that there was one particular period of the Session when the Minister of Education would draw the attention of the House to any proposed change. There is one other subject to which I wish to allude. I mean the question of the conscience clauses. An important correspondence has taken place, and been laid on the table, between the Government Department of Education and the National Society. Now, I feel I should be shrinking from my public duty if I did not say that I think the Committee of Council are essentially right in requiring the insertion of those clauses. I deeply regret the part which the National Society has taken in this matter. It is very painful for me to be compelled to declare my disapprobation of any part of the conduct of a society to which the country is so much indebted for the admirable spirit and zeal in which for many years it has promoted education. Never- theless I feel compelled to say I think that the position which the National Society has taken up in respect to these clauses is wholly indefensible, because they require all schools to conform to their terms of union. Now those terms preclude a minority of Dissenters from benefiting by those schools. The answer of the National Society is, no doubt, "We have given you a discretion." But I consider that it is impossible to accept this answer, because I look upon it as really no answer at all. How unfair it is to those who act under the terms of the union to say you have a discretion! One clergyman finds it perhaps consistent with his conscience to avail himself of that discretion. But another says "I feel myself bound by the terms of union, and must act upon them." I will go so far as to say that this defence resorted to by the National Society really, I think, aggravates the case, because it makes the case of the Dissenter of one parish different from that of another. I trust that the day-may come when the National Society will see fit to put an end to this state of things by altering their charter and the terms of union. At all events, it appears to me that the Committee of Council are only doing their duty in pursuing the course which they have taken.

said, he fully concurred in the expression of regret uttered by the right hon. Baronet, that the National Society were not inclined to relax its rules, which were inconsistent with the existing circumstances of the country; but he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that a general system, which he believed the people would not assent to, should be attempted to be introduced throughout the country. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Department would attend to some of the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and, if possible, introduce some improvements into the system. He had no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee early next Session, nor did he think that the Motion for such a Committee could be in better hands than those of the hon. Member for Berkshire, and, therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in assenting to its appointment. He must, however, object to the notion that it was possible to abolish the present system, and substitute for it one of general rating, to the entire exclusion of the voluntary principle. He did not deny that the present system was capable of any improvements, but he believed that his right hon. Friend near him had introduced many valuable changes which, if they were followed up, would bear good fruit.

said, that, the idea of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), that there might be a religious education without creeds or anything denominational in its character was impossible of realization. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the children should read the New Testament; but there were many texts of the New Testament as to the meaning of which the children might inquire, and of which it would be impossible for a teacher to give any explanation without touching upon controversial ground. Religion entirely freed from denominationalism would sink into mere indifferentism, and indifferentism was mere Deism or no religion at all. It could not be Christianity, because that must be definite. The secular system was open to equal or still graver objections. It would be impossible to give more than the mere rudiments of instruction without raising some questions of religion. Take, for instance, the study of modern history and the great question of the Reformation. The only way to carry out such a system would be to sink religion altogether, and teach history and other things to which religious considerations were essential without those essentials, the result of which would be to lead the children to regard religion as a matter of no importance whatever. He believed that the system which existed in England, the denominational system, was the best that could be adopted; and one proof that it was so was to be found in the fact, that the National system of Ireland, which was based upon a diametrically opposite principle, had by the force of circumstances been compelled to adopt to a great extent the denominational form. Any attempt to restore to it its original character would make it to a great extent inoperative. They ought to be thankful for the denominational system in England, and the more the Irish system was assimilated to it in that respect the more satisfactory it would be.

said, that in Scotland there were very excellent schools where religion was taught without reference to creed at all.

said, that situated as he still was in regard to this matter, he would very much rather have taken no part in the debate: he felt, however, that it might be deemed unfair if he left his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council to answer for his misdeeds, and he therefore rose to offer a few explanations on points in which the administration of the Committee during the last year had been impugned. As to the controversy which had broken out between the hon. Members for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) and Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) he might observe that the justification of the present system, if it had any, lay not in any abstract principle but in the necessity of the case. It was the will of the country to have a denominational system. It was not worth arguing the question, for it was, as it seemed to him, a political necessity. That being the case it followed that as the denominational element was not strong enough to support itself, and as the House would recoil from the expense of maintaining out of the public purse three or four schools in the same place to suit different denominations, some compromise must be effected, and the result was the present system by which the schools were supported partly from one source and partly from another. The necessary consequence of that state of things was a central administration, with, on the one hand, all the complexity and difficulties which had been pointed out; and on the other a very partial expenditure of the public money. Until wealth, generosity, and public spirit could be made equal all over the country, and as long as the grants were dependent on voluntary contributions, there must necessarily be inequality. There might be Committees without end; but if they started from the position of the denominational plan they would never get rid of that fundamental and insuperable difficulty. To complain of inequality was to cast blame, not on the administration, but on the system itself. As to the question of the supplemental rules raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) in his very temperate and candid speech, he contended that the Committee of Council did not exceed their authority in issuing these rules. The original proposal of the Committee of Council was grouping by age—that the examination of children should be conducted not according to classification in school, but according to age. That proposition was violently opposed in the House, and the Government saw fit to give way on it. In the end it was arranged that the children should be examined in six standards, and that the managers should put them in these standards. The terms of the proposal were exceedingly vague, and could hardly of themselves embrace the whole working of the system. Experience proved that such was the case. The first thing pointed out to the Committee of Council was that a boy might be in age below the highest class, and yet by his diligence and ability might have reached the highest class. By the rule, however, he could not be examined in a standard twice, and the school would lose his grant for the next year. The Committee of Council therefore relaxed the rule to meet that case, and announced that they would allow the boy in question to be put below the place he would otherwise occupy, to be put down a class or two, so that the school should not lose anything by his precocity. Another point was that an Inspector who found a school deficient in instruction had the power of reducing the giant by not more than a half or less than a tenth. As the rule stood, it was possible that it might be eluded altogether, for a schoolmaster might place all the children in the lowest standard, where they would only have to road words of one syllable, to enumerate figures, and to write single letters, and then claim the grant for his school. It was certainly not the intention either of the Government or of Parliament that such an abuse should be permitted. The Committee of Council issued no new rule on the subject, but merely exercised their power under the Revised Code to make a deduction from the grant if a schoolmaster placed all his children so low that there was none above the second standard, taking that as evidence that the instruction was not what it ought to be. It was quite clear that the practice of placing children so low was an infraction of the rules agreed to by Parliament, and it was right that the Committee of Council should have power to check the unfair acquisition of public money which might be attempted by construing the regulation loosely or in bad faith. Many admonitions had been addressed to his right hon. Friend the Vice President. He would not, however, presume to admonish him from his side, because he was sure it was not necessary to tell him that though it was his duty to conciliate the managers in all fitting ways, he had also a duty to discharge towards the taxpayers; and unless a man in his position kept a strong firm hand on the expenditure, and unless he was prepared to brave some degree of public obloquy and expose himself to much trouble and vexation, he could not fill the office with honour to himself or benefit to his country. His hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had also raised a question as to the rules concerning the payment of masters. He could not expect that the House would allow him to go into the details of the matter, but he would try briefly to explain it. The rule referred to was made for the protection of the masters, and for that object alone. Before it was adopted, a master was entitled to be paid an augmented grant by the State, and ran no risk of having any of it misappropriated. That advantage was lost when the master was left to make his own terms with the managers. There was supposed to be a danger—an imaginary danger, no doubt—that the money might not reach the teacher through the managers; and it was agreed that he should have a charge on the money to the amount of the augmentation, and that if he were not duly paid by the managers the Government should stop the grant or pay so much of it over to him. That provision was given exclusively for the benefit of the masters. Subsequently, however, the arrangement was made that the pupil-teachers should be paid by the Government if the grant was not sufficient. That rule, which was not contemplated when the other was made, gave quite a new complexion to the system. The managers became anxious not to pay the masters in order that by an appearance of exhausted means they might get payment for pupil-teachers. The rule, therefore, had been construed, not as it was intended, for the benefit of the masters, but for the benefit of the managers, who were thus enabled to obtain from the Privy Council an allowance to which they were not entitled. With regard to evening schools, in order to obtain a grant, it was required that a pupil should attend so many times, but nothing was said as to average attendance. The Code being silent on the subject, the Committee of Council determined that forty sittings of the school should be deemed an average attendance. That was, it appeared to him, a fair and reasonable proposal. Other smaller points had been started into which he would not pretend to go. Allowing for the immense difficulty of managing these things, and the absolute necessity of protecting the public revenue against any blot in the regulations, a free, liberal, and not a jealous construction should be placed on the rules of a Department which had to deal with persons so anxious to get the largest possible share of the public money, and so acute in studying the system in order to attain that object. With regard to the complaint as to the minutes, as far as he was concerned, he would be satisfied that no minute should be altered except by Act of Parliament. He was tempted to sympathize with Lycurgus, who made his laws and then told the Spartans to obey them till he came back, which he took care not to do. Without saying that all the measures of his time were good, or all the legislation perfect, he believed it was not likely to be improved by anything that could be forced on the gentlemen at the head of the office by the House without a single exception. Every interference of the House with the Department had been with the object either of reducing its efficiency or increasing the expenditure. It was said the Department was unpopular, and probably the reason was because it administered with so much strictness the funds committed to its control. The Education Vote amounted in 1861 to £840,000. It was going on at the rate of nearly £100,000 a year, and but for the most obnoxious regulations which were introduced by the enemies of the human race who presided over the Department, it might at the present moment have reached, £1,200,000 or £1,300,000 instead of £700,000, and have swallowed up that penny in the Income Tax which everybody was so glad to see taken off. When, he might add, the administrators of the Department were charged with being prim, and precise, and harsh, and with having very little feeling for the unfortunate persons whose receipts might be cut down, it ought to be borne in mind that they were exercising a great public trust, and that while, on the one hand, the education given did not suffer in point of efficiency since the changes which were so much complained of had been introduced, on the other hand, a stand had been made on behalf of the taxpayer, and those demands resisted which would infallibly have broken down the whole system, which had, he contended, got a new change of life by the alterations in question.

admitted that the system, as administered by the Council of Education, was unpopular, but that was because it had lately put itself out of harmony with the spirit of the taxpayers of the country; and the real secret of the distaste with which it was regarded was, that while it professed to accept the denominational system as a political necessity, the whole efforts of the Committee and of its subordinates had been mainly directed towards breaking down the denominational system. He thought it would be far more satisfactory to the taxpayers at large if the regulations respecting these grants were embodied in a definite legal form, and not based on such a nebulous system of minutes. The denominational system would be far preferable to that now sought to be introduced. What was the principle of that system? Why, that the State undertook to aid the efforts of the various schools throughout the country, in union with the two or three great religious societies of the country. Much obloquy had been cast during these discussions on the National Society, but its object had been forgotten. The object of this Society was not merely to teach the multiplication table, but to educate the poor in the principles of the Established Church. That was the great trust confided to the Society, and he thought that great credit was due to those who had laboured to check the unpopular proceedings of the Privy Council on Education. He thought that education, to be worth anything, should be founded on religion, and that principle had been distinctly approved by the House of Commons. The teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic did not constitute education. Education, to be good for anything, should teach a man his duties to God and to his neighbour; and it was impossible for any body of professing Christians to touch this subject without the inculcation of definite principles as to religious teaching. Religious education was a fundamental principle with the people of England. No doubt some confusion had arisen from mixing up the denominational system with the voluntary system. He regretted very much that the Committee of Privy Council made their various aggressions in the way they had. The National Society was subject to aggressions and humiliations which no other body in the country having charge of education were subject to. It was extremely desirable that the Educational grant should be administered with strict impartiality; and an impression largely prevailed throughout the country that the members of the Established Church were not treated with strict impartiality. In their efforts to establish schools they were subjected to pressure, to terms, and to suggestions; and hindrances were thrown in their way which were not extended to members of any other religious community. So long as that was the case, so long would dissatisfaction exist, and so long would the Committee of Council be unpopular. He did not for a moment believe that the members of the Church of England, whose zeal and liberality in the cause of education were well known, and who made large exertions and sacrifices for that cause, were animated by such sordid notions as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) attributed to them.

said, he wished to make some remarks with reference to that part of the country with which he was connected. He had observed with great pleasure that it was stated in the report of the Inspector in South Wales, which had lately appeared, that that country had made great progress in education, even since the Revised Code was established. It was right that this should be made known, because great doubts existed at the time whether that would be so, and whether some of the schools would not be injured. In that respect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne had proved a true prophet; for he very kindly said, when these difficulties were pointed out, that the Welsh children were remarkable for their intelligence, and would overcome all obstacles. If there was one part of the speech which he had just made which he (Mr. Pugh) had listened to with less pleasure than another, or from which he might venture to differ, it was that part of it in which he gave it as his opinion that nothing could be done to remedy those evils of the present system which had been so forcibly depicted, whereby large tracts of country were left untouched by the Education grant. If those evils were felt in a rich country like England, much more must they be so in the remote and rural districts of Wales. They were forcibly exhibited in a Return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, showing that large cities and towns absorbed vast sums, while rural districts were comparatively unprovided for. He, therefore, hoped that something would be done to take their case into consideration, and if it was found to be irremediable, the managers would then have the satisfaction of thinking that their grievance had been fairly inquired into. They had no wish to get any of the public money for nothing—

"Pater ipse colendi Haud facilem case viam voluit;"

they knew this; they duly appreciated the difficulties by which they were surrounded, and were prepared to struggle with them.

said, he did not intend to go on with his Notice for calling attention to the management of the institution at Kensington. If he were to call attention to the improper manner in which the purchases were conducted, according to the latter paragraph of his Notice, he must ask for a Committee of Inquiry, and at that late period of the Session he should not be willing to serve upon a Committee of Inquiry himself, nor should he find it easy to induce any other hon. Gentleman to do so. He hoped, however, that the Vice President of the Education Committee would look into the matter during the recess, and that it might be unnecessary for him to demand such an investigation next Session. Meanwhile, he could not refrain from calling attention to some portions of the Vote now before the Committee. In one item, the amount of which was no less than £16,000, a whole host of subjects—examples, diagrams, objects of art, catalogues, &c.—were huddled together in a manner which gave facilities for manipulating the public money in a way I that should not be tolerated for a single day. The whole item might as well have been put at once under the head of "etceteras." He wanted to have each item set clearly and distinctly before the Commit-tee, so that every one could ascertain at a glance what sum had been spent on each object of art, and what was the exact amount of expenditure under each head. He was asking for nothing out of the way, or what was not required from any other Department. Nothing could be clearer, or more correct, than the manner in which the Votes were taken for the British Museum, and he saw no reason why the same plan should not be followed in the case of the Kensington institution. He was also of opinion that some explanation should be given of certain recent purchases for Kensington—he thought they trenched rather on what belonged to other departments. Some time ago a fresco was bought for £480; but it was perfectly obvious that a purchase of that kind, if made at all, ought to have been made for the National Gallery. The excuse for it was that the fresco represented certain costumes, and that it was consequently suited to the meridian of Kensington. But if that were an excuse, pictures of the old German and Spanish schools might be purchased; in fact, a complete picture gallery might be established at Kensington. Recently, too, large sums had been given for the drawings of Mulready for the School of Design. He did not say it was improper that the drawings of Mulready should be purchased for the nation, nor did he assert that they were not fitted for a School of Design; but if they were to purchase drawings of that high class and at that high price, the Kensington people might just as well buy drawings of Raphael and the other great masters—they were just as appropriate to a School of Design. Kensington had likewise made a purchase of antiquities which ought to have been secured for the department of the British Museum, and in this instance a formal and serious remonstrance had been presented to "My Lords" of the Treasury by the trustees of the latter institution. Surely nothing could be more absurd or irregular than for two public establishments to compete with each other for specimens of the same description. He did not deny that it might be necessary to have some objects of classical art in the School of Design, but then he would suggest that such objects should not be purchased for the Kensington establishment except after communication with the British Museum, and even then, if possible, by an officer of the latter institution. Only two persons, in fact, should be allowed to have anything to do with purchases. Their respective provinces should be distinctly marked out, the one having to certify for all objects intended for modern art, and the other to certify for all objects intended for mediæval art. If that were insisted upon, and if those officers were brought before the Board when there was business to transact, instead of leaving matters to be dealt with by long reports, they would get rid of many of those irregularities which were being freely commented on by the public, which were adding to the weight of odium now daily increasing against the department at Kensington, and which, sooner or later, he believed, would arouse such a feeling of indignation in that House that the whole concern would be swept away—a result which he should most sincerely regret. He should reserve the statement which he had intended to make till the next Session, when if matters did not mend in some respect he would certainly ask for a Committee of Inquiry into the whole of these proceedings.

admitted that it would be more convenient and more conformable to the usual practice if the item of £16,000 in this Vote were divided under different heads. The charges of his hon. Friend on other points were not sufficiently distinct for him to grapple with them. With respect to the purchase of the fresco, he understood that the National Gallery did not purchase frescoes, and he thought the department would have been wrong in neglecting an opportunity of purchasing a beautiful specimen of this class of art when they had the opportunity of getting them at a cheap rate. So in regard to Mr. Mulready's drawings, they were copies well fitted for study in the schools, and the money paid for them had been extremely well laid out. A thorough understanding existed between the British Museum and the department at Kensington in respect to purchases. Whenever doubts arose, as must occasionally happen, whether articles ought properly to be purchased by the one or the other, in all those cases a conference took place between the two bodies. The department did not profess to purchase classical antiquities as such; but many of those antiquities bore closely on the progress of art, which progress it was their object to illustrate. It would be impossible to conduct those purchases so as never in any individual instance to leave room for hostile criticism; but the collection, as a whole, was of immense value, and if brought to the hammer to-morrow would fetch far more than it had cost.

said, that at the Kensington Museum there were a number of beautiful specimens of Italian art, and he should like to know how they were come by. That Museum always reminded him of the shop of a receiver of stolen goods. He was afraid that many of the beautiful works there were the fruits of what was called the "moral sup- port," but what he ventured to call the "immoral support" which the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave to the revolutionary party in Italy who plundered churches and religious houses. He was afraid that our Government had somehow got hold of some of the property so acquired. ["Oh!"] The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs cried "Oh!" but that was no answer. Chief Justice Hale said that the receiver was worse than the thief; and he should be sorry if this country was placed in that category. In the Kensington Museum there was a sedan chair, a beautiful work of art, which belonged to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, with whose name it was ticketed. What business had they with that? They had purchased it with notice; they knew to whom it belonged. Did they buy it of Garibaldi? He should confine himself to that sedan chair, and must ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them something about it: how they got it, whether they intended to send it back to the rightful owner, and, if not, why not?

wished to know if the hon. and learned Baronet had ever seen the beautiful collection of pictures in the Vatican at Rome? Because a great many of these pictures had been taken from their owners by the French and afterwards given up to the Papal Government. That Government had not restored them to the original owners. In keeping them was it, according to the hon. Baronet, a receiver of stolen goods?

said, that great dissatisfaction was spreading in the country at the rigid economy practised towards the provincial schools of art, while extravagant sums were given to the school at Kensington, Such an inequitable mode of distributing that Vote would not, he believed, be tolerated much longer.

called attention to the great increase which took place annually in this Vote. In ten years it had more than doubled. In order to test the opinion of the Committee on the subject, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £15,000, the inrease this year.

thought the Vote required the grave consideration of the Committee. He denied, in the most emphatic manner, that the collection at the Kensington Museum was an advantage to the country generally, and he appealed to the Members of the Select Committee whether what he had stated was not correct? It was professed that the travelling museum, consisting of a very few objects of very little value, was sent to England and Scotland to promote a taste for art; but it was a very ingenious but not ingenuous proceeding of the authorities, to send the exhibition to Dublin at the time of the Agricultural Show, and, although it did not attract in the face of the superior attractions of the cattle show, to take credit for bringing the people to the Irish capital. The provinces had been starved in order to make a raree show of the Kensington Museum. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Galway would next Session probe this evil to the bottom.

said, he did not consider it was the business of the Government to teach science and art, and they certainly had proved that they were not competent to do it. He did not think our collections of pictures and of articles of art should be frittered away between the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the establishment at South Kensington, He would have a National Gallery worthy of the nation, and then would send all the pictures to the National Gallery and all the works of art to the British Museum.

said, that up to this time he had been under the impression that the Department of Science and Art confined itself to the collection of the odds and ends which make up the exhibition at South Kensington. But it would seem that the Department was now applying itself to literary pursuits, in order to combine science, art, and literature. It had just taken a literary turn, and had published a book entitled, Mumbo Jumbo; or, the Mountains of the Moon in the Gaboon. He had had the misfortune to read that production, and certainly it was the most remarkable compound of nonsense he had ever perused in his life. At first one might suppose that there was some concealed wit in it—some lurking fun or humour in it; but there was none. It was a concatenation of nonsense such as might be expected to come from a combination of children of twelve years of age writing a dramatic sketch under the superintendence of some grown person devoid of sense. The thing would not deserve any consideration but for one circumstance. A well-conducted and respectable person connected with the Museum had been asked, whether it was true that he was to take a part in the representation of the drama of Mumbo Jumbo; or, the Mountains of the Moon in the Gaboon; and whether, in order to make himself more interesting in the eyes of the enlightened audience, he was to make his face as black as a coal? He replied that this performance was under the patronage of the Coles, and that it would be necessary for him to blacken his face to that extent, even though he might look foolish. He said he had a wife and children and had no chance—he was compelled to make a fool of himself on the occasion. Under these circumstances, he had to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether public servants at South Kensington, who might be respectable considering the salaries they received, had been obliged to blacken their faces and take a part in the coarse, monstrous, and senseless performance that he was told had taken place in the Botanical Gardens? He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen had been present at the performance, if so, the House might have the advantage of hearing a better account than he had been able to give of the affair. He had only read the production. That was quite enough to make him avoid the Botanical Gardens on the occasion. It was really a serious thing if respectable public servants had to make fools of themselves. Such a proceeding would be in the last degree degrading to our sense of public decency, and to the refinement and feeling which was supposed to exist in this country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an assurance that the Science and Art Department would not embark in literary pursuits or dramatic performances.

said, that the questions which he had to reply to were almost as various as the objects in the South Kensington Museum. First of all he must assure his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the performance to which he referred had no connection with the South Kensington Museum; certainly the sums included in the Vote had not been applied to any such purpose. Then the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) had objected to this collection that it was confined to the metropolis. Now that was an objection that would apply to every metropolitan collection. As to the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to remove all the pictures to the National Gallery, a great number of the pictures at South Kensington were by contemporary artists, which class of works were not admitted into the National Gallery, and there were bequests, such as the Sheepshanks Collection, to which was attached a condition that would prevent them from being exhibited in the National Gallery. As to the reduction proposed in the Vote, he would remind the House that the buildings which it was necessary to finish in order to accommodate a valuable collection had already been approved of. It would be premature to discuss a question that was at present being considered by a Select Committee; but having read the evidence already taken by that Committee, he might remark that there was a great deal of testimony strongly favourable to the maintenance of the schools at South Kensington and to the Museum itself. He hoped the Committee would not consent to adopt the Amendment.

directed the attention of the Committee to the fact, that there were large items to be voted which it was not fair to charge to the Science and Art Department at South Kensington. There was £47,000 for Schools of Art in the United Kingdom. The item for buildings had increased from £11,000 to £24,000, and the grant for the Royal Dublin Society had increased by a sum of £700.

said, the question was, whether the country schools got their fair share of the purchases? But the discussion was premature because the subject was now before a Committee upstairs, and ought to be left open until they had reported.

referring to the statement that Ireland was not fairly treated in respect of this expenditure, said, that among the successful candidates for the Queen's medals in the Science Examination of 1863 were, in physics, Joshua Doherty, a student of the North of Ireland, who carried off the gold medal, and Cornelius O'Sullivan, a student from the South of Ireland, who carried off a silver medal. In chemistry the gold medal was won by Richard Geogan, and a silver medal by John Conolly, both students of the South of Ireland. In geology the silver medal was obtained by Robert Smith, and the second medal by George Donaldson, both students of the North of Ireland. In botany a silver medal was obtained by Elizabeth Maffet, a student of Belfast, the second by Lizzie Carson, also of Belfast, the third by Marianne Johns, of Carrickfergus, and the fourth by Samuel Stewart, who was also an Irish student. This showed not only the ability and industry of the Irish students, but also that they got fair play from the Department.

said, that anything more discreditable to art than the decoration of the building did not, in his opinion, exist in this country. Great dissatisfaction also existed with the purchases made On account of the Museum; but it seemed impossible to find anybody who was responsible for them. Last year a sum was voted for the residences of officials connected with the Museum. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) then said, that when the officials were lodged in those houses there would be a deduction from their salaries corresponding with the annual value of their houses. Had this arrangement been carried into effect?

said, that less importance was to be attached to the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that the decorations were execrable, because it was pretty well known that the hon. Member was rarely satisfied with anything. Persons who were competent to give an opinion, thought the decorations were exceedingly beautiful, and that great credit was due to Captain Fowke, or to those who were responsible for them.

said, that the Department took to itself more credit than belonged to it, because in the majority of cases the people were not attracted by the travelling museum, but attended for the purpose of seeing the fat pigs, fine horses, and beautiful short horns.

differed from the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), and contended that the travelling museum in Ireland had been the source of much gratification to the people of that country, and had more than paid its cost.

asked, whether the sum voted for the library had been expended entirely upon it?

said, that some injustice had been done to the officials of the South Kensington Museum, because perfect responsibility existed there. For the purchases the President and Vice President for the time being were responsible. They were advised by two gentlemen called referees — one (Mr. Redgrave, R.A.) for modern art from 1750 down to the present time, and the other (Mr. Robinson) for ancient art up to 1750. The referees sent in their recommendations; Mr. Redgrave, who was also Inspector General of Art, advised upon them, and the President and Vice President decided. He was sorry that the sense of duty which induced the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) to propose to call attention to the improper purchases, did not lead him to carry on his investigation before making a statement on the subject. He regretted that the term "improper" should have been employed, because it appeared to imply that there was some disgrace or discredit attached to some one, and the hon. Member should not have used that word unless he intended to substantiate it. The fresco of Perugino was a fresco painting, which, as a specimen of ornament for the interior of houses, was deemed by many a desirable addition to the Museum. The Museum was not, as a general rule, regarded as a receptacle for pictures at all. They were only placed there when there was no room for them elsewhere, or when, as was the case with the Sheepshanks Collection, the donor requested that such a course might be pursued.

said, that the library in one particular year had shown a balance in the receipts over the expenditure, and that that balance, by the authority of the Treasury, had been applied to the repair of the roads. Residences were found for four officers, and, as the Museum was open until ten o'clock at night, it was necessary to have officers upon the spot. Previous to the building of those residences, two officers were accommodated elsewhere, and that accommodation was regarded as part of their salary. The question with respect to the other two was now under consideration.

asked if any part of the £15,000 was to be applied to the decorations?

said, that the money was strictly applicable to the building.

said, he wished to inquire whether the loan was really a dotation for life to the King of Greece or merely intended to last during the period he remained upon the throne. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening seemed to be under the impression that the treaty was intended to confer the dotation for life; but, if so, that view was directly opposed to the terms of the Bill before the House, and having gone all through the papers on the subject, he felt perfectly certain that they contained nothing to warrant that interpretation. Were the other parties to the treaty equally bound to continue the dotation for life? If so, he had been unable to discover the provisions to that effect. It was expressly described as a personal dotation "to be added to the civil list of Greece." Clearly, therefore, when the civil list came to an end, as it would do if the throne became vacant, the addition must drop as well. According to the treaty made in 1859, a sum of 900,000f., equivalent to £20,000 a year, was to be paid from the Greek Treasury. England's share of that sum would come to about £6,666, of which we had given up £4,000 yearly to the King of Greece, and had voted away more than the balance in salaries to officials. In addition to that, upon the treaty for the annexation of the Ionian Islands, £10,000 a year had been settled upon the King of Greece as a first charge on the revenue of those islands; and what was most extraordinary, the claims of our own countrymen, amounting to £7,000 yearly, had been deferred and made a second charge. A more blundering and dangerous treaty he never remembered. The correspondence relative to the annexation of the Ionian Islands was very amusing. It was stated that the parting of the King of Greece with the then Sovereign of Denmark was an affecting scene. The King of Denmark embraced the young King of Greece and expressed a wish that he would make Greece as happy as Denmark was at that moment. The happiness of Denmark had, however, since been rather disturbed by the proceedings of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. The Government had made a sacrifice of a large sum, and had obtained no guarantee for the payment of the loan. He observed that a sum of about £250,000 had been remitted to the Ionian Islands for one thing and another. Why did not the Government bring in an Act of Parliament to legalize these remissions as well as the King's annuity? He also wanted to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contended a few nights ago that this was a dotation for the King's life, and had brought in a Bill to confine it to his reign.

said, that his interpretation of the treaty had been supported by the Foreign Department. No doubt the treaty contemplated the dotation for life. Why, then, it might be asked, did the Bill extend only to the reign, and recognized the contingency that the reign and the life might not be co-extensive? That was a matter of policy and propriety, and the opinion of the Foreign Office was that it would be more becoming and more prudent to draw the Bill only with reference to the reign. The Bill would give effect to the treaty in the present state of things, but he would admit that it would not give effect to the treaty in the event of the termination of the reign, by a revolution for example. It was better that the Bill should be drawn as it was, although it only gave effect to the treaty for a time—namely, while the King remained upon the throne.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he told the House the other night that the Bill ought to be in exact accord with the treaty, and that the House could not consequently consider any alteration in it. The arrangement was a kind of marriage settlement between the young King of Greece and his kingdom, and as marriage settlements were drawn with provisions that contemplated a separation and protected the interests of the lady in that event, so ought the settlement to protect the interests of the King. As the Court of Russia had no Parliament to consult, it would pay £4,000 a year to the King of Greece during his life, and so would the Emperor of the French. Because, however, the English Government had to submit the treaty to the House of Commons, the Bill was drawn in such a way that the £4,000 a year was only payable during the King's reign. Her Majesty's Government had inflicted enough pain already on the family of the young King. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment that the Bill be re-committed with the object of substituting the word "life" for "reign," so as to make it agree with the treaty.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deprecated on a former night any difference between the treaty and the Bill, while he had now been the first gratuitously to introduce the ele- ment of the King's reign not being so extended as his life. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter had been examined by the Foreign Department. But the House knew nothing of that Department. The matter was proposed upon, the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown, and it was upon them the responsibility must rest. He should support the Motion for re-committing the Bill.

said, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken exhibited that confusion of mind not unusual with him at that time in the morning. He had not thrown the responsibility upon the permanent officials of the Foreign Department; on the contrary, when he spoke of the Foreign Department he spoke of the Foreign Minister, and he took care not to separate himself from that Minister, because he stated that he concurred in what he had done. Neither had he "gratuitously" introduced the personal matter with respect to the King of the Hellenes. It was not a gratuitous introduction, but was a statement of the case absolutely necessary to remove a misapprehension which might still exist in the mind of the hon. Member, but had been removed from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had introduced the subject. The case was this:—There was a claim of the British Government on behalf of certain British officials against the Government of Greece, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) said, "We will connect it with an engagement to relinquish the £4,000 on behalf of the King of Greece, so that if the claim be not satisfied the King of Greece shall suffer;" but it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to show them that the two parties were perfectly distinct; that if the Government of Greece did not fulfil its obligation, that might be a reason for taking measures to compel them, but could be no reason for withholding from the King, in his personal capacity, the sum of money to which he was entitled independently of the question whether he was King of Greece or not. Therefore it was in necessary connection with the subject in debate that he had introduced the matter.

supported the Amendment.

said, he was afraid that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would not effect the object he had in view, because the Bill was founded on a Resolution of the whole House, and they could not go beyond the terms of that Resolution. That being the case, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to admit that the view which he took of the question the other evening was not quite correct. It was a personal dotation to the Prince of Denmark, whether he remained King of Greece or not, and therefore it was a separate and distinct grant out of the money belonging to the people of this country, and the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman cited had no application whatever to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman by his own statement had brought the House to the inevitable conclusion that the transaction was a most irregular one. It was a grant of money which Her Majesty had no right to make unless subject to the sanction of that House. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement which was quite in keeping with his (Mr. Ayrton's) views, but he could not but regret that the Foreign Secretary should have advised Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative in a manner which was subversive of the privileges of the House of Commons.

observed, that it was the practice of the Crown every day to surrender debts to its own subjects.

said, he was of opinion that it would be useless to re-commit the Bill, which was in perfect harmony with the treaty. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, it was intended to make a personal dotation of £4,000, no matter whether the King should continue on the throne of Greece or not. But the treaty dealt with him exclusively as King of Greece. How was the matter to be carried out if he should cease to be King of Greece? How was the money to be secured to him? There would be no other way of doing it but by coming to that House.

said, it would not have been becoming to anticipate the contingency of the King of Greece quitting the throne, and to legislate for such a contingency; but if it should occur, then the House, no doubt, would be ready to fulfil in good faith the honourable engagements of this country. In the meantime what was proposed was in all respects regular, and if the contingency adverted to should occur, the remission would end. The rights of this country against Greece would then revive, and it would be necessary to make pro- vision in some other way for the personal engagements undertaken towards the King of Greece.

observed, that what he had complained of was, that while magnificent dotations were given to the King of Greece, proper provision was not made for English subjects. He trusted that some Resolution would be brought forward declaring that in future all treaties of the kind should be submitted in due time to the House.

said, he would, by permission of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

said, he was not aware that he had done anything to justify the observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had passed on his conduct. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Foreign Department, and not the Foreign Minister, in connection with the provisions of the present Bill, and he advised the right hon. Gentleman in future not to hurry a Bill through the House and leave the discussion on it until the later stages.