resumed: He thought Mr. Rawlinson had great cause of complaint against the corporation of Bradford in keeping back from him information prejudicial to their works which it was most important for him to possess. His Report, however, was very unsatisfactory. That Report stated that the Bradford corporation had eleven of these reservoirs under their control, of which three required special notice, leaving eight on which no particular remarks were made. Now, he was prepared to assert, on the authority of those who perfectly understood the question, that five of these eight were not only unsafe, but many of them dangerous to a very serious degree. If the right hon. Gentleman were to visit the neighbourhood of the Silsden Reservoir, and call at the houses of these people, he would have a great deal of sympathy with them. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman to pay some attention to the question, and to put a stop to the great alarm which prevailed in the North of England on the subject. In almost the concluding sentence of his Report Mr. Rawlinson said, "This Report must not be considered to involve the Government or myself in any responsibility;" but who was to be responsible? The people themselves had no power, and the magistrates were very reluctant to interfere. The public had a right to expect that some stringent power would be brought to bear to protect them. It had been suggested that none of these reservoirs should be allowed to be brought into operation after their construction until they had been reported to the Home Office as being safe by some competent engineer. Having made these observations, he left the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Office, and he trusted that the Report of Mr. Leather would be laid on the table.

said, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given private notice. Upon that day fortnight, when the noble Lord favoured the House with a statement in reference to the policy of the Government, he made use of a remarkable expression with regard to certain contingencies which might arise in the Dano-German war, which would justify the interference of Her Majesty's Government.

said, the hon. Gentleman was out of order in referring to a speech delivered in the course of a past debate.

said, the noble Lord had on a previous occasion mentioned in general terms certain contingencies which might occur, and which might justify this country in taking part with Denmark in the present war. He understood by that that the Government were prepared to prevent any attack upon the independence of Copenhagen and the personal safety of the King of Denmark, but it was doubted by many persons out of doors whether such was the intention of the noble Lord. To refrain from interfering until after Copenhagen had been bombarded would be very much like shutting the stable door when the steed had been stolen. It had been said that the Austrian fleet had received notice that if they appeared in the Baltic the English fleet would accompany them, and he wished to know if that intention would still be carried out now that the Conference had broken up. It was of immense importance to the country to know what was likely to be the course which the Government would pursue. A great debate had just taken place on the policy of the Government, in which that policy had received the approval of the majority of the House; but there were many matters still left unexplained, of which this was one of considerable interest. He would remind the House that at the commencement of the Crimean war we sent our fleet to the Dardanelles and into the Black Sea as soon as we heard of the outrage committed by the Russian fleet at Sinope. He would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to favour the House with an explanation of the real meaning of the expressions he had used a fortnight before.

I think the best answer I can make to the question of the hon. Gentleman is to say, that as far as Her Majesty's Government are informed at present, they have no reason to believe that there is any intention of attacking Copenhagen.

said, he wished to call attention to the anomalous and unfair practice of making deductions from the pay of certain Cavalry Officers for the Forage supplied to their horses. Those officers must have horses in order to perform their duty, and it was most unjust to make them bear the cost of feeding them. The whole expense to the country for remedying the injustice would not exceed £20,000 a year, an amount which could not break the Treasury, especially as they had a prosperity Budget, with the prospect of everlasting peace. It was not an affair of the Horse Guards—all the evil must be laid at the door of the Treasury, as he believed that if the Commander-in-Chief could do what he liked the complaint would not have to be made. He hoped it was only necessary to mention this matter to the noble Marquess to induce him to make such a representation to that obstinate Department, the Treasury, as might cause an act of justice to be done to a very meritorious body of officers.

said, that the pay of the officers of the army had not been altered for the last seventy or eighty years, and the stoppage in question had always been exacted from cavalry officers, in consequence, he supposed, of the increased pay given them. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was nothing less than a simple suggestion to increase the pay of cavalry officers by the sum of 16d. a day in the case of subalterns, and by a larger sum in the case of captains and field officers. It was more a Treasury than a War Office question; and on the abolition of the stoppage being proposed by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) when in office, the Treasury, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) was then Secretary, refused to entertain it. The argument of the Treasury was that these officers had purchased their commissions with the prospect of receiving a certain amount of pay, and that to increase it would be a boon to the present holders of commissions only, and would not benefit their successors, because the price of the commission would rise in proportion to the extra advantage attached to it. Whether that was a good argument or not he was not prepared to say; but there did not appear to be any reason which should induce the Treasury to assent now to a proposal which it had rejected in 1859, and again in 1861, when Lord Herbert was in office, and when there existed a reason for offering some additional boon to cavalry officers. In 1861 there was the greatest difficulty in finding cavalry officers at all, and a great number of commissions were vacant. The attention of Lord Herbert and the Commander-in-Chief was then directed towards a remedy for that, and an increase of pay was recommended, but the Treasury professed to be unable to see that such an increase would benefit any future class of officers, and therefore it refused to carry out that part of Lord Herbert's plans. The plans of Lord Herbert had been perfectly successful, and there was no longer any difficulty in finding cavalry officers. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be idle to renew that proposal at the Treasury, and he did not believe the army required it.

said, that he had brought forward that matter almost every year for the last ten years. It might be all very well to insist on the stoppage of forage money if these officers were not bound to keep horses, but in the exercise of their duties they were obliged to keep two. The noble Lord said the pay of the officers of the army had not been altered for seventy or eighty years, but the same argument would have equally applied to the allowance of command money, which he had succeeded in getting altered last year. The stoppage was a very great piece of injustice to cavalry officers, and he did not blame one Administration more than another, as every successive Treasury had refused to meet the case. He regretted that the Treasury always refused every fair demand for the army or navy.

said, he rose to call attention to the Memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head, Bart., to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, laid upon the table of the House on the 6th day of June last, and in conclusion, That in the opinion of this House the great but hitherto unrequited services rendered by Sir Francis Bond Head, when Governor of Upper Canada, in the year 1837 and 1838, call for the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government, He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had acted in a handsome manner in causing all the documents which Sir Francis Head wished to have published appended to the memorial; but these documents having been laid before the House, he thought the House was entitled to express its opinion on the matters to which they referred, and he was sure they would at least express their sympathy with the very strong case which Sir Francis Head presented to the Colonial Secretary. The case of this distinguished man was quite distinct from the question of mere superannuation, on which the memorials of ex-Governors turned. He admitted that the excitement in home politics during the period when Sir Francis Head's services were rendered was not favourable to the full appreciation of the benefits of his administration: some time must necessarily elapse before their full bearing and effect could be appreciated. Therefore he did not blame the then existing or any particular Government for allowing these able and important services to pass unrequited. The policy then inaugurated in Canada has now been adopted as the true colonial policy, and had proved eminently successful; and he thought that, in comparison with a subject so deeply affecting the British empire, the discussions of the last two weeks were of secondary importance. The object of our colonial administration had been to make our colonies self-governing and self-dependent to the utmost possible extent. If ever a man had succeeded in furthering this object that man was Sir Francis Head; for at a critical period of our colonial history that individual had accomplished one of the greatest ends of colonial administration—namely, inspiring the colonists with the habit of self-defence. So successful had his administration proved, that when the rebellion broke out he was able to denude his own government both of troops and militia, and to send the whole to the assistance of Lord Colborne, It was the spirit of loyalty and self-dependence which he had inspired into the Canadian people that had enabled him to effect these great results. To the merits of Sir Francis Head an immense array of testimony presented itself from the colonies and from home. On Sir Francis Head's resignation of the Governorship in February, 1838, Her Majesty's Minister in the United States, Mr. Fox, wrote in these terms—

"I must be permitted to express to you my sincere regret and sorrow at your retiring from the Government of Upper Canada at the present moment, after the noble manner in which you have vindicated the honour of the British name, and of the British Constitution. The triumph which under your auspices have been achieved for the principles of English Constitutional Liberty over American Democracy, will render the period of your administration of the colony a conspicuous part of history."

On the 17th January, 1838, the Upper House of the Canadian Parliament voted an Address containing this testimony to the merits of his Administration:—

"We feel that not Upper Canada only, but the empire, owes to your Excellency a large debt of gratitude for your firm and manly avowal, upon all occasions, of those sentiments which became the representative of a British monarch; and for the unwavering support which your Excellency has never failed to give to the established principles of the Constitution. It is this fearless adherence to right principles, rather than to expediency, which has enabled your Excellency to rally round the Government in a moment of danger, the arms of an united people; and to exhibit this province to our Sovereign and to the world, in a posture which must command for its brave and loyal inhabitants the highest admiration and respect."

And the Commons House of the Canadian Parliament voted a similar Address on the following day, January 18, in which they say—

"Upon looking back at the various important communications which have been made by your Excellency to the House of Assembly during the present Session, we cannot but congratulate you and the country upon the firm and noble attitude assumed by your Excellency in all those public documents which have emanated from your Excellency. When we reflect upon the occurrences that have taken place in Upper Canada, and upon its borders, within a few months past, and upon the distinguished part taken by your Excellency to maintain the honour and interests of our country, during that short but eventful period, we find equal cause of gratulation. Rebellion has been crushed; the attacks of perfidious citizens of a foreign Power have been repelled, and peace reigns triumphant within the bounds of your Excellency's Government.

"The people of Upper Canada will ever retain a grateful recollection of the services of your Excellency; and they feel assured your Excellency will meet with a due reward at the hands of our youthful and beloved Queen,"

The rebellion took place six months after Her Majesty's accession; and yet up to this time no reward had been offered to Sir Francis Head, with the exception of the baronetcy conferred by William the Fourth, His successor in the Government, Sir George Arthur (to whom Sir Francis Head was entirely unknown), bore a remarkable testimony to the ability of his administration; for he said—

"Having, of course, had an opportunity of reading your correspondence with the Colonial Office, I can say sincerely that I most heartily and cordially concur in all your political views and measures, as far as I can collect them from that source, and most anxiously desire to maintain them."

And the instructions of Lord Glenelg to Sir George Arthur amounted, in fact, to instructions to follow implicitly the policy of his predecessor. Lord Glenelg says—

"Your conduct will also be subject to comparison with that of your immediate predecessor, an officer justly enjoying the confidence and gratitude of the great majority of the people of Upper Canada, and highly distinguished by the energy and success of his political career. In the general policy and conduct of your immediate predecessor, you will find an example worthy of imitation. I refer not, of course, to the comparatively few and unimportant measures in which I was most reluctantly compelled to dissent from his opinions, but to the main course and spirit of his policy, in which it was at once my duty and my happiness to signify to him the approbation of His late Majesty's Government,

"Deeply regretting that on any ground Sir Francis Head should have considered it necessary, at the present moment, to resign his office, and, most sincerely lamenting that decision, Her Majesty's Government felt themselves compelled to submit to this inconvenience. I cannot, however, on this account, forget the nature of the services which he has rendered, nor can I testify my sense of them more strongly than by pointing out to your imitation the uncompromising firmness with which he resisted every endeavour to subvert the political institutions of Upper Canada, the energy with which he opposed himself to the enemies of order and of peace, and the frank and open bearing with which he threw himself upon the loyalty, the reason, and the public spirit of the great body of the people.

"Guided by the general principles to which I have referred, and animated by Sir Francis Head's example, you will. I trust, successfully contend with any difficulties you may have to encounter."

This was twenty-six years ago, and up to this moment Sir Francis Head remained unrewarded for his great services. It was Sir Francis Head's misfortune at the period of his retirement to be supposed to be entangled in party politics, Now, he (Sir William Jolliffe) knew no man more free from political bias. The mistake arose out of the confusion which reigned in the political atmosphere of the period. The Ministers of the day, however, were very explicit in their opinions. In 1839, upon a question being raised by the Earl of Durham, Lord Melbourne expressed his regret that the publication of the Earl of Durham's Report should have anticipated its presentment to Parliament; and in the same year the Duke of Wellington brought forward the subject, when Lord Aberdeen said that the publication of Lord Durham's Report was an unprecedented occurrence. On that occasion Lord Durham denied that he had any intention in his Report of bringing any charge against Sir Francis Head. He believed that Sir Francis Head by his ser- vices had secured the attachment of the colony to this country. There was scarcely a Member of that House who was not acquainted with Sir Francis Head by means of his writings, and who had not been delighted with them. Sir Francis Head was now seventy-two years of age, and if the country acknowledged that they owed him any debt of gratitude, they must lose no time if they intended to pay it. The papers laid on the table would enable the House to judge whether Sir Francis Head had done well, and he trusted the House would come to the decision that there should be some recognition of his great services. He believed his conduct might be regarded as an example and a lesson to any public officer charged under circumstances of great difficulty with the administration of public affairs. Sir Francis Head on going out to Canada at the request of the Government gave up a lucrative situation at home, which he would willingly have filled again on his return home, but according to etiquette he could not do so. He regretted that the question had not fallen into abler hands; but he was willing to leave the case in the hands of the Government, in the hope that they would prove to Sir Francis Head, now in his old age, that his services were not forgotten.

said, he was quite sure that no one could feel the want of an advocate who could command the assistance of his right hon. Friend (Sir William Jolliffe.) He (Mr. Cardwell) had the pleasure of enjoying not only the literary but the personal acquaintance of Sir Francis Head, and, without entering into the controversial matters involved in the case, was quite ready to confirm all that had been said as to the abilities, courage, and zeal for the public service that had been displayed by him. As it had been justly said, this was a case which occurred not far from thirty years ago, and was then the subject of much controversy. Into that controversy it might, perhaps, be his duty to enter at some future time, and to state the views of the Colonial Department. He reserved that question now, as it was not necessary to enter upon it at the present moment; and he was glad to avoid the necessity of doing so. The observations which had fallen from his right hon. Friend he understood had arisen in this way, A proposal had been made to Parliament for conferring pensions upon Colonial Governors, and several memorials which had been received on the subject from Colonial Governors had been moved for and had been laid upon the table. Amongst others a memorial had been addressed to the Government by Sir Francis Head, and having received it, though Sir Francis Head had not served out his whole period of time as Governor, he (Mr. Cardwell), nevertheless, thought it his duty, in preparing the Return for Parliament, not to exclude that memorial. Nor had he any desire to exclude it; on the contrary, his desire was that when the question came before Parliament the just claims of every Colonial Governor should be fairly disposed of. Well, then, recognizing, as he had said, the merits of Sir Francis Head, and not entering upon the disputed parts of his conduct, his answer to his right hon. Friend was this—that the subject was under the consideration of Parliament. It was only a few nights ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on his part, and that of the Treasury, had said that the matter should be carefully considered during the recess, with a view to an answer being given early in next Session. The Colonial Governors who had chiefly moved in this matter had in fact framed a draught Bill, which contained a provision that pensions should be given to Governors only who had served a specified time. Sir Francis Head observed that that proposal would exclude him, and he naturally objected to it, more, however, on the ground that it would imply some disrespect to him, rather than from any pecuniary considerations. No doubt, in whatever Bill might be passed, it would be desirable to consider whether there should be a provision to enable the Government, in cases of distinguished services, to grant pensions, even where the specified length of time had not been served. That, however, would be a subject for consideration with the Government in framing the Bill, and with Parliament in reviewing it; and it appeared to him that the best time for considering this particular case would be when the general subject was before them, and when they were dealing with the Bill which might have to be prepared by the Government. If the arrangements then made on the subject should not be satisfactory to his right hon. Friend, it would be open to him to make a proposition of his own. He rejoiced to be able to concur in all those parts of his right hon. Friend's observations in which he referred to the abilities, zeal, and public spirit of Sir Francis Head. Into the disputed points of controversy respecting his conduct he declined to enter at present; and the best advice he could offer to his right hon. Friend was to reserve any Motion on the subject until such time as the Bill came under the consideration of the House.

said, that nothing could be fairer than the manner in which the Colonial Secretary had met the statement of his right hon. Friend; but he hoped that the public services of Sir Francis Head—who, by his courage and public spirit had undoubtedly saved the Province of Upper Canada—would be met with something stronger than fair words. He inferred with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to meet this question fairly; but there was this one weak point in his speech—that he made the whole case of Sir Francis Head turn on the decision of the Government on the general question of pensions to Colonial Governors. The case of Sir Francis Head, however, did not stand on the same footing as that of other Colonial Governors: it was undoubted that by his spirit and firmness he had preserved Canada to the British Empire. He would only further notice the fact, that when Sir Francis Head was persuaded, against his own inclinations, to accept the Governorship of Canada, he gave up a permanent appointment which he then held as Poor Law Inspector, with a salary of £1,000 per annum. When he returned from his successful Governorship, Sir Francis Head applied to be permitted to resume his old office; but his request was refused. The consequence was that he had been a poor man ever since, although his claims in point of justice and good feeling were irresistible. It was to be hoped that when the House met next Session the Government would be prepared to show that they had taken a generous view of the case.

said, he had known Sir Francis Head all his life. He was a member of the Corps (the Royal Engineers) to which he belonged, and he could hear testimony that there never was a more energetic man, or one who commanded more universal respect. He (Sir Frederic Smith) happened to know the circumstances under which Sir Francis Head went out to Canada. He was then an Inspector of Poor Law. He did not apply for the appointment. It was offered to him by Lord Glenelg. The messenger came to Sir Francis Head late in the day—he was then living at Croydon; and with his usual energy he immediately ordered a post chaise and came to London, and presented himself to Lord Glenelg in his bedroom, between three and four in the morning. Lord Glenelg said he had not I expected to see Sir Francis Head so early, and asked him when he would be prepared to start. He replied, "To-morrow morning." Sir Francis Head, when in Canada, had done what was a most dangerous thing, but which exemplified his sagacity and his reliance upon the support of the people. He denuded himself of almost the whole of his military force, relying solely on the friendly spirit of the people; and the successful result showed the sagacity with which he acted. Had he failed, his name would have been as much execrated as it was now beloved. Sir Francis Head had deserved well of his country; and he (Sir Frederic Smith) hoped an effort would be made, not only by his right hon. Friend, with whose friendliness of disposition he was well acquainted, but by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to act in no parsimonious spirit, but to treat a gallant old soldier with the liberality which became a generous Government. They should remember that Sir Francis was now seventy-two years of age; and they should, therefore, admit of no delay in bestowing on his services the reward he had so well earnt.

said, he did not intend to express any opinion on the general question, except to say that it would be found that the question of pensions to Colonial Governors was not so simple as was supposed. It was mixed up with the question of the self-government of the colonies. Formerly they were considered appanages of the Crown—mere dependencies of the Crown, to be managed for the advantage of the mother country. Now, however, we had acknowledged the rights of the colonists to self-government, and as a consequence the colonists were beginning slowly to pay the expenses of their own Government. It was nothing to say that Governors were appointed by the Crown, and, therefore, should be paid by England, for the Crown was the Crown of the colonies as well as of Great Britain. Nor was it anything to say that the services rendered by the Governors were public services, because they were public services to the colonies, and not, therefore, to be charged to another part of the empire. But the question now before the House was a wholly distinct question from the general question of Governors' pensions in the present day. When Sir Francis Head served as Governor of Upper Canada, the self-government of the colonists was not acknowledged at home, and therefore, as his services were rendered to the Crown of England, which at that moment regarded the colony as a sort of appanage, he was entitled to look for his reward from the English Treasury. It was not possible to consider his claims at the time of his return to England, as there then existed too much exasperation and bitterness of feeling to permit the subject to be calmly discussed. It was true that the rebels whom Sir Francis Head was sent out to subdue ceased to be considered rebels even during his administration, and became the rulers of Canada; but the fact did not diminish the value of his services, which were in strict and successful execution of his orders, nor his claims to a just and generous reward. The circumstance that his vigorous administration led, through the decomposition of the rotten old system he had to administer in very troublesome times, to the establishment of self-government in the colony, was an additional ground why his claims should be no longer overlooked. It was said that Sir Francis had not occupied his Governorship the full time; that was true; but he was brought into such violent collision with the Executive at a moment of recognized revolution that he was compelled to resign. He would impress on the Secretary for the Colonies that the case of Sir Francis Head ought not to be mixed up with the general case of Colonial Governors; and he hoped as Sir Francis was seventy-two years of age the Government would act promptly and liberally. In doing so, he was sure they would be supported by the country.

also supported the claim, and concurred in the appeal just made by the light hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire. He thought that the Government could not mix up this case with that of ordinary Colonial Governors, but should look to the merits and services of those who had served a great colony at a most peculiar conjuncture of affairs.

expressed his opinion, that to the constitutional loyalty infused into the colonists by Sir Francis Head the ready acquiescence of the people in the measures considered necessary for the suppression of the rebellion was in no small degree to be attributed.

said, he rose to call attention to the proceedings of Government in the case of James Hoey, convicted of offences against the Revenue Laws. Hoey was convicted of the offence in February, and convicted in the penalty of £50, or twelvemonths' imprisonment in default of payment. On the 14th of June he memorialized the Government for a mitigation of the sentence. On the 17th of the same month the matter was referred by General Larcom, the permanent Under Secretary for Ireland, to Sir Henry Brownrigg, the Inspector General of Constabulary, who reported, and added to his report a recommendation that the sentence ought to be mitigated to a much smaller penalty or a term of imprisonment. What the committing magistrate complained of was, that the authority of the police should override that of the Judge, for the Government had acted on the recommendation of the Inspector General, without any reference to the committing magistrate, This was one case illustrative of a general system.

said, that nothing unusual had been done. There was no intention of setting aside the authority of the magistracy in Ireland, but in this case the mitigation of sentence had taken place because the Inspector General had reported that the man had not the money to pay the heavier fine.

had no doubt that Sir Henry Brownrigg had given correct advice; but the committing magistrate and his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Archdall) complained, not because the case was an unusual, but because it was a usual one.

It may be desirable, Sir, that I should make a short statement with regard to some of the details of the Vote, in order that the Committee may have an opportunity of forming a correct judgment upon it. I will first advert to the great increase which has taken place both in the schools in operation in Ireland during the past year as compared with 1861 and 1862, and also the increased number of children upon the rolls, and the average daily attendance in these schools, as showing a most satisfactory state of things. In the year ending December 31, 1861, there were 5,830 schools in operation, the average daily attendance being 284,726 children. On the 31st of December, 1862, there were 6,010 schools in operation, with an average daily attendance of 284,912 children; whereas on the 31st; of December, 1863, the schools in operation numbered 6,163, with an average daily attendance of 296,986 children. Thus, comparing 1862 with 1861, there is an increase of 180 schools, and, comparing 1863 with 1862, an increase of 153 schools, the average daily attendance of children in 1862 above that of 1861 being 186 children, and that of 1863 above 1862 showing an increase of over 12,074 children. This is an immense development during the past year. It is satisfactory to find in the schools in operation that the religious denominations of the children are, on the whole, proportioned to those of the country. For instance, in 1862 there were 812,527 children on the rolls, of whom 51,021 belonged to the Established Church, 666,438 were Roman Catholics, 89,566 Presbyterians, and 5,502 belonged to other persuasions. In 1863, according to the Report just laid on the table, the total number of children upon the rolls for the entire year amounted to 840,569, who were divided as follows:—Established Church, 54,248; Roman Catholics, 687,076; Presbyterians, 93,431; other persuasions, 5,814. That is to say, in 1863 there were in these schools 18 per cent of Protestants of all denominations, whereas the Roman Catholics amounted to 81 per cent, so that the proportion of children due to the relative number of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant population is maintained in the schools. Now it is very remarkable and very gratifying that this enormous increase of education throughout the country has had a wonderful influence upon the criminal statistics of Ireland. In 1851 the number of convictions was 14,377; that is to say, there was one conviction in every 453 of the population. But in 1862 the total number of convictions amounted only to 3,796, or only one in 1,528 of the population, showing an enormous diminution of crime during this period. I will now take the juvenile offenders under 16. In 1855 there were convicted, of juvenile offenders under 16 years, 556 boys and 175 girls; whereas in 1862, which, owing to the prevalent want and privation, was marked by a general increase in crime, the convictions were only 159 boys and 36 girls, showing a most conspicuous diminution in crime during that period. The Inspector General of Prisons, in his Report for 1862, makes this important statement:—"Nearly one-half of the female juveniles committed to our gaols during 1861 were destitute of the first rudiments of education, "showing that if we could have got those children into our schools, and given them the education which is imparted there, in all probability they would not have become a burden to the country. In a letter he had received from the Chief of the Constabulary Office, Dublin, it was stated that "crime was never so low in Ireland within the memory of any one in this office." It is impossible to receive a more satisfactory statement than this, and I think there can be no doubt that, as regards juvenile offenders, this gratifying result is to be attributed in great part to the general spread of education in Ireland. With these remarks I will pass now to the general summary given in these Votes. Out of the thirteen items there are, as compared with 1863, an increase in three and a decrease in eight of them, while in two the amount is the same. The normal establishment shows a net decrease of £90, the increase being £110, due principally to the increased salaries of the two professors, and the decrease £200, which arises from a reduced scale of travelling expenses of teachers to and from Dublin. The Metropolitan Model School shows a decrease of £239, owing to a smaller attendance at the West Dublin Model Infant Schools. In the District Model Schools there is a net increase of £1,744, which is owing to a rectification in the teaching staff. In 1862 there were 75 assistant teachers, who are now reduced to 72; in 1863 there were 150 pupil-teachers, and there are now only 126; and instead of 210 monitors, there are now only 155. A saving is also effected consequent on the abolition of one assistant lecturer of physical science. In the item of minor model schools, there is a net decrease of £267, due to greater economy in printing, stationery, and gratuities to pupil-teachers. I come now to the most important item—that of salaries of teachers, &c. It is im- portant that that body should be well provided for, because they are the heart and soul of the schools, and it is fair that they should enjoy the regular increment to which they are entitled by the regulations of the service. There is an increase under that head of £12,500, which is made up in the following manner:—For payment of salaries and natural increment we have allowed an increase of £8,500. In 1863 we had 5,638 teachers, whereas in 1864 we have 5,816, showing an increase of 178. In 1863 there were 1,236 assistant teachers; in 1864, 1,546, giving an increase of 310. In 1863 the number of capitation schools was 130; in 1864, there are 136; and perhaps there may be two or three more. A diminution of £400 is effected by greater economy in the salaries and travelling expenses of the auxiliary staff, and £1,000 in gratuities to incapacitated teachers. But, on the other hand, £1,000 additional will be required as the payment to teachers of additional schools, and increased pay to teachers on promotion. There is an increase of £4,000 for monitors, £2,000 for increase to staff, and £2,000 for new class of advanced monitors. There are two classes of monitors, the junior class from 11 to 14 years of age, who receive a salary of from £2 to £4; the senior class from 14 to 18 years of age, whose salary is from £5 to £10; and the new class of monitors, as to whom there has been some discussion in this House, whose age is from 18 to 20, and whose salaries, as proposed by the Commissioners, range from £15 to £17. £1,000 is to be given to lay schools under male teachers, £500 to lay schools under female teachers, and £500 to convent schools. I must say that, on the whole, I regard this as a very equitable arrangement. Then, there is an increase of £400 for premiums to teachers of singing, drawing, and navigation schools. The result of these arrangements is that there is an increase of £13,900, and a decrease of £1,400, giving a net increase of £12,500. The cost of the navigation schools has been decreased by £100. These schools are, in my opinion, of the greatest possible advantage to the country. I paid a visit to one of them some time since and saw men between 30 and 40 years of age benefiting by the instruction which is given in them. I now come to the Albert Agricultural Schools, and on this Vote there is a diminution of £135. I may here mention that two model schools, one at Enniskillen and the other at Cork, are in course of erection. In the year 1862–3 the sum voted for the Albert Agricultural Schools was £2,351; in the year 1863–4, £1,781; and in 1864–5 the sum proposed is £1,646. I think that the school is a great and valuable institution, and I am grieved to find that Dr. Kirkpatrick, under whose efficient management the school has been conducted, will not be likely to resume his duties, owing to the state of his health. It has been stated in this House that the young men who have been educated in this school are for the most part employed in Dublin as drapers' assistants. I have taken the trouble to extract from a Report made by Dr. Kirkpatrick the following particulars relating to the occupations pursued in after life by 175 pupils who left the Albert Agricultural Training Institution between the first of January, 1858, and the 31st of December, 1861. Of these 175, there were employed in farming at home, either for themselves or their relatives, 68; land stewards and assistant land agents, 41; agricultural teachers, 3; nurserymen, gardeners, and assistant gardeners, 9; National school teachers, 10; planters in the Islands of Jamaica and Antigua, 9; clerks in the offices of merchants, land agents, and in the Customs, &c, 14; entered the Queen's and Catholic Colleges, 6; emigrated to the Cape of Good Hope and Australia, 5; left in delicate health, and from other causes, 10. On the item for agricultural schools, I regret to say that I gave a pledge that there should be no increase; and I find that the estimate for the ensuing year is exactly the same as for the last twelve months—£3,750. I find, however, that since the year 1861–2 there has been a considerable reduction in this portion of the expenditure. On the book department there is a decrease of about £2,000, owing partly to the fact, that the money granted last year for the revision of the books will probably extend over several years, and partly to the circumstance that £1,000 has been saved by economy on books and requisites. In the school apparatus department there has been a decrease of £200 consequent upon the abolition of the office of the superintendent, whose duties are now added to those of the storekeeper. The increase on the official establishment is £278, and this increase is owing principally to the addition of eight temporary clerks to the permanent staff. These additional clerks have been chiefly employed in preparing the voluminous Returns which have been made to this House, and upon this point I wish to say a word or two as a caution. The hon. Member for the county of Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) moved for a Return some time since, and that Return, which it was deemed desirable to grant, cost the country over £400. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin proposed moving for a Return which, if granted, would have cost the country over £800. I think, therefore, that the cost of those Returns should somewhat cool the ardour of those hon. Members who are so eager for their production. At this moment there is a heavy Return in preparation in connection with the convent schools. As the Committee is aware, a Report of each of those schools was ordered to be drawn up at the instance of the hon. Member for Limerick. I did hope that that Report would be ready for the Committee to-night, but I find, consisting as it does of over 400 pages, that it will be impossible to lay it upon the table for another ten days, I am bound to say, however, that having looked through the book, the Reports, as regards the management of convent schools generally—I may almost say universally—are of a highly satisfactory character. It is fair to say that in King's County, the Inspector has reported unfavourably of one or two schools, but then he has reported most favourably of some others. The Report, I am convinced, will show the House that the children in these convent schools receive every attention, and that the institutions are conducted in a most able and efficient manner. I shall be willing to answer any questions as to details, but I trust that without further delay the Committee will proceed to pass the Vote.

said, that the Vote with respect to Irish education differed in several particulars from that for education in Great Britain. In England and Scotland the money voted was distributed among the different denominations, and no school received a grant in which religious was not united with secular instruction. In Ireland exactly the reverse was the case. Again, while the population in England was increasing, the Estimates for education had been diminishing, but strange to say in Ireland it was just the opposite. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: The number of children is increasing.] Well, it was something of a mystery that while the people were diminishing, the children should be on the increase. The right hon. Baronet had slated that there were 840,000 children on the rolls. But what would the Committee think when they discovered that if they were to take any one clay in the year, the attendance in the National schools would not be found to be more than 296,000? It thus appeared that there were what might be described as something like 500,000 myths on the rolls. Nor was that all—the best education given in Ireland, was not given in the National schools. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for the decrease of crime in Ireland, and had attributed that result to the National system. Well, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at a recent meeting, had said that the National system "had stirred the stagnant level of the peasant's mind, and had caused the people to emigrate." That night, however, they had heard that the decrease of crime was to be attributed to it; but he was of opinion that the decrease was to be attributed to other causes. It was interesting to notice as a great political question that they gave in Ireland a Government system of education, to which beyond dispute the vast majority of the Irish people objected. It was not merely the Presbyterians who objected, or the Protestant body whom his hon. Friend (Mr. Lefroy) so efficiently represented, but the objection was felt by every religious denomination in Ireland. He had no inclination to move to cut down the grant. The fact was that money in any shape in which it was given was wanted in Ireland, so little did the people of that country get out of the national exchequer. On the subject of convent schools he wished to say that he had lately received a letter from Dr. Murphy, Dean of Cork, in which he said that he had found it to be true, as stated by the Rev. Mr. Kirby, that there was a convent school in the county of Cork in which the children had made the sign of the cross, and continued to do so up to the present day; his former denial was with reference to the city of Cork. The practice of making the sign of the cross was against the rules of the National system; but he believed that it prevailed, for all that, in the vast majority of the convent and other schools. He had seen a letter from Professor Kavanagh, who had been a Government Inspector, and he said that in nine out of ten schools the practice prevailed. He would ask the Government whether it was not absurd in a country like Ireland, and in regard to convent schools, to have rules of that kind which were broken over and over again, and would continue to be broken. The right hon. Baronet had said that there had been a complaint against some school in the King's County. He (Mr. Hennessy) was in the habit of visiting the schools there, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake. [SIR ROBERT PEEL: I said a report as regards one of the schools was not so favourable.] He thought that school must have been in the Queen's County. Was it not a shame for Government to send out Inspectors to hunt up every little violation of rule. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt with satisfaction upon the results of the Albert Model School. Now, he found that the farm attached to it consisted of 179 statute acres. It had been established to teach the best modes of farming and rural economy, and yet the sum total of its expenditure was £3,296, while its receipts amounted to only £1,650, leaving a total loss upon that model farm of £1,646.

said, that the last point referred to by the hon. Member was easily explained. The expenditure included the maintenance of fifty-eight agricultural pupils and teachers, which cost £1,250; salary for a lecturer on botany, £60, and for a practical instructor in agriculture, £200. Everybody knew that in the case of a model farm it was impossible to make the two ends meet. He believed there was a general adherence to the rules of the Board, and as regarded devotional services that they were performed after school hours. The system in Ireland brought together children of different denominations under the same school-roofs; and a proof that they were not compelled to go there was found in the fact that in the schools the children belonging to the different denominations bore a just relation to the relative numbers of the different denominations out of the schools. With respect to the number of the children attending the schools, it should be borne in mind that the number on the rolls always far exceeded the average daily attendance; and in Ireland the proportion was about the same as in this country.

said, he would not oppose the grant as he agreed that the money given to Ireland, although it had not been laid out in the way he could wish, had done a certain degree of good. When the number of children in daily attend- ance was considered, he certainly thought the number on the rolls was very deceptive. He was not prepared to dispute that instruction might have diminished crime; but the statement in which the right hon. Baronet appeared to exult, that the Protestant children at the schools in one part of Ireland were exceedingly numerous, while the number of the Roman Catholic children at the schools in another part of Ireland was very great, only proved that the system was becoming an entirely denominational system, for which the circumstances of Ireland were never calculated. The increase of the grant in Ireland to a decreasing population had been adverted to, and the Presbyterians had presented a petition to that House expressing their opinion that this circumstance was likely to lead to an increase of the convent schools, which increase would in turn lead to a withdrawal of the pupil-teachers from the other training schools, and be utterly subversive of the principle of united education. The hon. Members for Cork, Roscommon, and King's County, and, likewise, the Bishop of Kerry, amongst others, had borne testimony to the failure of the National system. The grant was increasing and the money was devoted to denominational purposes from which the Established Church was excluded. It was a matter of astonishment to him, that whilst large and increasing giants were given to gratify all other classes of religions—while it was attempted to please the Roman Catholics—the feelings, and desires, and sentiments of the Protestant Church of Ireland were never for one moment taken into account. It was asked, "Why do not the ministers of the Established Church avail themselves of the grants?" The answer was, that their ordination vows bound them to teach religion on the basis of the Bible, and that the rules of the National system of education did not secure such teaching; but, on the contrary, rather tended to prevent it.

said, his hon. Friend who had just sat down seemed to have entirely ignored the existence in Ireland of the non-vested schools. One-third of the schools in that country were non-vested schools, in which the patron had the right of giving what religious instruction he pleased, but where he was also compelled to give secular education to denominations differing from his own. Convent schools were conducted on the same principle as other schools, and he knew a convent school which was attended by Protestant children, and where there was a private room provided where these children could receive instruction from their own religious teachers, and he did not believe that any case of proselytism had been established. Notwithstanding the objections that had been raised respecting the enormous increase of the grant to convent schools, it only amounted to £500 for the present year. The Presbyterians had made a great outcry, but, in the case of the Queen's College, Belfast, they had displayed very little regard for the principles of religious liberty, with respect to one of the professorships there. As to the teaching in these schools, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) had said quite enough. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had said that the children in the convent schools were only half educated, and that the ladies who taught them were not properly trained; but according to two of the Inspectors (Mr. Robinson and Mr. Shee) they underwent a thorough training, were carefully examined in their noviciate, and were set apart according to their ability and knowledge. There were many points with regard to the non-vested and model schools upon which he entertained objections, but he thought it was not desirable to raise a controversial discussion upon the subject.

said, that he had declared his sentiments on the subject at much length last year, and he would not go over the ground that he had then traversed. He would remark, however, that the charge that, in attacking the model schools last year, he had aimed at the destruction of the whole system of education in Ireland was unfair and unfounded. A decisive check, however, had been given to the encroachments of the universal system of State education, and to that extent the discussion of last year had been productive of advantage. He had moved for a Return on the subject, which he was perfectly aware would be of a comprehensive character. Soon after he moved for it he received a letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to ask whether it could not be curtailed, as the labour and expense would be considerable; but he (Mr. O'Reilly) thought that, considering the interest and importance, he was warranted in requesting that it might be furnished notwithstanding the expense. Many might think the first-class agricultural schools did not yield a satisfactory Return, but nothing could be more useful than these schools were.

said, that as the Committee were asked to vote a sum of £315,000 for education in Ireland, and as a portion of that amount was diverted from the system of united education and applied to the convent schools, the nature of the teaching in those establishments, moral and political, should be laid before them. If it were not he would take an early opportunity next Session of bringing the whole subject before the House.

said, that if the hon. Member would come to Cork he would be happy to show him the system of education adopted by the convent schools. The hon. Member would then, he was sure, demand next year an extension of the grant. He held that in an agricultural country it was the duty of the National Board to disseminate agricultural information in the most simple and popular way among the children in the schools.

said, he was also in favour of diffusing as widely as possible in Ireland, through the medium of the schools, a knowledge of the most improved methods of agriculture. He considered, however, that the expenses attending the Glasnevin Agricultural College were unnecessarily high. If the hon. Member for Peterborough was aware of the manner in which the convent schools were conducted, he certainly would hesitate before he found fault with them. The only complaint which he (Mr. Brady) had to make was of the restrictions imposed with respect to those schools by the Government under which the children were not permitted to make the sign of the cross, though the cross appeared over religious edifices in this country.

said, a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Limerick would specify the regulations with respect to convent schools. There were 186,000 Protestants in attendance at the National schools in Ireland. In addition to the Glasnevin establishment there were in every county in Ireland school farms, but he admitted the force of what was said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and would endeavour to introduce in rural schools an educational primer.

remarked on the enormous increase in the Educational Estimates since the year 1835, and urged that the whole of that expenditure ought to undergo a minute and thorough investigation. He did not object to any amount of money being usefully applied to the purposes of education, but they ought to insist on having stricter proofs than any which they now possessed, that so vast an outlay yielded beneficial and practical results.

said, that if all the other agricultural schools of Ireland were conducted like the one in his own county there could not be a greater waste of public money than was involved in this expenditure. He never saw a worse farm than the one belonging to the school to which he referred, and certainly if his own steward were to manage any of his property in the same fashion he should dismiss hi in the next morning. The reason why it was in such a state was because it was conducted from Dublin, without the advice of people on the spot being taken. With regard to the sum of £2,000 paid in salaries to flax instructors, the whole of it was thrown away. The cultivation of flax was a new movement, and instead of spending the money upon a parcel of officials from Dublin it would be far better to let each district have its own share of the fund, and to employ its own people.

asked for explanations with regard to the duties of the classical master in the normal establishment for special class teachers, pupil-teachers, and others. He wanted to know, whether the duty was confined to instruction in the dead languages, or whether modern languages were included?

said, he presumed that the object was to provide a superior class of teachers, and that the duty embraced classical instruction generally.

said, he was only anxious that the country should get full value for the money. What he complained of was, that when farming was carried on in Ireland at the public expense the same care and watchfulness were not exercised as were generally applied to farming for the interest of a particular individual. He did not consider the agricultural schools in Ireland were attended with any useful practical results, and that the farmers in the neighbourhood showed no desire to obtain the services of the pupils who had been trained in them. He doubted very much the propriety of the manner in which the cultivation of flax was encouraged.

explained, that the grant for instruction in the cultivation of flax was distributed by a joint committee of the Royal Dublin and Royal Irish Agricultural Societies, and the persons who were being sent into the districts where it was desired that the cultivation of flax should be introduced were not. Inspectors, but instructors, at £90 or £100 a year.

said, that it would be better to allow the grant to be distributed by the local agricultural societies, and urged that what were required were not instructors all the year round at salaries of £100 a year, but men at 25s. a week for a few weeks in the year.

asked, why the salary of the Registrar had been increased?

said, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the University was treated by the Government. The University had no fitting "local habitation" for the discharge of its duties—a name it had provided for itself. At present it was located in Burlington House, and he wished to ask the noble Lord to state what the intention of the Government was with reference to providing the University of London with a fitting building?

said, the London University had none of the usual incidents of a university, with the exception of that of granting degrees. It had been based upon a limited and narrow basis, and he hoped the Government would place it on a broader basis for the future. If the University was to be worthy of its name, it ought to be associated with the other scientific associations in the metropolis, and within a building that might bring them into connection with the University. An attempt was made to do so some years ago at South Kensington, but that was protested against as likely to impair their utility, and it had been abandoned, but he hoped the Government would turn their attention to a central building for them. No doubt Burlington House could be made available for the requirements of the University and the scientific institutions, so as to make them more useful than at present.

said, the Society was not based upon such narrow principles as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suppose.

said, he also wished to ask for an explanation of the increase of £200 to the Registrar's salary?

said, that when the University was first founded it was proposed that the salary of the Registrar should be £1,000 a year; but it was thought better in the first instance that a smaller salary should be given. The salary was accordingly fixed at £500, and was raised from time to time till it reached £800 last year. It had now been raised to the maximum, £1,000. Dr. Carpenter had held the office for a considerable time, and its duties having very greatly increased, it was thought he had a fair claim to the full salary originally intended to be given.

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland could throw any light on the fire at Queen's College, Cork?

said, he could throw no light upon it, but he was happy to state that the accusation and counter statement which had been made on the subject had been entirely cleared up. Dr. Bullen had written a most handsome apology. It was not necessary to go again into the matter, and he trusted it might be allowed to rest.

said, it was no doubt a painful subject for the Government, but the facts were too remarkable to be altogether passed by. The fire occurred on the 13th of May, 1862, and the depositions before the House fully bore out Dr. Bullen's statement, that the College was set fire to by some one within its walls. He did not understand that Dr. Bullen had withdrawn that statement, though he had others with reference to the College. After the fire took place it was stated in the Government organs that the authors of it were that mysterious body, the Ultramontane party. But there did not appear to be the shadow of a foundation for such a statement. In all probability the College was set on fire by some one within the walls. On the 12th of May, two porters had been heard to remark on the possibility of a fire occurring in the College, and a third porter had said that a fire would occur. It was a remarkable fact that all the investigations into the matter had been conducted with closed doors. He had heard a rumour which might account for the whole occurrence. A man of the name of Burke was at that time in Clonmel Gaol, awaiting his trial on a charge of having poisoned his wife, A portion of the viscera of the wife had been sent to the College for analysis by the Professor of Chemistry; and it was supposed that the friends of Burke were under the impression that those remains were lying in that part of the building which had been burnt down. It was further stated that a young woman who was attached to Burke, and to whom he was to have been married after the death of his wife, had arrived in Cork shortly before the day when the fire broke out; and the conclusion drawn from all these facts was, that she or some other friend of Burke had probably bribed one of the officers of the College to destroy the building, and with it one of the evidences of his crime. In connection with that theory, he understood the Government had in their possession some papers, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would unbosom himself, and tell the House whether it was not to the story which he mentioned that the burning of the College was to be traced?

said, that when he spoke of the subject as a painful one, he simply referred to certain charges which had been made and withdrawn, and which he did not think it was desirable to revive. A great number of rumours, he might add, were afloat with regard to the burning, and it was, he believed, true that the viscera of Mrs. Burke were in the laboratory of the College at the time the fire took place, but he did not know whether the burning was connected with her murder or not. That, he hoped, would be a sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman.

observed, that the mystery involved in the matter had not been made clearer by the papers relating to it for which he had moved, and which had been laid on the table. Having read the depositions taken in the case, he must confess that it did not appear to him that the Government had any ground for the course which they took in attempting to prove that the burning was malicious, and thus seeking to throw the loss upon the ratepayers of the city of Cork. When the presumption was so strong that the fire was the work of somebody connected with the establishment, that was, to say the least of it, an extraordinary mode of proceeding. Such premises ought to be insured to their full value in case a similar fire should occur.

said, he protested against the secresy with which the investigation of the charge was conducted. A grand jury could not make a presentment in case of a fire if there was no malice, and as the Government asked a grand jury to make a presentment, it was obvious that they thought it was a case of malicious burning. But they had failed in every quarter to prove a case of malice. Therefore their conduct was very culpable.

said, there was no doubt the building was maliciously burnt, and that being so the Government thought it right to make a presentment. But it did not go before any grand jury, but before the town council of Cork, who, upon the advice of the Recorder, rejected it, and their decision was supported by the Court of Queen's Bench, and consequently the inquiry could not be gone into. The Irish law officers of the Crown were asked for their opinion, and they said that there was no case made out for going against any person, and consequently the matter fell to the ground. The Government were in no way to blame for the proceedings which they adopted.

said, that if it was a malicious burning the Government ought to prosecute the supposed authors of the crime.

said, that no evidence could be obtained in the case to sustain a criminal prosecution.

said, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to insure the building?

said, he could perceive no ground for insuring that college more than any other public edifice. The Government, as was well known, were their own insurers.

asked whether the Government meant to grant any money for the purchase of pictures for that gallery?

said, when the original design of the National Gallery in Dublin was determined upon it was to be maintained out of private funds. The plans were altered, and the building cost £28,000, and applications were made to Parliament for grants to purchase pictures. An Act of Parliament was passed, vesting the gallery in trustees, and if it was to be maintained out of grants of public money steps must be taken to declare that it was public property.

The Vote which I have to propose this year amounts to £92,127, against a Vote for last year of £90,641. This shows an increase of £1,486. At first sight a false conclusion I may be drawn from this increase, but if you go over the Vote you will find there is an increase on the whole for salaries, expenses of bookbinding, catalogues, &c. of £4,724, but at the same time there has been a reduction amounting to £2,328 on building expenses, furniture, and so on, such items leaving a net increase of £1,486. This increase may be accounted for chiefly by two special purchases which have been made—both of them great acquisitions to the Museum and, as I hope, the community at large. The first of these is the purchase of the collection recently found in a cave in the south of France, and brought here under the superintendence of Professor Owen. I look upon that as one of the most valuable acquisitions we could have gained for the benefit of the country at large. There is no question which excites greater interest in a scientific, archœological, and I may say, antiquarian point of view, than that raised by Professor Lyell in his book on the antiquity of man; and this collection, I am sure, will amply repay an inspection from any hon. Member who takes an interest in this subject. For that collection we have given the large sum of £1,000, and I am sure the money could not have been better spent. The other purchase is a bronze lamp, found on the site of the Sulian Palace. It is supposed, by those who are versed in such matters, to be of Greek workmanship, of a date prior to the Christian era. It is of most beautiful workmanship, and in perfect condition. A description of it will be found in the last number of the Journal of Science and Art. Another purchase we have made, with the sanction of the Treasury, but since the date of this Vote, and therefore not included in it—the contents of the Farnese Palace, sold by the King of Naples. In that collection is a beautiful equestrian statue of Mars—one of the three ancient equestrian statues which alone are known I to be in existence—and the only one brought to this country. That brings me to an important question, which has been often debated in this House; while you are purchasing these collections where are you to put them—because the collections we have in the Museum now are so great that we cannot possibly exhibit them all to the public, and for a long time the new purchases must be practically lost to the public. The Government have recently intimated to us that they have a plan for the accommodation of the natural history collections upon the site purchased at South Kensington. Whether you transfer your, natural history collections to another place, or whether you keep them altogether, I should wish to press on the Government the necessity of coming to a decision during this autumn. If you determine to remove your natural history collections to South Kensington you undoubtedly have a site there capable of accommodating your collection; but if you determine to keep them altogether, the only way will be to purchase from the ground landlord the houses round the Museum. The charge you will thus put on the public will be comparatively small, or at any rate not so startling as may appear at first sight, because it will only be a charge for so many of the houses as from time to time you are called on to add to; the Museum. With regard to the objection of competition between the two great establishments he must say one word. Credit was due to the President of the Council for the rules which he had drawn up and which prevent the possibility of competition. In the case of any classical works of antiquity which relate to or are connected with manufacturing subjects, if the British Museum should not want them, then, with the consent of the trustees, the South Kensington Museum could purchase them. The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. H. Lewis) asked me the Other night about the change in hours of recreation or refreshment for the attendants. Since the question was put to me I have made it my business to ascertain how the change has worked. All the assistants have spoken in the highest terms of the new regulation. The only other subject to which I need refer is the appointment of new trustees since I last had the honour of moving these Estimates. In place of that most valuable public servant in every department—the late Sir George Lewis—the official and family trustees have made a selection which I think will be admitted to be the very best they could make in the election of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). In point of literary attainments or of administrative powers I do not think a better selection could be made. Another vacancy was caused by the death of that great Oriental scholar Dr. Cureton. In his place the Crown have nominated the Dean of Windsor, an eminent scholar and an excellent man in every way. I have now only to move that the sum of £69,127 be granted to defray the expenses of the British Museum.

said, that if anything could reconcile the Committee to the anomalous practice of moving these Estimates by an hon. Member unconnected with the Government, it would be the extremely courteous and agreeable manner in which that task was performed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he must again protest against the sum of £90,000 being submitted to the House under circumstances entirely different to those under which other Votes are proposed. In that as in other cases the Vote should be proposed by a responsible Minister. With respect to the institution itself, he thought that the more interesting the collection became the greater reason there was that the fullest opportunity should be granted to the public to visit it, and, therefore, he regretted that the trustees had not been able to provide for opening the Museum in I the evenings. Experience at South Kensington had shown that evening exhibitions were practicable, and if the British Museum were open from seven to ten at night, it would attract fully double the number of visitors. Having been a Member of the Committee on the British Museum which sat last year, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that steps should be taken to provide for the enlargement of that institution. The investigation into the property at South Kensington had shown that no obligation fell upon the Government to erect buildings upon that site. Every obligation connected with that property could be fulfilled by selling the land and applying the proceeds to the enlargement of the British Museum. The property was acquired under a trust to buy or sell property for the purposes of science and art. If it was lawful to place the British Museum at South Kensington, it was equally proper to sell property at South Kensington and to enlarge the British Museum. He hoped the Government would bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and take proper stops to keep the British Museum where it was now placed. There was no place about the metropolis so much cut off from the bulk of the inhabitants as South Kensington, which was separated from the densely-inhabited parts of London by St. James's, the Green and Hyde Parks, and by Kensington Gardens. The place had been offered to nearly all the scientific societies of the metropolis, but they had one and all refused to go there, because they knew it would be their ruin. If it was a convenient site for public buildings, why were not theatres and other exhibitions for profit brought there? The managers knew better. As Parliament had spent millions on the British Museum, and voted about £90,000 a year to maintain it, it was their duty to have it in a place where it was accessible to the general public. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give up the idea of removing any portion to South Kensington.

said, it was extraordinary that his hon. Friend should have made the very same speech as he made last year. One would have supposed that his hon. Friend was always in the Tower Hamlets, and never rode in Hyde Park or walked in Kensington Gardens. The fact was that there was no place in London which was more frequented, especially on Sundays, than Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, and that by all conditions of people; and if both the Kensington Museum and the British Museum were opened on Sundays they also would be filled. His hon. Friend said there was no reason why they should be compelled to keep an exhibition at Kensington; but he forgot that by the contract between the Commissioners of the Exhibition and the Government it was stipulated that the Government was to give a certain sum of money for the site, and that it should be appropriated to the purposes of science and art. That site was large enough for as many museums as they wished to have. He could not account for the prejudice which existed against having the collection there.

said, he agreed in the expediency of opening the British Museum in the evening, if it were practicable with, due regard to the safety of the collections, and he would entreat the Government to take some steps to utilize the valuable works which they had acquired. He believed that the gentlemen who presided over the different departments at the British Museum were in favour of popular lectures being given, illustrative of the treasures under their charge; and such a practice would certainly tend to stimulate popular education. He should like to know whether the whole collection of the Farnese Palace had been purchased from the ex-King of Naples, and, if so, what was the amount to be paid for it?

said, he had received several communications with regard to the assistants at the Museum, as to which the right hon. Gentleman had given him an answer on a former occasion. The complaint came from the attendants, who were the lowest grade of persons employed at the Museum. They came at nine in the morning, and remained till six or a quarter past six in the evening. Now these persons were not allowed to leave the museum in the day on any pretence whatever and they thought it very hard that they were compelled to take every particle of refreshment they required in the day in the new refreshment room. He had a letter in his hand from a person whom he obviously could not name, for the truth of which he could not vouch, but which stated that an address of thanks to the trustees had been recently drawn up in the printed books department, which had been signed by the assistants in many instances very reluctantly. The attendants, however, refused to sign it altogether, which caused great anger in a certain quarter, and an apology had been demanded to be signed. He thought it would be very easy to inquire whether the refreshment room was or was not fully attended, and whether or not a document requiring an apology had been tendered to the various employés. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would find an opportunity of making these inquiries.

said, he was doubtful whether the rule adopted at the British Museum was at variance with the rule adopted at other public establishments. He thought it was not. But he rose to protest against the practice of reading grievances from anonymous correspondents to the House before the proper intermediate step had been taken. The House of Commons were not the managers of the Museum; and whilst he agreed that the House had authority by way of appeal, yet he thought they ought not to listen to complaints of the kind before they had been laid before the trustees of the Museum, who were the proper persons to judge of them in the first instance.

said, that the regulations introduced at the British Museum were the same as those in other public offices, and the inconvenience which the public sustained in consequence of the absence of the officials furnished the reason for resorting to them. He had already stated that he should support the determination of the trustees, to whose decision he thought all questions should be submitted. The price of the Farnesian Collection, £4,000, was certainly large, but he did not regard it as unreasonable. The only question was as to how that sum was to be provided, and he might state that the money would not be included in the Estimates, as it was intended, with the sanction of the Government, to defray the charge from the surplus remaining from the grants of former years. He did not believe that the proposal for keeping the Museum open from six to eight, or until ten, would be found to answer. The danger did not simply arise from fire, though that was an important consideration; but if the Museum were kept open it would have to be lighted by gas, and such a course would inevitably entail great damage upon the sculpture, books, and other things contained in the Museum?

said, he wished to know if it was the intention of the Government to propose at some future period the separation of the collections at the British Museum?

protested against the doctrine which had been enunciated, that there was anything in the terms upon which the land at South Kensington had been purchased which should preclude the Government from disposing of it. Such a doctrine was illusory, because it was perfectly competent for the House to put an end to the supposed trust at any moment it pleased.

said, that due notice would be given to the House of any proposal that it might be thought desirable to make.

said, he understood that some proposal had already been made to the trustees by the Government, and he thought the House was entitled to know what it was.

said, the Government had been considering what they should do with the site at South Kensington, and they had communicated with the trustees to know what quantity of land they would require, and what extent of building would be sufficient to accommodate the natural history collection.