said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Sandwich, When the Report of the Commission on the Irish Constabulary, which sat recently in Dublin, and over which he presided, will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the Report of the Commissioners had been presented to the Treasury, and was now under the consideration of the Government. He must remind his hon. and gallant Friend that this was not a Royal, but a Treasury Commission, and therefore it would not be laid upon the House as a mere matter of course. He was, however, authorized to state that, considering the importance of the subject, the Report and other papers would be laid on the table when the Government had decided upon the precise course which they intended to pursue.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any objection to issue the forms of the Church Rate Returns at Easter (at which time the Churchwardens make up their books and change office) with a request that the Returns should be made within twenty-eight days, and not "in the month of June," as hitherto ordered by the Government?

, in reply, said, the forms of the Returns might, no doubt, be issued at Easter, but the Secretary of State could not desire that they should be made up within twenty-eight days, and not in the month of June, as the Act of Parlia- ment providing for these Returns expressly required that they should be made in the month of June. The forms were at one time sent out about Easter, but the consequence was that, owing to the change of Churchwardens, the Returns were very imperfectly made. Lately they had not been sent out till after Easter, and the Returns had come in better than before, being made by the same Churchwarden by whom the form was received.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been made by the Foreign Office to the representatives in this country of the Spanish Government, as well as to those of Chili and Peru, with reference to any vessels of war which their respective Governments may be building in English yards; and, further, what replies, if any, have been received?

said, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had been in constant communication with the Ministers and agents of the Governments of Chili, Spain, and Peru with regard to any vessels of war that might be constructing for them in England, and had been assured by them that no such vessels should leave England during the continuance of the war. Her Majesty's Government had every reason to believe that no such armed vessels of war had left England since the war broke out. He might state that the Chilian Minister had of his own accord addressed a written assurance to Her Majesty's Government that no vessel of war now building should be allowed to leave England during the continuance of the war, and that the intention of Chili was to conform entirely to the law of this country.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Treasury have decided upon a revised classification for the London and Outport Clerks of Customs; and, if so, whether any, and what, steps have been taken for the ameliorations of the condition of the lower class of Her Majesty's Collectors of Customs at the Outports?

Sir, I have already stated to the House that a revised classification for the Port of London has been adopted by the Treasury. It is now completed in every respect except as to the numbers of one of the classes in two or three of the departments. I also stated a few days ago that the scale for the outports was under consideration, and this is nearly completed. The salaries of the collectors at some of the minor ports would naturally be considered with the salaries of the clerks, and the Treasury Minute on the subject will deal with both, though I can say nothing at present as to any increase in the rate.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report that sheep have been recently landed in the North of Ireland from Scotland; if he has ascertained whether there is any truth in such report; and, have the Government taken any steps to punish this violation of the Law, and to prevent its recurrence?

said, in reply, that the transaction in question occurred in the month of January last, and that, so far as he knew, nothing of the kind had occurred since. The detailed correspondence on the subject would be laid upon the table, and orders had been given to the Coastguard and the constabulary which would prevent the repetition of such a proceeding.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any information of the march of a Russian force under General Tchernaief from Tashkend upon Bokhara; and, if so, what may be the avowed object of such an expedition?

Sir, a rumour has reached Her Majesty's Government that the Russian forces have been advancing towards Bokhara, but no positive information has reached us on the subject, nor can we tell the object of the advance if it has taken place. But the Russian Government have given Her Majesty's Govern- ment solemn assurances that they have no desire permanently to advance their frontier towards Bokhara.

said, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate, What course he intends to pursue with regard to the Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill?

said, in reply, that he proposed to postpone the second reading of the Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill and the Summary Procedure Bill until the 16th of April. If the former Bill should be read a second time he should propose to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the amount, by the proposed Reform Bill, of the annual beneficial interest in a copyhold or leasehold property situate in a borough which will convey to a resident in a borough a vote for the county, as is now done by an annual freehold interest of forty shillings?

wished to know, at the same time, whether the 19th section of the Reform Act governs the qualification of copyholders, and the 20th section that of leaseholders in a borough to vote for a county?

Sir, the case is as stated by the hon. Member for North Hampshire, and I apprehend that the 19th and 20th sections of the Act contain a complete description and answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Heygate). The vote is given generally to the copyholds of the clear annual value of £10, and to leaseholds of the clear annual value of £10, if the lease in respect of which the elector claims to vote was originally granted for not less than sixty years, and to leaseholds of the clear annual value of £50 if the lease was originally granted for not less than twenty years. There is a provision also as to sub-leases and assignees of leaseholds. These sections remain untouched by the Bill. It is by the repeal of the following section, the 21st, that the class of voters referred to are let in.

said, he rose to make the Motion on this subject which stood in his name, namely—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission, consisting of Military and Civilian Members, to inquire into the present constitution, system of education, and discipline of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, as well as into the general treatment of the gentlemen Cadets, as also into the rules and regulations under which candidates are admitted into those Colleges."

A Royal Commission had not long ago inquired into the state of our Public Schools, and, although the results of its labours had not been all that might have been desired, still considerable benefits would accrue from them not only to the public schools themselves, but to the country at large. But, if it had been necessary to remedy the acknowledged evils of our public school system by issuing a Commission of Inquiry, surely it was not less needful to issue a Commission of Inquiry into our Military Colleges, upon whose good management depended the efficiency of those scientific branches of the army which the altered condition of warfare and the improvement of military science were daily rendering more important. That such an investigation was requisite was manifest from the fact that frequent outbreaks had taken place, and a feeling of insubordination had exhibited itself among the cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst during the last few years. To understand the present state of matters it was necessary to revert for a moment to the past history of these two Colleges. The Royal Academy at Woolwich was founded in 1741. It then had only 35 cadets, who were entirely maintained and educated at the expense of the Government. In 1764 the pay of a gentleman cadet was half-a-crown a day, and this served to defray all the expenses of their living. During the American and Peninsular wars the number admitted to the Academy was increased and diminished according to the exigencies of the State. The College at Sandhurst, founded in 1803, owed its origin to the very defective state of education then existing in the unscientific branches of the army, and the very great difficulty of obtaining competent officers to command our regiments; and there, as at Woolwich, the practice also prevailed of defraying the expenses of maintaining and educating the cadets by Government grants. Before 1831 there was no regular annual payment for the cadets. They were, in fact, recipients of the Government's charity, and their condition was very different from what it had since become. Now, as a rule, annual payments were exacted from them, and they had come very much to occupy the position of students in other ordinary educational establishments. Passing over the interval between 1831 and 1855—not because there had been no grounds of complaint during that period, but because they had not obtained that prominence which had unfortunately belonged to them within the last few years—they came to the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, which were very remarkable in our military annals. The Crimean War was then brought to a close, and the Indian Mutiny had broken out. There were several so-called improvements—he would not use the word "reforms," because that had, perhaps, at present, a doubtful and ambiguous meaning—introduced at that time in every military department of the State, and among others the system of competitive examinations. Without discussing the merits or demerits of that system, it was a singular fact, and one worthy of note, that very shortly after the establishment of the system of competitive examination very marked symptoms of discontent began to show themselves among the cadets, both at Woolwich and Sandhurst. In 1860 there were serious disturbances at Woolwich. If he had been rightly informed, the guns in front of the Academy were loaded by the cadets with loaves of bread and fired at the Lieutenant Governor's windows; while at Sandhurst the cadets farmed themselves into a body and marched off to an earthwork situated in the College grounds and there took refuge for the space of some two hours. That secession of the Plebs to the Sacred Mount—if it might be so termed—was mainly put down by the judiciousness of the Governor, who seems to have displayed a temporizing policy resembling that of the celebrated Menenius Agrippa. In 1863 there were fresh disturbances in both of the Colleges. At Woolwich the outbreak arose, he believed, from the unpopularity of one of the subaltern officers; and the result of it was that some of the cadets took their practice swords and threw them into the bottom of the reservoir in the grounds of the Academy; one of the practice guns in front of the College being again surreptitiously fired off—a custom which appeared to take place on every succeeding anniversary of the great outbreak of 1860, as if to call the attention of the authorities to the existing state of things. Only last autumn there was again some practical joking at the expense of a corporal, which resulted In several cadets being rusticated or sent away, and which excited a great deal of scandal in the public newspapers at the time. Not that that in itself was a circumstance of very great moment, but when taken into consideration with other matters which he had already touched upon, it showed that a very serious feeling of insubordination and discontent continued to prevail among the cadets. Then came the very natural question, what was the origin and cause of all these disturbances? Grievances, they knew, were of two kinds; those that were imaginary and those that were real; and under the first head might be found some military and even political grievances He thought, however, he should be able to show that that was not the case with the cadets at the Military Colleges, but that, on the contrary, they had some real foundation for the feeling that had led to those outbreaks. Students were not in the habit of quarrelling with their bread and butter, or of living in a chronic state of insubordination, unless they had some good cause for it. There was no doubt that the origin of that state of things was that, whereas the age of admission at Woolwich was formerly from fourteen to sixteen, and at Sandhurst from thirteen to fifteen, it had been suddenly altered, and the cadets were admitted to both Colleges at from sixteen to nineteen years of age, and in the case of gentlemen who had been to the Universities even up to twenty-two and twenty-three. So that these Colleges for boys were losing their character and becoming Colleges for men. The case of a graduate who had passed his examination at a University and been admitted as a gentleman cadet in one of the Military Colleges would best illustrate his argument. Most hon. Members knew what College life in a University was. The graduate enjoyed a large amount of liberty and many privileges. He had a room to himself, luxuriously furnished, and a servant to wait upon him; and, provided he attended the appointed prayers and lectures, and returned to his room at a certain hour in the evening, nobody could interfere with him. He could amuse himself according to his tastes, entertain his friends, and, in fact, do almost whatever he pleased. Every house was open to him, except, perhaps, public and gambling houses, and places of a similar character. When, however, the youth entered the Military College, although in no way controlled by the Articles of War or the Mutiny Act, he was at once subjected to a discipline very severe—discipline, he might almost say, of a Spartan character. He had to share a room with three or four other cadets of like age, while his dormitory, instead of having a carpet laid upon the floor, was scattered with sand, and the furniture was of the commonest kind. His cupboard, too, in which he put his goods and chattels, was not inaptly termed a birdcage. The very convicts in the nearest prison were, to a certain extent, better off, seeing that they at least had privacy in their cells. Every morning the cadet was compelled to brush his own clothes and perform other menial duties. Wine and spirits were forbidden him, he not being allowed even to partake of those light wines with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been so much identified. It was necessary for the House to recollect while he was making these statements that he was talking of young men nineteen years of age. Each cadet was allowed for his diet 2s. per day, which was disbursed by the College authorities; but at Sandhurst the food was much better than that supplied at Woolwich. The superiority I in this respect at the former place was i due to the industry and admirable management of the quartermaster; but at Woolwich the food was not only inferior in i quality, but scanty in quantity. Hon. Members who had been in the habit of paying 5s. or 6s. a day for their dinners would, perhaps, be able to imagine, he trusted that they might not realize, what luxury 2s. per diem would provide at Woolwich. Besides more than six hours' study each day, the cadet had to undergo drill for an hour and a half, and therefore he had few hours for leisure. He was at I all times compelled to wear his uniform, and unless he had on a good-conduct stripe could not quit the College and go beyond a distance of two miles. He was expected, too, to be in his rooms at ten o'clock, and the lights were extinguished at half past ten. These facts showed that the condition of the cadet was hard enough; but this was not all. The cadet was at the heck of subaltern officers, who could punish him for the most trivial irregularities. When he was sick he was not permitted to have attendance in his own room, like an Undergraduate at the University or a schoolboy at Eton or Harrow. He was placed in the common hospital, and treated like a private soldier, neither better nor worse. It was not necessary to go into the question of the length and severity of the studies at the Military Colleges, although it would be a fit subject for a Royal Commission to inquire into. He, however, called the attention of the House to the preliminary examination which every candidate was obliged to pass before he was permitted to enter Woolwich. According to the new regulations of the Council of Military Education every candidate was obliged to obtain 2,500 marks, 700 of which must be for pure mathematics. He held in his hand a syllabus of the differential and integral calculus which every candidate was obliged to pass before obtaining admission into the Academy, hut, as it was a subject of a somewhat abstruse character, he would not trouble hon. Members by reading it. It might suffice to say that he submitted several of the questions asked at the last July examination at Woolwich to a gentleman of great mathematical attainments, who was a tutor at one of the large Colleges at Cambridge, and his reply was, "It is quite impossible that young men of the age you speak of could answer these questions; it would require some of our best men, at least two or three years older, to do justice to them." There was another matter into which it was necessary that a Royal Commission should inquire and report upon. He had long—having regard to economy, to the interests of the country, and to the interests of the cadets—doubted the advantage of having two Military Colleges, believing that one would adequately supply all the necessary wants of the Army. This was not an original scheme of his, but it had been approved by very high military authorities, and had received the sanction of more than one War Minister. It was, in fact, brought before the House some years ago, and had it not been mixed up with the subject of competitive examinations, he believed the House of Commons would also have given its approval to the scheme. It was a matter, however, which required further consideration. The College of Marlow was founded at a time when military education was very defective, when a destructive war was raging which threatened our national existence, and when there was a great scarcity of competent officers. The circumstances of the present day, however, were very different from those at the time of the establishment of the College at Marlow. The country was not at war. There was now a Council of Military Education, which required every candidate for admission to the army to undergo a week's examination at the least. The necessity, therefore, for having a special College for the unscientific branches of the army no longer existed. He recommended that the two Colleges should be amalgamated. In that way—and this was an additional reason for the change—a great saving of public money would be effected. The Army Estimates for the present year showed that Woolwich cost about £9,000 more than it brought into the Exchequer, and Sandhurst £17,000. Now, were one College to be substituted for the two, £26,000 might be saved, and the 400 cadets now on the muster rolls of the two Colleges would be as well educated, and certainly better treated, for the money. The executive officers and professors at both Colleges were out of all proportion to the number of cadets. At Sandhurst, for instance, there were sixteen executive officers and twenty-nine professors to 222 cadets, or, in other words, there was one professor or executive officer to every five cadets. At Woolwich, however, it was even worse, for there there were fourteen executive officers and thirty-four professors to 180 cadets, or one professor or executive officer to every four cadets. He had made inquiries at the public schools and Universities, and found that in those establishments one master or tutor was held to be competent to educate and look after from twenty to twenty-five undergraduates or schoolboys. At Harrow there was one master to twenty-two boys, and the Public School Commission were of opinion that one master was quite competent to look after and educate some thirty boys. What was the inference to be drawn from these facts? Why, that there were too many professors employed, or else that the cadets at Wool- wich and Sandhurst were so unmanageable and so stupid that they required five times the number of tutors and masters which was necessary in the case of our Universities and public schools. He would not enter into the question whether one College would answer the wants of the country in other respects than those which he had mentioned; whether, for instance, officers passing through it with a uniform system of education would be equally tit for the Artillery and Engineers as for the infantry Upon that point he would simply observe that Addiscombe, in the days of the old East India Company, was able to supply officers for every branch of the service, while during the late Civil War in America West Point furnished a sufficient number of skilled officers to the large armies which were engaged in that contest. Surely, then, one College would meet the requirements of our small army, more especially as the majority of officers were admitted by means of direct examination. Lastly, he was of opinion that if a single College were substituted for the two now in existence many anomalies of which we at present had to complain would be removed. The system of competitive examination, for example, was enforced at Woolwich, while that enforced at Sandhurst was the system of examination by selection. There were Queen's and Indian cadets at Sandhurst, but none at Woolwich, The time of residence at Woolwich was something like two years, whereas at Sandhurst it was only one year, a period hardly sufficient to enable the cadets to learn the discipline or profit by the education afforded by that establishment. Those, then, were the reasons which induced him to ask the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the education and discipline of our Military Colleges. It had often been said, and he thought with some justice, of both Woolwich and Sandhurst, that they were neither barracks, schools, nor colleges, but institutions combining the faults of all three. He was most anxious, then, that there should be one College founded on the best system which could be devised, where the cadets, men in age, might be treated like men, in a manner similar to their brothers and cousins at the Universities, where in short they should be treated as officers with a certain amount of liberty, but under some control, rather than as schoolboys at Dotheboy's Hall or private soldiers having no liberty at all. When that was done, and not till then, we should hear no more of those disgraceful occurrences which had been so long a scandal to the army and the country, and which had brought so much discredit on the system under which they had been perpetrated. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Address.

said, the question had been placed so well before the House by his noble Friend, that he felt assured the Secretary for War could scarcely refuse to accede to the proposal made. In most of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord he entirely concurred, but he did not quite agree with him in thinking that men before entering the army were at all the worse for a little roughing. Many Gentlemen opposite no doubt recollected the time when at Eton they had to brush not only their own, but the boots and clothes of other persons; nor were they to be regarded as worse members of society on that account. Before he sat down he wished to express a hope that the noble Marquess at the head of the War Office (the Marquess of Hartington) would inform the House whether it was true that the Government had deemed it right to reduce, under certain circumstances, the amount of provisions for the cadets at Woolwich? The question was one of importance, because growing lads required not only good food but a sufficient quantity of it. He was reminded by an hon. Friend sitting below him that a few years ago horses which had become unserviceable for the artillery were used as food for the cadets. That, no doubt, was an exaggeration; but he should like to learn from the noble Marquess whether the food of the cadets had been reduced, and, if so, whether he thought it right that those young men should be put on short commons?

said, that as one who felt a deep interest in the subject under discussion, he thanked the noble Lord for the manner in which he had introduced it to the House. In consequence of the notice that had been given by the noble Lord in reference to this subject he had deemed it his duty to spend a day at Sandhurst. The question, however, was not, he thought, so simple as the clear and able statement of the noble Lord would make it appear. It had been investigated by two Commissions and one Committee of that House, and the point was whether Sandhurst and Woolwich were so managed as to provide the professional knowledge requisite for an officer in the army, without discouraging the liberal education suitable to an English gentleman? How those two requirements were to be combined was a matter which it was not easy to decide. He could not help thinking that it was extremely difficult to learn any business except by experience in that business itself. The views which he entertained on the subject he derived from no less an authority than one of the most distinguished officers of our army, the late Field Marshal Lord Seaton. No officer ought, he thought, to be raised to the post of captain without distinct professional knowledge beyond an acquaintance with the ordinary regimental duties, but he thought that knowledge ought to be acquired after joining the service, and a good liberal education was the best preparation before entering the army. The important subjects involved in the question had not been neglected by the Council of Military Education. The Commander-in-Chief had given to them his best attention, and if the present Military Colleges were not all that the army required, it was not for want of due consideration. Having visited Sandhurst so lately, be could state, with respect to the birdcages and other hardships to which it was said the cadets were exposed, that he believed them to belong to a bygone state of things, although there was little doubt that formerly the boys were treated with an amount of restriction and espionage which did not, in his opinion, furnish the best mode of forming the characters of English officers. He understood that many alterations were in progress, and was glad to find that the responsibility with respect to Sandhurst rested on two officers, who were fully competent to the discharge of the duties required of them, for in addition to their military acquirements, they had received the advantages of a public school education. The cadets were governed by a code of honour, which was administered by officers in the army, who treated them as gentlemen and friends. His opinion was that young men intended for the army should be encouraged to profit by a liberal education, and that having received that, they should be further encouraged to acquire the science and knowledge of their profession after they had entered the service; but he much doubted the use of teaching men their drill at College. The great Lawrence in India said that any dolt could learn his drill in six weeks, but the higher qualifications for an officer required time and experience. However much young men might be taught about drill at College, when they joined their regiments they would have to learn their duties over again. Of Woolwich he could not speak from personal experience, but he had been told by a very distinguished officer that the standard of trust and confidence in the cadets there too had been a good deal altered for the worse of late. He ought to add that he had been informed by the father of a young officer who had entered the corps of Engineers with great distinction, that he had spoken of Woolwich as a miserable place, his great objection to it being that while there his word as a man of honour was not trusted. This was a subject which deserved the attention of Government. He trusted that the noble Marquess, who had now succeeded to a post of the highest importance, for which he had exhibited great qualifications, would not be turned aside from sifting the whole question of military education.

said, he desired to call attention to one point relating to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. The competitive system of examination pursued there for entrance had attracted to the annual competition some of the best taught young men in all the great schools of England, and when they found that out of 150 persons who were examined only seventeen or eighteen passed, that was sufficient to show that the test was very severe. A great hardship connected with the first examination was that, though they were then put through their classics and various other branches of a liberal education, in the great schools for their proficiency in which they derived a great proportion of their marks, the same subjects were of no use to them in the half-yearly examinations which followed, and that would sometimes involve the suspension of a cadet for six months, or his expulsion from the College. It was a great hardship that the subjects which ruled the admission of a cadet to the College should so totally differ from those which were required afterwards that those subjects which led to his admission should not contribute in any degree to his future success. Another matter that he desired to call attention to was the hardship sustained through the small number of commissions without purchase which were set apart for cadets at the Military Academy at Sandhurst. Owing to some alterations in the service, the authorities were unable to give nearly so many of those commissions without purchase as the cadets had had reason to expect. In the case of a poor man—who had obtained a large number of marks for learning and good conduct—that might lead either to his having to abandon his career or to very great difficulty in his obtaining the money necessary to enable him to purchase his commission. He thought the Government ought to keep faith with the cadets, and ought to make such arrangements as would give a sufficient number of commissions to meet the promises held out. With respect to the discipline at Woolwich and Sandhurst, it had been his fortune during the last few years to gain some knowledge of that, and he did not think that that discipline was too strict. On the contrary, he believed it was attended with this great advantage, that the cadets should learn to obey before they came to rule. If there was a fault in the discipline of those establishments, it was not that it was too strict, but that it was not uniform. If young men were subjected during a week to a system of rigid discipline, and then were; given two days' leave of absence and allowed to run all over London without any control, it was not likely that they would submit without impatience to the discipline which awaited them on their return. As to the question whether the military academies should be united, no doubt that would be an economical step, but he did not believe it was an undesirable thing that officers should have to pass through a Military College. Turning to the practice of other nations, he found that in France, in Prussia, and in nearly every country in Europe where a disciplined force was maintained, persons desiring to enter the army were obliged to submit themselves to the special education provided for them at military academies, and he thought the House would do wrong to discourage a course of instruction which had so far been attended with the best possible results. There were points connected with the two institutions adverted to well worthy of the attention of the Secretary for War, but the object should be not to weaken them but to make them more uniform and efficient. Above all, let those who entered them feel that the conditions on which they did so would be fulfilled.

Sir, I am sure that the subject brought forward by the noble Lord in a manner so able and creditable to himself will be admitted to be one of great interest and importance. Still I do not think it desirable that the House should agree to an Address for a Commission of Inquiry. The noble Lord is probably not aware that not further back than 1857 there was a Commission, though not a Royal Commission, appointed by Lord Panmure, to inquire into the whole subject of military education. That Commission consisted of Colonel Yolland, of the Engineers; Colonel Swift, of the Artillery, and the Rev Mr. Lake the Commissioners then investigated the whole subject, travelled over the whole of Europe, made themselves acquainted with the various plans of military education in Europe, and investigated the system at that time in force at Woolwich, with reference more especially to the scientific branches of the army. They made a very full and able Report, and I am prepared to lay the Report on the table or to place an adequate number of copies of it in the Library of the House. The system of the Military Academy at Woolwich was materially changed shortly after the appearance of that Report, and the new system at present in force there was almost entirely based on the recommendations of the Commission. Various modifications were also made in consequence of the suggestions of the Council of Military Education, and the result, as far as the scientific branches of the army are concerned, are admitted, I believe, to be eminently satisfactory. I did not understand the noble Lord to say that the system at present in force left anything to be desired in a scientific point of view, but he called attention to complaints on the part of cadets of their treatment, and to disturbances which have taken place. Those disturbances have not been frequent, and it is some time since any disturbance of a serious nature has occurred, either at the Academy or the College. Whenever disturbances have taken place, and have been brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, he has always had them thoroughly investigated by officers entirely unconnected with the College or the Academy, and the cadets have been invited freely to come forward and state their grounds of complaint. Some modifications of the system have in consequence been made, but it has generally been reported that there were no real grounds for complaint. It appears to me that the question raised is simply this, whether we are to continue to adopt at the Military College and Academy any system of strict military discipline at all. I do not think that in the army any difference of opinion exists on this subject. I do not think it is desirable to allow the cadets the same amount of liberty which is enjoyed at the Universities in this country. I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) that it is desirable that those who are to be placed in command of others should first be taught by a tolerably severe system what it is to obey. In the next place, it must be remembered that the instruction given at these institutions is not intended merely for the benefit of the cadets themselves, to take or to refuse—it is a national object that is contemplated in requiring them to make the best use of their time, that they should not leave without having acquired the knowledge which they came there to acquire. These institutions were kept up at considerable expense to the country, and the House would, not be willing that the cadets should be left to the exercise of their own inclinations, as men are left at Oxford and Cambridge—that it should be entirely optional whether they should make use of the opportunities which are placed in their way, and if they choose to neglect them altogether. Another point referred to was the severity of the examinations for admissions to the Academy and the College. Now, the general scheme of the examination was recommended by the Commission to which I have referred; and, although it is possible that in some instances questions of a more difficult and abstruse nature than may appear necessary were put into the examination paper, it does not follow that it is expected they should all be answered. Those who are acquainted with the system of examination know very well that it is not uncommon to put down questions which it is not supposed many of the candidates will be able to answer; but there may be some of unusual attainments who are able to answer them, and who thereby will greatly improve their position in the Academy. That would not deter candidates from competing, and will not tend to make any undue proportion of them unsuccessful. Another point is, whether it is necessary to have these Colleges at all, but I will not enter into that at all, because I think the advantage of having them is sufficiently obvious. Another subject adverted to is, whether it be advisable to have both the Academy and College. This subject was fully considered by the Commission to which I have referred. The proposal of Lord Herbert for the amalgamation of the two institutions did not originate in any mere view of the saving that might be effected. His plan, which was rejected by the House, was, no doubt, that military education should be begun and carried on in the same institution; but supposing a cadet to show either unusual talent or peculiar aptitude for the higher scientific branches of the army, he should after a certain time be transferred and have the opportunity of pursuing them. I will express no opinion as to whether it is desirable that the whole scheme of military education should be contained in one institution—it is a difficult question, but I may say that the inquiries show that the present system has worked very well upon the whole. For myself, I cannot say that I think it would be desirable that any change should at present be made in the present system. No sufficient cause has yet been shown why it should be altered. I have now only to say a single word in reply to the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Knox) who has asked me a question as to the alterations which have been made in the rations of the military academy at Woolwich. All that has happened is this: Finding on inquiry a short time ago that the system of providing rations at Woolwich and Sandhurst was different, and that the provisioning of the cadets at Woolwich appeared to be conducted in a very wasteful manner, it was thought advisable to assimilate the system at Woolwich to that at Sandhurst. The cadets have as much food as it is possible for them to eat, and if there is any deficiency in this respect it would be immediately brought to the attention of the Horse Guards or the War Office by the authorities at Sandhurst. The hon. and gallant Officer, therefore, need be under no apprehension if he has any relative there that he is in danger of being starved. No complaint has been made of the quality of the food given. Another point was referred to by the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Ayrshire—namely, that there had not been provided for the cadets at Sandhurst so large a supply of commissions, without purchase, as had been anticipated. But the number of cadets at Sandhurst has not been raised to the full establishment, and the proportion of commissions is not very far below the proportion anticipated. The want is entirely owing to exceptional circumstances. It has arisen from the amalgamation of the Indian with the Imperial army, and the necessity of giving, without purchase, a considerable number of commissions to officers in the Indian service. But these are now nearly provided for, and a number of commissions henceforward will be at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief for the cadets at Sandhurst. I feel that not only the House but the Government and the authorities of the War Office are much indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this subject before their attention; but I do not think it would be advisable to agree to the Address which he has moved. I believe the Council on Military Education is fully competent to investigate the matter. The subject of discipline is not, indeed, under the immediate cognizance of the Council; the Commander-in-Chief is responsible; but I am quite sure that no disturbance or complaint was ever made that did not receive careful and immediate attention. I do not think it would be desirable altogether to abandon the principle of keeping up strict military discipline; it is quite possible, however, that some particulars, not very vital, may be annoying, and alterations might be made. The subject, I am sure, will be carefully dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief and his advisers; and I do not think it advisable that the House should take any step in the matter.

There can, Sir, be no difference of opinion either as to the importance of this subject, or the merits of the speech by which it was introduced. My noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil) wishes us to see the Report of the Commission, and I must, say I was rather surprised to hear what fell from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War on that subject. The Commission was appointed by Lord Panmure, not only to make inquiry with reference to our own army, but also with reference to the other armies of Europe. It was on that Report that he decided to have only one College; and when I came into office in 1858, the Estimates had been prepared. It was then stated that the cadets at Woolwich should afterwards be removed to Sandhurst. An appeal was made to me that the candidates preparing for Woolwich would then be too old for Sandhurst, and measures were taken to enable them to appear at Sandhurst. What was my surprise when I brought forward the Estimates; the very Government that had prepared them turned round and voted against them. It is said that Lord Herbert was of opinion that there should be only one Military College, where those who distinguished themselves most should be selected for the Artillery and Engineers, and afterwards go to Woolwich; but it was only to the arsenal that was intended. With respect to the statement that the College of Sandhurst was entirely paid for by the public up to 1831, I may say, having been there myself in 1814 and 1815, the cadets then paid their own expenses. With regard to the cadets at Sandhurst, the great advantage was that they were able to hold their commissions and continue their studies at the same time. There is no doubt some ground for the complaints of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil); but if the cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst had all the comforts he had described while they were, undergraduates they would find themselves ten times worse off afterwards. No doubt the noble Marquess is perfectly right in saying that the competitive examinations and the altered ages at which the students are admitted are causes of the insubordination complained of. The competitive examinations are now so high that youths, instead of going direct from the public schools, go to cramming schools, where the discipline is nothing like what it is at Woolwich and Sandhurst, and that no doubt makes them afterwards unwilling to submit to closer discipline. I am convinced that there is great advantage in all officers going through a preliminary residence at a Military College—not merely in order to learn their drill, for that, I allow, is a secondary consideration; but the advantage consists in learning the character of the man before he gets his commission. When he has once obtained his commission it is a very difficult matter to get rid of him without going before a court martial, whereas, if by a previous knowledge of him you find that a person is likely to make a good officer he will then obtain his commission, but if you find him unpromising he will not have it. Another reason why the examination for admission into Sandhurst is of a high character is that people go there to compete for the commissions which are given without purchase. The cause of the number of candidates falling off is, as I pointed out the other day, because too many commissions are sold, and a sufficient proportion of them is not offered for competition. Were it only for this reason I should vote for a Commission of Inquiry into these schools, but if my noble Friend likes to wait till we see the Report of Lord Panmure's Commission he can do so. I am convinced, however, it was Lord Panmure's intention to have only one College, and it was undoubtedly my own intention to, but I was out-voted by the people who brought in the Estimates.

said, he thought no one acquainted with the present condition and the past history of these Colleges could doubt that very great reform was needed. The question, moreover, whether there should be one or two Military Colleges, was of great importance. The right hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, than whom there was no higher authority, had expressed his opinion in favour of a single College, and that opinion had been backed by other high authorities; but he (Captain Vivian), for reasons which it was unnecessary to go into on that occasion, humbly ventured to offer an opposite opinion. The Council of Education was not the body to decide a matter of this nature. A question of such importance could only be properly considered by a Royal Commission. The Secretary of State for War objected to the Motion which had been so ably brought forward by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), on the ground that a Commission was in existence that had been appointed by Lord Panmure; but he knew very well that great alteration had been made at Woolwich and Sandhurst not only with regard to the education of the cadets, but also as to the period of life at which persons were admitted, and this step alone had materially affected the administration of those Colleges. He hoped on these and many other grounds that his noble Friend would consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission, and he was persuaded that it would be attended with great benefit to the service.

, in calling the attention of Mr. Attorney General for Ireland to the severe restrictions to which the prisoners arrested under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act are subjected to in the gaol of Waterford, and to inquire whether specific directions were given by Government as to the treatment of these prisoners; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of such directions; to which of the prison authorities they were transmitted; and through what medium; said, that in bringing before Parliament what he considered the unnecessarily severe restrictions to which the political prisoners confined in the gaol at Waterford were subjected to, he could assure the House that he would not bring the matter forward unless he felt quite sure there was great hardship in the case which he was about to detail, and that it ought to be redressed without delay. He had voted against the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act chiefly from a feeling that so extreme a measure was not required, and that it was more than probable it would be used in a very arbitrary and tyrannical manner by underlings of the Government anxious to show their zeal. What was going on in the city he represented went very far, he thought, to prove he was right in his anticipation. Over a dozen prisoners were confined there on suspicion of complicity with the Fenian conspiracy. The prison was a new building, constructed, he supposed, on the most approved principle for punishment and security. To aid the prison authorities in more effectually guarding the prisoners he alluded to, a military guard was provided, armed sentinels paced up and down before the doors of the cells, and in the exercise yards. Hitherto the Board of Superintendence had the management of the prison, and their directions were carried out by a local inspector and the Governor. He thought the section of the Act of Parliament which he would read was very clear, as to their powers and duties—

"7 Geo. IV. s. 3, c. 74.—It shall and may be lawful for the Board of Superintendence to inquire concerning the due performance of the rules and regulations in and by this Act prescribed, and required to be observed in prisons throughout Ireland, and also concerning the due performance of such rules and regulations as may have been, or may from time to time be made, by or under the authority of His Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and also to inquire into the conduct and situation of the prisoners in every such prison or bridewell."

However, as he was informed, from the time the political prisoners were confined, it seemed as if the Board surrendered their power, so far as these prisoners were concerned, or the power of directing their course of treatment was assumed by a Government officer, Mr. Goold, stipendiary magistrate, a highly respectable gentleman, who, he was sure, only did what he was directed by superior authority. The prison was built on the cellular system; and the supposed Fenian sympathizers were each placed in separate confinement Rule 9 of Prison Regulations lays down that—

"All prisoners shall be admitted, at proper time in succession, to air themselves in the yard, or yards, for at least two hours every day; except prisoners under sentence of death, or such as are disorderly, or when there may be sufficient cause to apprehend that any escape may be attempted."

The directions given to the Governor appear to have been that these prisoners should be exercised alone; so that having only two exercise yards, he was not able to have more than two exercising at the same time; and having other prisoners to exercise as well, he could not, as stated, give the political prisoners the two hours a day, so that they were in solitary confinement twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four. The Governor, a retired officer of the navy, was a very humane, upright man, and he had no doubt obeyed his orders as kindly towards the prisoners as he possibly could; and he took for granted that Colonel Roberts, the local inspector, a much respected gentleman, only obeyed some one else's order in directing that the prisoners should be deprived of some of the privileges enjoyed before conviction. Besides being shut up in those cells for upwards of twenty-two hours, these unfortunate men were not allowed to see either their families or friends, or even to consult with the legal advisers, which the former were anxious to send them, in order to prepare cases to submit to the Government with a view to their liberation. It might seem incredible that a prisoner should be deprived of the benefit of seeing a legal adviser; but there was one case of the truth of which he believed, which would surprise them. A blacksmith, named Dillon, was arrested for having arms. His wife employed an attorney to defend him, expecting he would be tried at the assizes. The attorney sought admission to him to get instructions, but was refused; so, also, was the wife. Ultimately, the man was not put on his trial; but had he been he would have appeared at the bar without being allowed to adopt the proper means to defend himself. Whoever was accountable for that monstrous act ought to be exposed, and censured. The prisoners were not allowed, even under the inspection of the Governor, to receive or send out any written communications, so that in many instances their poor families were left without information or instructions how to carry on their business, the consequence of which might be very serious. At night, gas was left lighted in their cells, in order that the sentinels might see whether they were in them, although their only mode of getting out, us the door was guarded, would be to make a hole with their bare hands in the solid stone wall, and another in the outer wall; but since Stephens had outwitted the Government, there was an impression that a Fenian could make light of bolts and stone walls. For some Sundays past the prisoners had not been allowed to go to mass even though a military guard was in the prison. When first he heard those statements he hardly believed so much cruelty, injustice, and absurdity would be perpetrated in the blacksmith's case. He wrote to the attorney, a very leading practitioner, to know if what he heard was true, and he confirmed every word of it. He saw by a local paper that the prisoners had complained of part of their treatment to a committee of the grand jury who visited the prison. The latter reported the matter to the jury on their return, and as it was usual to lay such matters before the Judge, he supposed the Executive had heard of it also; but nothing had been done. He had numbers of letters from trustworthy persons confirming all he stated, and he would now like to know from the representative of the Irish Government in the House what had he to say about it? Was it by the orders or with the knowledge of the Government that the prisoners were treated with all this useless annoyance, certain to prove detrimental to their health, and probably to their reason as well. He was not then going to censure the Government for arresting these men, although he, believing the proof of being engaged in the conspiracy was very trifling, indeed, against some of them. But whatever justification there might be for arresting them, there was none at all for treating them worse than the untried murderer or robber. He begged of the Attorney General to make inquiries into the truth of the statements he had made, and to put a stop to inflicting such severities on untried and uncharged men. He would respectfully ask him were the Government justified when they suspended the Habeas Corpus Act in also setting aside the local prison authorities, and directing a course of treatment towards men whom they had not sufficient evidence to put on their trials, as if they had been found guilty? If the Government were accountable for this they were committing a most unjust and highly impolitic act; and if the act was really theirs, and that they persevered in it, they might feel assured they would only earn for themselves the disapprobation of every well-thinking man, the contempt of foreign nations, and incur the deserved resentment, not only of the prisoners themselves, but of a numerous body of their countrymen at home and abroad, who would be certain to sympathize with them.

said, he thought the manner in which the Government carried out the extraordinary powers conferred upon them ought to be jealously watched. Those powers, however necessary, should be exercised in the way that was in the least possible degree offensive to the people of the country. Persons were now sometimes taken up in Ireland upon very trifling reasons, and they certainly ought not to be subjected to any harsher or more stringent restrictions than were necessary for their safe custody, and the prevention of their carrying on any conspiracy against the Government. It should be understood that the Government took charge of that class of prisoners, and that the magistrates should not be held responsible either for their safe custody or for the mode in which they were treated, and he trusted that orders to that effect would be issued. He would recommend that the Government should send round to the different gaols instructions stating what was the treatment which the prisoners should receive.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Members that these prisoners ought not to be subjected to any restrictions save those which were required for their safe custody; and he believed that that rule had been fully adopted in the gaol of Waterford. As soon as he saw the Notice which the hon. Member had put upon the Paper he caused inquiries to be instituted upon the subject, and these inquiries led him to believe that the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed upon the case. He had been furnished with a statement from which it appeared that these prisoners were not subject to any severe restrictions, and in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had given specific directions with respect to their treatment he had to observe that the prisoners who were taken up under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, who were not arrested upon trifling, but upon grave and serious grounds, were under the control of the Local Board of Superintendence, in common with other classes of prisoners, and the Government, therefore, had no authority to give any orders as to their treatment. The treatment to which the prisoners arrested under the measure for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were subjected was no exception to that rule. It so happened that the local authorities applied to the Inspector General of Prisons to know how those persons were to be treated, and the answer of the Inspector General was, that they should be treated as untried prisoners; that they should be allowed to supply themselves if they pleased with food, and that they should not be compelled to wear the prison clothes. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was further informed that those instructions had been complied with—that the prisoners received through their friends abundant supplies of good food, and that they were not obliged to wear the prison clothing; so that the statements made upon the subject by the hon. Gentleman were not well founded, and he must have been misled by his informants.

thanked the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) for having expressed the opinion of every rational man in the country on that matter—namely, that while the Government had a right to be supported in the maintenance of law and order, they would not only deserve censure if they went one jot beyond what necessity required, but would greatly assist in spreading a feeling of discontent in Ireland. These prisoners must be regarded as men who had been proved to be guilty of no crime; and it would be monstrous to treat them with a severity to which unconvicted burglars and murderers were not subjected. When they had got hold of a man like Stephens they did not keep him safely, and now they appeared to be adopting very harsh and severe restrictions against every miserable creature on whom they laid their hands. He had a satisfactory account of the rules enforced in the gaol in the city of Cork, but it was asserted to him that that class of prisoners in the Cork county gaol were treated with greater vigour than ordinary untried prisoners. Many of these persons had been taken up in his own city and in other parts of Ireland, against whom no case could stand for a moment before a Judge of Assize; and out of the 500 they could not fairly reckon upon obtaining verdicts for the Crown against 200. He understood that in the county gaol of Cork the prisoners were allowed but two hours for exercise each day, and that during the other twenty-two hours they were kept in solitary confinement. They were only permitted to see their relatives twice a week, and they could not have free communication with a legal adviser, for the warders were present when friends came to see them. Now, that was a state of absolute and rigorous punishment, which he held to be utterly unjustifiable; and, although he admitted that a satisfactory answer had been given by the Attorney General for Ireland to the statement made by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), he thought that in the case of the county gaol of Cork the powers given by the recent Act had been greatly abused. At the time when the House resolved to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act the Government promised distinctly that the powers intrusted to them should be exercised with prudence and clemency. He contended, however, that the Government had not acted according to its promise, and that persons who had not been proved guilty of any offence by a jury of their countrymen ought not to be treated as the prisoners were at the gaol of Cork. Such harshness and cruelty were not necessary to preserve the peace of the country. He urged the Government to institute a searching inquiry into the antecedents of the prisoners, and, if it, should be found that there was no real reason for detaining them from their families and ordinary employment, to liberate them. Should, however, conclusive evidence of the guilt of the men be found, of course then they should be held in custody.

said, that he did not recollect any promise being given by the Government that the powers vested in the Executive by the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act should be exercised with great leniency. But however that might be, the first object of the Government was to preserve the safety and the peace of the country, and after that to see that no unnecessary hardships were inflicted. As it was a matter of considerable importance, he thought it desirable that there should be no misunderstanding with respect to it. It was obviously right and desirable that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted on those prisoners. The case of those confined in the gaol of Waterford had been brought under the notice of the House; the Attorney General for Ireland had inquired into that case; and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) admitted, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the charge made in that particular instance had not been borne out. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners in the county gaol of Cork. Now, upon that point, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only state that when any such abuse as that of which the hon. Member complained was indicated in any credible manner, the Government would immediately cause an inquiry to be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether such proceedings had actually taken place. The Government held firmly by the principle that unconvicted prisoners who were arrested under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act were to be treated in the same manner as all other untried prisoners. He ventured to promise, on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, that inquiry would be made into the Cork county gaol case, or any similar case; and that was the only assurance he could then give upon the subject.

said, there had been two statements made upon that occasion—one with regard to the gaol of Waterford, and the other with regard to the county gaol of Cork; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) who had alluded to the latter subject had laid before them mere general allegations, and had stated no specific facts. He (Mr. Roebuck) believed that if the Attorney General for Ireland had an opportunity of inquiring into those allegations, as he had inquired into the detailed charges with respect to the Waterford Gaol, he would find that they were equally unfounded. The hon. Member for Cork used a curious expression when he told them that these prisoners had been proved not to be guilty. ["Mr. MAGUIRE: I beg your pardon. I did not say so.] I beg your pardon, you did. I corrected you at the time. These men have not been proved to be guilty; but they have not been proved to be not guilty. [Mr. MAGUIRE: I did not say they had.] I beg your pardon, you did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a matter of Parliamentary—shall I say, practice?—I wish to ask you, whether one hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to stand up and declare, without any knowledge on his own part, that a statement, conscientiously made by another hon. Gentleman, will, on inquiry, prove unfounded? I can only say, that if that is our practice, the sooner we have a Reform Bill the better.

I did not hear any expression fall from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that appeared to call for my interposition.

I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to say that the hon. Member for Cork had stated anything that he knew to be untrue. He only said that he expected that the statement of the hon. Gentleman would, on inquiry, turn out to be unfounded.

said, that he was not averse to proceedings in Courts of Law being criticized by the press; on the contrary, he believed such criticism exerted a very beneficial influence in the country. He had no objection whatever to Judges, counsel, witnesses, and all parties being fairly dealt with by the critic. The particular journal to which he referred—The Times—lately published an article of consummate ability relative to a cause of great importance, but the criticism which he was about to notice referred to a criminal trial which recently took place in Mona- ghan, arising out of the last election for that county, and he now asked the permission of the House to make a few remarks upon what was reported to have then occurred. He did not intend to complain of the criticisms of the journal which had yesterday taken up the matter; his object was simply to state the facts. On the 22nd of July, on the Saturday, the electors of the county of Monaghan were invited to record their votes at the very pleasing and formerly happy village of Castle Blayney, and a number of those electors assembled in the domain of a gentleman situate in the immediate neighbourhood of that place. The night previous to the election the Government very properly sent a military and a police force into Castle Blayney. The House should understand that a new theory had been broached in Ireland, which was not very satisfactory to the electors—namely, that the non-electors should attend the electors on the day of election, and dispose of them as might be found most convenient. He believed all parties to be most amicably disposed towards each other. The Government sent to the town a stipendiary magistrate and an additional force of police. On Friday night a large body of electors arrived there, and there was a disturbance, but the police authorities got the better of the rioters, a number of whom were seized, and very properly prosecuted, and prosecuted to conviction by the Government. A large body of non-electors also assembled in the town on the morning on which the polling took place, who were pleased to receive in not a very polite manner those adventurous voters who went to the poll, who in return called them, without the slightest respect, a mob. It also appeared that early on the Saturday morning a number of electors, who entered the town without any guard, were in a very disagreeable manner, legs foremost, removed from the car on which they were conveyed, and carried off by persons employed for that purpose. As soon as the resident magistrate was informed of the fact he proceeded to the place where those men were confined, and released them, and they afterwards voted for one of the candidates. That part of the proceedings passed off, but a party of 200 electors—a number sufficient to turn the election—arrived in the town from a place called Ballybay to vote for the Conservative candidate, accompanied by the old rector of the parish. It was a question of considerable nicety how to get those men to the poll. It had been thought better to place them in a special train, to which no one but the electors were admitted, and thus to convey them to Castle Blayney, where they would be received by a guard. They reached that town about eleven o'clock. One of the voters, a most respectable man, having been hustled by a number of persons, the magistrate swore that he took him to the polling-booth, and seeing that he had a pistol, asked him to give it to him. The man, whose name was Gray, did so, the pistol was afterwards restored to him, and there was nothing further remarkable in the circumstance. Gray was a man whose father was described by Mr. Wyse in his history of the Catholic Association as having taken an honourable part in the Catholic question, and there was no reason why he should have any dislike towards the person whom he was accused of having murdered. It appeared, however, that after the 200 electors had voted, it became a matter for consideration what was to be done with them until the starting of the special train, which was not to leave the town till three o'clock. Permission was obtained for them to enter the domain of the gentleman whom he had already mentioned, and there they remained for two hours enjoying the scenery until the magistrate was ready to convey them back to the railway station. Accompanied by a troop of fifty Lancers, consisting of an advanced guard, a rear guard, and flanks, the electors, well-protected in the centre, were escorted by a back way—for the magistrate very properly determined that it was not desirable to take them through the street—but when they reached a passage leading to the cattle-market a shower of stones and brickbats was hurled at them by the mob. One of the Lancers swore that he had his jaw broken, and that he suffered under the injury which he sustained for three or four months. The old rector of the parish was struck twice. No shots were fired for the best of all reasons, because they had, he believed, no firearms. The voters and their escort, however, reached the station about half past two, thus, unfortunately, having half an hour to wait for the starting of the special train. During that time, being obliged to stay where they were, they were attacked on all sides, and wherever they appeared they were pelted with stones. The magistrate read the Riot Act, and a lieutenant of Lancers, it was said without authority, charged the mob at the head of his men. During that interval it was that the event occurred to which attention had been called in the article to which he referred. A man named Shevelin was struck twice on the head; the doctor said not dangerously; but then somebody rushed forward suddenly, fired, and shot him dead. The question was whether the prisoner Gray was the man who was guilty of the murder. The Crown contended that he was, and it might be remarked that he belonged to the Conservative, or, as it was more distinctly called in the part of the country in question, the Protestant party. On the trial four witnesses were produced on behalf of the Crown. The first was a Lancer—a man named Heffernan, who said he was present on the occasion when Shevelin was shot; that he saw the ear of the man who fired, but not his face, and that he believed the prisoner, judging from his figure, to be that person. He could not, however, identify him, and added that the whole affair lasted not more than half a minute. Another Lancer gave evidence, who swore that he had a front view of the man who fired the shot, and that that man was not the prisoner. But the Crown produced, and very properly produced, a boy who said that he saw the disturbance, that there was a wall seven feet high between him and the station, but that he managed to raise himself up so that he had a view of what was going on, and he undertook to identify the prisoner as the man who fired the shot, although he had never seen him before. A surveyor, having drawn a plan of the place, stated that it was possible to see the figure of the man from the spot where the boy described himself as having been stationed, but not the lineaments of his face. None of the other witnesses carried the case further, and the trial taking place on Saturday and not being finished, it was adjourned till Monday. Now came the circumstances of which he complained. On the Sunday morning, before they went to church, the persons interested for the defence found the names of two persons, Kearnan and Wilde, on the back of the indictment, who were to come forward as witnesses for the prosecution without having previously made any deposition or statement which would enable Gray's solicitors to know who or what they were, or what it was they were about to prove; illustrating the saying of Curran as to an apparition appearing suddenly in the witness-box to be the supreme arbiter of life and death. Those two persons, it was discovered on Sunday, lived in the top room of a not very good house, paying 8d. a week for their lodgings, and it was shown that a person standing up or sitting down in that room could not see the railway station, although by lying down and placing himself in a crouching position he might obtain a view of it. It appeared, moreover, during the progress of the trial that a committee had been formed to procure subscriptions for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused man, and accordingly these two witnesses appeared and swore that they saw the man who fired the shot through a window through which it was almost impossible that he could be seen without looking askance. He might add that they had been present at the inquest on the body of the man who was killed, which was held quite close to their house, and yet they had never given any information as to what they had seen until afterwards, so that they came before the Court under very suspicious circumstances. Yet the statement which had inadvertently been made the day before in a journal of vast influence was that four witnesses clearly identified the man, which was a complete misapprehension of the case. Under these circumstances the prisoner was properly acquitted; but what he (Mr. Whiteside) complained of was, that the case had been so strained, that these men who were neither examined at the inquest nor before the grand jury, should have been allowed to come forward at the last moment and endeavour to swear an innocent man's life away. It was no objection that the jury was composed of Protestants, because the number of Protestants on the panel was large. As to the statement that the High Sheriff conducted a body of voters to the poll, he had only to say that that gentleman was not High Sheriff at the time, and he acted as he did because he was told by a magistrate that he ought to protect those voters. That was all he did, and he never interfered in the trial, which was conducted in the usual course of law. It had been rightly said that this man was armed, but he was armed in self-defence, and he produced four witnesses to prove that he was not the man who fired the shot. He thought the House had a right to expect that the Attorney General for Ireland would not in future allow unauthorized persons to interfere in prosecutions, bat would leave them to be conducted by the proper functionaries.

said, it was not his intention to find fault with the verdict of the jury, but he must say that prosecutions in Ireland ought to be conducted on fair principles, and that juries should be so constituted as to induce the people to have perfect confidence in the impartial administration of justice. He protested against the very small proportion of Roman Catholics returned to the sheriff in the list from which the jury was taken, and also that the person who made it out should be the barony constable. He conceived that the system of jury panelling in Ireland was well worthy the attention of the Government. The persons who made the jury-book were the barony constables, and they were elected by the county grand juries, which were so constituted as to have a one-sided character.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside), had erred against the usual practice of not travelling beyond the terms of his Notice in commenting on the proceedings of a legal tribunal. He fancied, from the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman, that his statement would relate to the conduct of the High Sheriff. But what had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had given a graphic and a more or less correct account of the Monaghan election. The right hon. Gentleman produced no authority for his statement, but only said that it was a true account. Now, it so happened that, living in the neighbouring county, he had himself formed as to the facts of the case an opinion totally at variance with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. [Mr. WHITESIDE: They were all proved.] But the right hon. Gentleman did not say where or when they were proved. Statements with respect to elections in Ireland were not unfrequently made in that House which afterwards turned out to be inaccurate. The statements made by the right hon. Gentleman must have reference to what passed at the trial, and the right hon. Gentleman constituted himself a volunteer reporter, and gave his own summary of the evidence on what was, after all, a collateral issue, because the question as to the manner in which the election was conducted was not before the jury. He thought it most undesirable that counsel engaged in trials, criminal or otherwise, should come to that House and give their own statements of the evidence which had been adduced. With respect to the trial at Monaghan, the simple fact was that a man had been tried for murder and acquitted by a jury of his countrymen. Unfortunately, religious differences and animosities greatly interfered with the impartiality of juries in Ireland. It was therefore most desirable that every effort should be made to put the constitution of juries above suspicion. Riots, as they all knew, had taken place at Belfast, in which several murders were committed. There were the most aggravated assaults on both sides, yet not one single conviction had been obtained at the assizes, He did not charge partiality on the juries exclusively on one side. In one part of the country a jury of Roman Catholics would invariably acquit; in another a jury of Protestants would as invariably acquit. It was therefore advisable to act as far as possible on the direction giving by Baron Pigott in a certain case to obtain a jury of half Roman Catholics and half Protestants. The result in that case was that a satisfactory verdict was obtained. The case tried at Monaghan was a very remarkable one. It was a case of murder, which occurred when a party of voters were retiring from a contested election. The greatest possible prejudice existed on both sides, and the verdict necessarily depended on the constitution of the jury. The High Sheriff, it was admitted, had taken a very strong part at the election.

said, that he had already stated as a matter of fact that the High Sheriff, Mr. Lucas, was not High Sheriff at the time of the election. He acted merely as an ordinary private gentleman.

said, that he had no intention of misleading the House. He thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the gentleman who became High Sheriff in 1866 did conduct voters to the poll in 1865. That was the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Mr. WHITESIDE: No!] The High Sheriff who presided at the assizes, and who formed the jury panel, had taken a leading part in the election. The same gentleman, Mr. Lucas, in 1838 had been charged with a want of impartiality in the administration of justice as a magistrate. An inquiry was ordered by the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. Lucas was dismissed from the commission of the peace. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in saying that it was to be expected that a majority of the jurors in Monaghan should be Protestants. He lived within a mile or two of the county, and he knew that a majority of the farmers were Roman Catholics. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Not of the jury panel.] There were fifty-seven Catholics on the list of jurors. At the trial there were five peremptory challenges—three of Catholics and two of Protestants of Liberal opinions, but no one was ordered by the Crown to stand aside. A jury of twelve Protestants were empannelled, who were known to hold strong political opinions, to try a ease in which strong political prejudices might be expected to influence men's minds. The result was a verdict of acquittal. That the trial was influenced by the jury panel was an opinion strongly entertained in Monaghan. It was most undesirable that such a state of things; should exist, and serious blame was attributable to the Law Officers of the Crown, who ought to have taken steps to secure the impartial administration of justice in Ireland. Very lately the Law Officers of the Crown had to conduct a series of political trials, and they had conducted them very well; but it was notorious that they had ordered a considerable number of jurors to stand aside because they believed, and rightly, that their political prejudices would influence their verdict. He blamed them for not even seeking to prevent the appearance of partiality in the constitution of juries in Monaghan. There was such a thing in criminal trials as changing the venue. That had been done in the case of the Rev. Father Peter Conway, where the venue was changed from Mayo to Dublin. The Law Officers of the Crown were perfectly aware of these facts; their attention was drawn to the desirableness for the interests of the administration of justice that the constitution of the panel should be closely watched, and they must have known before the trial took place the actual constitution of the panel, and the singular exclusion from it of Roman Catholics. He could not understand, therefore, why the Government should not have changed the venue of the trial. He should also mention that two men who were holding and beating the murdered man when he was shot in the back, were also tried by a jury consisting exclusively of Protestants, the only Roman Catholic who was called being desired to stand aside, it might be not without good reason. He believed the father of these men had been accused of slaying three men at different times in the same county. He had been convicted for murder, but the verdict was quashed at the time of Mr. O'Connell's appeal on technical grounds. [Mr. WHITESIDE said, that the father was convicted only of firing with intent to kill.] He had only alluded to these things to show how the impression in Ireland had originated; that impartiality in such trials was not to be expected. He thought some explanation was required from the Law Officers of Ireland as to this case. The facts he had detailed were sufficient to account for the want of confidence in the administration which prevailed among the Irish people. There was one passage in the article in The Times to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred. It was as follows:—

"Mr. Whiteside, who conducted Gray's defence with great ability, put the whole matter in a light perfectly intelligible to an Ulster jury when he stated that Shevelin's death, however much to be deplored, might be a salutary lesson to riotous mobs of non-electors."

He was surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman had made no remark on this passage.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had not adhered to the terms of his notice, which was to draw attention to certain statements in the leading journal—The Times—reflecting on the administration of justice in the county of Monaghan by the High Sheriff of that county. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not expect, after reading that notice, to hear a long account of the circumstances which led to the trial which had been mentioned. The only passage in the article of The Times which reflected on the High Sheriff was this—

"In this very instance the Orange contingent is alleged to have been led by Mr. Lucas, the present High Sheriff, and if this be true it is certainly an untoward circumstance that a gentleman personally interested in the transaction to be investigated should now fill that responsible position."

As one of the officers of the Crown he must say it would have been much better if Mr. Lucas had not been High Sheriff at the time of this trial. Not that he thought that gentleman would be influenced by party considerations in the discharge of the onerous duties imposed upon him in that capacity; but the administration of justice ought ever to be above suspicion, and the people could not be expected to rely on the impartial administration of the law unless that principle was strictly observed. He quite allowed, therefore, that the case called for some explanation, and this he would proceed at once to give. High Sheriffs in Ireland, as the House were probably aware, were selected by the Executive from three names which were sent in for each county by the Judges, and the invariable usage was to select the first gentleman on the list. [Cries of "No, no!"] He should, perhaps, have said the usual course was to do so, and the first name on the list was not-set aside without some grave reason. In the present instance, the only person really able to determine whether the part taken by Mr. Lucas in the election disqualified him from being High Sheriff this year was his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson), and his right hon. Friend, not being able to address the House a second time, authorized him to state that he took upon himself whatever blame the appointment might be thought to deserve. The fact was that his right hon. Friend fully intended to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the circumstances of the case, not that he thought Mr. Lucas had interfered in the election in any way which would render his position as High Sheriff an embarrassing one, but he conceived that it would be better to avoid any suspicion of partiality. Owing, however, to the enormous pressure of business connected with the proceedings of the Special Commission for the trial of the Fenian prisoners, the appointment of Mr. Lucas, as Sheriff, was made before the Attorney General had an opportunity of conferring with his Excellency. Considering, then, that for the Government to supersede the High Sheriff on the very eve of the trial would have been open to grave imputation, the best course seemed to be not to meddle with the appointment, his right hon. Friend believing that Mr. Lucas would discharge his duty with the utmost fairness, and a close investigation had satisfied the Government that he had done so. With the result of the trial no reasonable person acquainted with the principles of our law could find fault, and the reasons for that opinion could not be better stated than in the very article on which the right hon. Member for Dublin University had commented. Its words were these—

"The swearing on both sides was so hard, and the undoubted fact of great confusion prevailing at the time was so favourable to the defence, that an acquittal was inevitable."

The evidence was so conflicting that it could not be said that there was no reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and to the benefit of that doubt the prisoner was entitled. One other point he must allude to. What was the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in giving the whole history of the transaction he could hardly say. At one moment he thought his intention was to argue that the act was justifiable, and to a certain extent that seemed to be his object. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in his defence of the prisoner—

"That some good might arise from what had taken place, because it would deter others from interfering to prevent the right of voting."

Such language was an unnecessary and an indefensible appeal to the passions of the jury. He (Mr. Sullivan) maintained that the man's death was as clear a murder as was ever committed His life was wantonly taken without provocation, and when the voters were sufficiently protected. Under these circumstances, he put it to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) whether his observations merely were not calculated to rouse party passions, which it was the paramount duty of every Member of that House to endeavour to appease. The hon. Member for Longford was right in saying that the venue might have been changed. No doubt the Law Officers of the Crown were bound to consider this point. They did so, and came to the conclusion that they could not go to the Court of Queen's Bench and say that a fair trial could not be had in the county of Monaghan, which was a condition precedent to the consent of the Court to a change of venue. With respect to the setting aside of jurors, no man was directed to stand aside on the ground of his religious or political opinions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had hinted at some aid having been given by some committee or other to the Crown in the prosecution. There was not a particle of foundation for such a statement. The administration of justice did not, either in England or Ireland, admit of such aid, and nothing was more strictly watched by the Crown prosecutors in Ireland than any interference by collateral or interested parties. He would submit, in conclusion, that the Law Officers of the Crown had done their duty and that no blame attached to them in this matter.

said, he must express his astonishment that a simple Notice such as that placed upon the Paper by his right hon. and learned Friend should have led to a debate of such a character. His (Mr. Whiteside's) object was to correct an in- advertent and mistaken report in the leading journal of the day in reference to the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend, as the counsel engaged, had conducted this case. His object was twofold—first, to state that nothing of corruption or impropriety of conduct had appeared in the acts of the Sheriff or the swearing of the jury, and next to correct an unfair imputation that four credible witnesses had sworn to the identity of the man who was upon his trial. He did not believe that his right hon. and learned Friend had the slightest intention of impugning the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Hear, hear!] It was, however, an unusual thing that any one should be allowed to interfere with a Crown prosecution, and it was stated on the trial that a committee had been appointed and funds collected to get up evidence in order to patch up the case. His right hon. and learned Friend had shown that there was no ground for impeaching the conduct of the Sheriff.

said, that having read the article in The Times the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) was not satisfied with coming from the county of Monaghan with his blushing honours thick upon him, but he must come down to that House determined to have a second verdict in his favour—determined to be not only his own reporter but almost his own trumpeter, and demanding of the House in effect to have the case re-tried. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had called in question the main statement on which the comments of The Times were founded—namely, that four persons had deposed to the fact that the prisoner Gray had inflicted the deadly wound upon the deceased man. Now, he was not himself about to ask the House to re-try the case or to travel again over the evidence; and he must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having earned his fee and come back to this country to spend it, as an Irish gentleman ought, should have rested content, and should not have expected a re-investigation of the case. But, as the right hon. and learned Member had taken upon himself to challenge the accuracy of the statement of The Times, he must, on his own part, state that four persons did depose that the prisoner Gray was the man who discharged the fatal shot. There were some observations, perhaps, in the article of The Times to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if he did not in his own mind regret the language which he had used at Monaghan—might have objected. Certainly, he had employed a strength of expression which, however it might be pardoned as coming from the counsel for a prisoner, who sometimes took great licence, particularly in Ireland, no man would venture to repeat in this House or in any reasonable society in this country. [Mr. WHITESIDE: I say that not only would I repeat it—"Order, order!"] He was astonished that some feeling of annoyance at The Times having presumed to animadvert upon his conduct should have induced the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring the matter forward. He himself repudiated the notion of there retrying that case; but when the attention Of the House had been invited to an alleged misstatement of the leading journal, he must take leave to point out that the fact to which he had referred was testified to by four witnesses. With respect to what had been said about the committee at Castle Blayney for getting up subscriptions for the prosecution, he must distinctly state that on that occasion neither he himself as representing the Attorney General for Ireland, nor the eminent and learned Gentlemen who were associated with him in the case, nor the Crown Solicitor, nor any person on the staff connected with the Crown, had to his knowledge or belief any communication with or assistance from that committee or any person acting on its behalf. They knew nothing at all about it, and went to Monaghan perfectly ready to conduct their own case. As to the production of witnesses who had not sworn informations in the ordinary way, no one knew better than the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. George) that it was not a sufficient reason for rejecting the testimony of a witness in Ireland that he had hesitated till a late period, or even till the Assizes, to give his evidence. Sometimes in Ireland it was difficult to get witnesses to come forward at all. If a man and his wife went to the Crown Solicitor and stated that they both saw a certain thing done, and that they were ready to swear to it, what was the Crown Officer to do but to lay instructions to that effect before counsel? That had happened in this instance, and he and his learned colleagues therefore held a consultation, when it struck them all that of course the prisoner's counsel would animadvert upon the fact of those witnesses having come forward at the last moment as being a circumstance throwing suspicion on their testimony. But the man and his wife were persons of good character, on which, after they had undergone cross-examination, no blemish was left. He had never seen or known them before himself, and it was not for him to have said that they were unworthy of credit, merely because they had delayed in regard to giving their evidence. The value of their evidence under all the circumstances was a matter to be left for the jury; and in any similar case he would to-morrow repeat the course he had taken. In what a position would counsel conducting prosecutions for the Crown be placed, if they assumed the responsibility of discarding such witnesses as perjurers? He maintained that after what had taken place in that House, the High Sheriff of the county came badly out of that business. He was a fine, bluff, honest, country gentleman, and when he came to read his Times of to-morrow morning, and found it recorded to all time that some twenty-eight years ago, "in the merry days when he was young," he was dismissed from the commission of the peace, he would be apt to exclaim, "This is what Mr. Whiteside has brought upon me; save me from my friends!" With respect to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, he would only say that a rule had long prevailed that had been recommended by high authority, by which a certain class of persons were set aside at jury trials in Ireland wholly irrespective of creed. It had been a practice to set aside publicans, and probably the person referred to had been set aside under that rule. At all events, he could positively state he was not set aside because he was a Roman Catholic, and that he (Mr. Serjeant Armstrong) would be no party to so monstrous an Act. He might say with regard to the jury, that on a panel of about 300 not thirty were Roman Catholics, and of the 100 who answered to their names only nineteen were Roman Catholics. It followed that the prisoner, who could challenge twenty peremptorily, might have an exclusively Protestant jury, and, in fact, he had it. Still, having regard to the principles upon which the criminal law of the country was administered, by which the jury were always directed to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, in the present instance the jury were perfectly justified in giving their verdict of acquittal, as the evidence was conflicting, and reasonably suggestive of a doubt.

said, he thought that Mr. Lucas had reason to complain of the way in which he had been dealt with in this discussion. He contended that the hon. Member for Longford had unjustly raked up a dismissal of that gentleman from office which took place: twenty-eight years ago. Since then Her Majesty's Government had thought it right to reinstate him as High Sheriff for the county; the Judges recommended Mr. Lucas for the office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General had sanctioned that appointment. He had been struck by an observation that fell from the Solicitor General, that no person was allowed to assist in a ease conducted by the Crown. Now, from his own knowledge, he had found this statement to be incorrect. He knew that solicitors and counsel had been allowed to act with the counsel for the Crown, and he had himself held a brief under such circumstances. The next of kin had repeatedly instructed both solicitors and counsel, and they had taken their turn in the examination of witnesses. With respect to the time which had been occupied in the discussion, he did not think that the paragraph which had been referred to could have been made intelligible without giving a statement of the facts which had led to it.

said, he did not think the time of the House had been at all wasted in discussing the administration of justice in Ireland, and thought a great deal of credit was due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) for having brought the Monaghan trials under the notice of the House. There was a widespread feeling of astonishment and dissatisfaction at the manner in which the trials had been conducted, and it was a striking fact that the jury panels, consisting of 300 persons, contained the names of only fifty-seven Roman Catholics, and that the first panel contained no more than seven, so that under no circumstance could more than seven have been challenged. It was a matter of surprise, considering what happened years before, that the present Sheriff should be in that office at the time of the trials. He considered it the duty of the Government to deal with the jury laws in Ireland so as to prevent such a miscarriage of justice as had taken place in this instance, where a foul murder had been committed and no person had been made amenable to justice.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Turnpike Trusts, 1864, in which they state that—

"Tolls are unequal in pressure, costly in collection, inconvenient to the public, and injurious as causing a serious impediment to intercourse and traffic, and that the abolition thereof would be beneficial to the community,"

and to ask what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the said Report. If ever there was a ease of breach of duty on the part of the Government, it was their not having followed up the recommendations contained in the Report of 1864 There was no subject which had led to so many riots even in Wales, one of the most peaceable localities in Europe. Ireland, with all her alleged wrongs, had not a single toll bar. The system of turnpike trusts operated as a great wrong throughout the country. The effect was, to relieve landowners from their common law liability of keeping the roads in repair, and to keep up a rapacious body of lawyers, surveyors, and officials by an unjust tax on the public. They were originally constituted with the view to the improvement of our roads, and nothing could be more just than that the repayment of the money required for making new or repairing old roads should be raised by moans of a charge on the districts which were liable at common law, though it must, he thought, be admitted that turnpike tolls were the most costly and inconvenient system which could be adopted for the purpose. It appeared that nearly £1,000,000 a year was now raised under these trusts, notwithstanding that the payment of the charge within a period which had expired had been promised by the trustees. They had therefore not kept faith with the public, and he had to complain that the Government should renew the trusts from year to year in a Bill brought in at the end of the Session, and generally speaking at two o'clock in the morning, without giving any good reason for continuing to impose so heavy a tax on the public. The authorities at the Home Office were—doubtless owing to the pressure of local influence—not discharging their duty when they said that they were getting rid of the turnpikes by putting them in the schedules. They ought not to be satisfied with that, but they ought to do something themselves, or else encourage any efforts, however humble, made by independent Members. In the Bill introduced by him there was a provision which had received the approval of the late Sir George Lewis, and which would entirely remedy the present state of things. That provision was with respect to trusts which had expired that when application was made to Parliament for a renewal of the trusts it should be a condition that the tolls to be collected should be applied, not to the repair of the roads, but solely to the liquidation of the remainder of the debt. As regarded those cases in which the trust had not expired, he (Mr. Whalley) would recommend that the landowners should have power voluntarily to abolish them, a step which they would act wisely if they took, for the greater part of tolls was derived from local traffic, and it would be infinitely better to raise the money by a rate than by a system which was most inconvenient, most costly, and most injurious. He wished to know what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of 1864?

said, he thought that the hon. Member's speech might have been more appropriately delivered on the second reading of his own Bill, to the principle of which the Government could not agree, because they did not think that it could be acted upon to any public advantage. With regard to the statesman who had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and whose name always carried with it the greatest possible respect in that House, he must observe that Sir George Lewis was not at the Home Office subsequently to the Report of the Committee of 1864, and that while at the Home Office he brought forward no such measure as that described by the hon. Gentleman. He was, therefore, unaware of the grounds on which the hon. Member stated that Sir George Lewis would have supported such a measure.

said, that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) had mentioned to him that that was the view of Sir George Lewis; and in an interview on the Highways Bill he had himself been given to understand by Sir George Lewis that such was the case.

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough that the Committee of which his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford was Chairman had made a Report by no means in accordance with his views. One question was, whether turnpike trusts which were free from debt should be at once abolished? That was negatived by the Committee. Another point of still more importance was, supposing turnpike trusts abolished, how the expense of keeping the roads in repair should be borne? [Mr. WHALLEY: Each parish is at common law bound to repair its own roads.] The common law principle was inapplicable, for they were not local parish roads. Every one was aware how exceedingly disagreeable turnpike tolls were; but the expense of maintaining the roads in a proper state of repair must be provided for; and the Committee were utterly unable to recommend any feasible scheme by which turnpike tolls should be abolished. Whenever any tangible scheme was brought forward it was negatived. The proposal to throw the expense of keeping up the roads on the parishes through which they passed was negatived by thirteen to four. The next difficulty was how to fix the district upon which the burden should fall; and the Committee, having negatived a proposal that it should be put upon the highway district, and another that it should be put upon the county, came to no conclusion upon this essential matter. The only practical paragraph in the Report was the last, and on that the Government had acted. It recommended that attention should be directed to the several turnpike trusts whose Acts were continued from year to year by the Annual Continuance Act, and that those which were free from debt should be thrown open. In 1863 92 miles of turnpike roads had been thrown open on the expiration of their Acts; in 1864 63 miles were thrown open; in 1865 219 miles were thrown open, and by the 1st of November, 1867, turnpike tolls would be abolished on no less than 695 miles of road. Real progress had, therefore, been made in this matter. Till some great change was made in the area of taxation, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough. If the House should at some future time alter the state of the law with regard to highways, first by making the adoption of the Highway Act compulsory over the whole country, and next by adopting district instead of parochial rating for highways, it would be more easy to deal with turnpike trusts; but until these preliminary steps were taken, it seemed to him idle to expect that any general system could be established. He fully appreciated the care and attention which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) bad bestowed on this subject, but he should not be able to support the second reading of his Bill.

said, that though not a Member of the Committee he had given evidence before it. Considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to the Report. He most approved the last paragraph but one, in which reference was made to the system adopted in Scotland and South Wales. Tolls were not abolished in South Wales, but the trusts were consolidated, and that system had given the greatest satisfaction. He hoped the Government, notwithstanding the reproaches of the lion. Member (Mr. Whalley), would continue the course it had hitherto pursued. He believed that Sir George Lewis had expressed himself in favour of tolls. After all, this constituted a very fair plan, whereas that of rating was a hap-hazard system, under which one man paid for what another enjoyed. A gross injustice would be caused by resorting to the parochial system, and the plan of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was exactly that which provoked the Rebekah riots in Wales, the trusts being deeply in debt and the tolls being absorbed in meeting the interest upon it.

said, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) spoke as if nothing had been done towards the abolition of turnpikes, but having sat on Committees on the subject for fifteen years, and having most of that time acted as Chairman, he could assure him that they had been acting on a regular system. They could not get rid of tolls all at once, but the aggregate debt had been reduced from £9,000,000 to about £4,000,000, and in no instance had the market value of the mortgage bonds been depreciated, for though the interest had been reduced this had been counterbalanced by the better security that had been given. Not a year elapsed in which the Committee did not reduce the debt and close some trust. Only those, however, acquainted with the circumstances of the different trusts could appreciate the injustice which would be done to parishes in certain districts by suddenly abolishing the tolls, and throwing the roads upon the parochial rates. In many of the agricultural districts of the south of England such a measure might not be attended with great hardship, but in the north there were roads connecting large towns and passing through parishes of small agricultural value. The expense of those roads, owing to the heavy traffic, was sometimes as much as £300 or £400 a mile per annum, and the towns, having generally adopted the Local Government Act, could not be made liable, so that the rating system would throw the expense on parishes which derived but little benefit from them. The formation of districts, moreover, was attended with great difficulty, on account of places being able to escape the burden by adopting the Local Government Act. He believed the Scotch system was the only way of rapidly abolishing tolls, but this was permissive—not compulsory as proposed by the hon. Member—meetings being held in each county at which it was agreed to consolidate the trusts or to adopt an assessment system, and then Parliament was applied to to sanction the arrangement. He believed this method might be carried out in England, but the precipitate adoption of parochial or district rating would involve great injustice.

said, the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) for his continuous and persevering efforts in bringing so pressing a grievance before them. Nothing could be more monstrous than to have an army of tax collectors posted over the country, the greatest number of whom only raised enough for their own support. A Committee of that House had condemned the system unequivocally, yet they were told that no remedy was possible, a conclusion which was absurd, for, if the grievance was so bad, some remedy must exist. He understood the Under Secretary (Mr. Baring) to suggest that parties interested in expiring trusts should be allowed to come before Parliament to have their position considered, but he hoped he was mistaken, for such an overture would be very ill-advised. Parties would be only too happy to avail themselves of the opportunity of incurring the enormous expense of private Acts, in order to prolong the existence of the trusts, and he knew of one case in which the debt was only £700, and yet the trustees came before Parliament, at a cost of not less than £500, and so increased their debt to £1,200, much to the satisfaction, no doubt, of the clerk and other offi- cials. The proper policy seemed to him to be to put all such trusts into the Abolition Bill, and then, if the parties desire it, the question could be investigated by the Committee, and at a trifling expense a satisfactory arrangement could be made. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had been trying to please everybody, and seemed to have ended, as generally happened, by pleasing nobody; the person least pleased being the "Under Secretary, with whom he had taken more pains than with any one else. The House was not now in a position to discuss his hon. Friend's Bill, with which, though his name was on the back of it, he had himself no knowledge. But he would urge him to persevere in his attention to the subject, and the course pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to offer a solution of the difficulty.

said, that this Vote was intended to secure a better flow of promotion in the Royal Navy by extending the system of compulsory retirement, including the flag list. The scheme had already been laid before the House in detail, and he need not therefore advert to it at any length. The object of the scheme was to retire the flag officers who had hitherto been exempt from the system of compulsory retirement. It would not, however, deprive them either of the pay or of a rise in rank from that of rear to full admiral. Although in certain cases there might be honourable and distinguished officers in the navy who might feel that their position was somewhat damaged, yet he felt satisfied that such was the public and honourable feeling of those officers that they would not stand in the way of a proper flow of promotion which would enable young and active officers to rise to high grades in the service. He believed that for the benefit of the naval service those officers would not object to retire when they came to ages which would include them within the scheme of compulsory retirement.

said, that this was a scheme to effect acceleration of promotion in the navy, by making room at the top of the list. Although he did not object to it, he was anxious to call attention to another class of measure which might be adopted for the same purpose, but affecting the other end of the list. He thought that the object of quick promotion in the navy might be attained by not admitting so many into the junior ranks of the service. In the army there were no more officers taken on than there were occasion for, but that was not the case with respect to midshipmen in the navy. In a first-class vessel the proper complement, he was told, was sixteen midshipmen, but twenty-four were always taken. He should like, therefore, to hear some official statement from the noble Lord as to what was the rule of limitation as to taking midshipmen.

said, that several hon. Members wished to make remarks on the Vote for new works which had come on unexpectedly, and had just been carried sub silentio, to the astonishment of himself, his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Samuda), and others. Perhaps his noble Friend would give some explanation in regard to the docks at Malta, a subject in which some hon. Gentlemen opposite took a good deal of interest. With regard to the present Vote it was, he thought, to be regretted that the navy was a close profession. No matter what a boy's taste might be for the navy, unless he obtained the patronage of an admiral, a captain, or some Member of Parliament influencing the Government of the day, he had no chance of entering the navy. There ought to be some method of open competition or otherwise, by which a certain number of young gentlemen could enter the navy every year. At a time when they were opening the Engineers and other branches of the public service to public competition, it was to be regretted that the system adopted in the navy shut the door of the most popular profession of the country against all except those who had naval or Parliamentary interest.

said, that on the contrary, he believed there was a great improvement as to the chances of promotion in the lower ranks of officers. Such a thing now was almost unknown as an officer remaining a sub-lieutenant move than two or three years, and very few men were found languishing as lieutenants anything like the time they did ten or fifteen years ago.

said, he wished to call attention to the number of officers in the navy, particularly of admirals on the active and retired list. There were already 190 admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals on the retired list. He had been told that only four of these had served their full time as captains. They cost the country not less than £81,510 a year. He made no objection to the amount of their pay, but when he looked at the number of ships in commission, and contrasted it with the number of admirals on both the lists, active and retired, he found there were 148 ships in commission, 190 admirals on the reserved and retired list, and 103 admirals on the active list. That gave more than two admirals to every ship in commission. He could not but regard this state of things as an unnecessary expense to the country and an injury to the naval profession. The case of the flagship Edgar showed the expense thrown upon the country by having on board of our ships an excess of officers over the full complement. The number of officers on board the Edgar, in one year and a half, over and above the full complement, was upwards of seven upon an average, causing an excess of cost of pay of £721. The total amount of the pay for the officers of the Edgar during the period taken for his illustration was £1,439; whereas, if the complement had not been exceeded, the sum would have been but £718. Thirty pounds a year each for provisions must be reckoned for those extra officers, making £337, so that the country paid no less a sum than £1,058 for overstocking the profession in the flagship Edgar. More midshipmen were admitted than was necessary, as shown by the smaller proportion of ensigns in the army admitted. This was to the detriment of the profession and the injury of the nation.

said, that the Edgar was a flagship, and that the excess over the complement of other ships was usual.

(having just entered the House) said, he wished to ask when the noble Lord intended to invite the attention of the House to the plan for the retirement of flag officers which he had mentioned in moving the Navy Estimates.

said, that the matter was before the House then. His hon. Friend (Mr. Seely), the naval Reformer, ought to discriminate between that which was right and that which required correction. Every flagship had a certain number of naval cadets and disposable officers of every grade available for service as they were required in other ships. It was true they had a much greater number of Admirals and flag officers than was necessary for the navy, but there were many gallant and distinguished officers who had fought and bled for their country whom they could not treat unfairly. The Government were moving gradually in the direction of reducing the upper classes in the navy by filling up only two out of every three vacancies, their object being to bring the establishment down to the proper requirements of the service. The captains' list was being reduced. The lieutenants formed the pivot of the whole, and at the present moment they were short of lieutenants. During the past year the entries of cadets of the first class numbered 176; and if they meant to keep up the list of lieutenants they would have rather to increase than decrease the entries into the navy. His hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) had remarked that while the admissions to most other branches of the public service were open to competition, the entries into the navy were confined entirely to choice, and, in fact, it might be said went by patronage. That was a matter which deserved discussion in that House. It was desirable that there should be the means of throwing open a portion at least of the admissions to the navy to competition. A difficulty presented itself to that in consequence of the tender age at which boys entered the navy. A boy might afterwards grow up to be a person of great character, although when only twelve years old he might not have exhibited any striking degree of intellectual development, and it had been thought that they could not apply the principle of a competitive examination to boys of that early age. That was one of the principal reasons which had, of late, at least, prevented the Government from introducing that principle into the navy, although it had been adopted as regarded the Marines. Under the present system nominations were made by the Board of Admiralty with certain exceptions—for instance, flag-officers and captains of ships in commission had a certain number of nominations. The colonies received also a certain number. He could not conclude without expressing the great gratification he felt that it had fallen to his lot to close his official career—for it was not probable that he would again move the Navy Estimates—by proposing a plan for increasing the flow of promotion in the navy, which must redound to the advantage of the profession to which he belonged.

said, it appeared to him that flag officers, according to the proposal of the noble Lord, were to retire after a certain time; but an important exception was made in the case of those officers who had hoisted their flags or been employed in the Admiralty, seeing that by Clause 7 they would not be called upon to retire. There were 112 Admirals altogether interested in this matter, eleven of whom would be compelled to retire, while 100 would remain. He suggested that the noble Lord should postpone the Vote, that the subject might be more fully considered.

said, that he concurred in the recommendation just made.

said, that he wished to express his sense of the importance of the proposal made by the noble Lord. He thought it should have occupied a more prominent place in the Estimates. A great change was proposed, and the House ought to have received notice of the time when it would be brought forward. It had taken him by surprise. He did not wish it to be understood that he disagreed with the plan of his noble Friend. On the contrary, when he left the Admiralty six years ago he put into the hands of the Duke of Somerset a plan similar to that of the noble Lord, involving the compulsory retirement of officers at a certain age. He then entreated the noble Duke not to consider the source whence the plan emanated, but to look at it only in connection with its bearing upon the interests of the service. Seven years had elapsed since that time, and the noble Duke had made various changes in the system of promotion. He was not prepared to discuss the details of the plan now before the House, because he had not known when it would come under their consideration. He had, however, been startled by what had been said by his hon. Friend on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Moffatt) as to the extent of the exemptions. He believed that the principle of retirement according to age was a very wholesome one; but the exceptions were numerous to an extraordinary extent. His plan would not have pressed so severely as the noble Lord's did on flag officers, for he required retirement of flag officers under seventy years of age while the noble Lord required the retirement of rear admirals at sixty-five, and of vice admirals at sixty-eight. His proposal was, that any flag officer who arrived at seventy years of age should not be deprived of his honours, but only that he should not stop the promotion of others.

said, that the scheme had been before the House for a week. He had been anxious that it should be discussed at an early date, because the navy were desirous that it should come into operation as quickly as possible, for there was a stagnation of promotion in the navy. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Moffatt) had not given a fair view of the position officers would occupy under the system now proposed. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House (Sir John Pakington) met with serious opposition at the time it was proposed, because it included officers who had hoisted their flags and had had an opportunity of distinguishing themselves as flag officers. The scheme now before the House, however, would not affect an officer who had hoisted his flag or had served in the Admiralty. Flag officers on the retired list would rise in pay and rank precisely in the same degree as they would have done had they been on the active list. If his hon. Friend behind him thought that officers who had hoisted their flags, or who had served in the Admiralty, should not be exempted from compulsory retirement, let him make a Motion to that effect. He had no wish to press his proposal now if the Committee were in favour of deferring it.

said, that he thought that little difference would be made by postponing the Vote till the following Friday. Every Member ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposal. For his own part, although he approved its principle, he would not pledge himself to the details. He wished, therefore, to have time to consider it, and he trusted the noble Lord would deem it right to make a statement as to its whole scope.

said, he understood that Vote 14 was to be postponed. He should not oppose Votes not objected to, but it would be his duty to propose the reductions he had given notice of.

said, he had some observations to make on this Vote, but the hour (half past ten o'clock) was rather late to proceed with it. There were many hon. Members not present who were anxious to make some observations upon it.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in the Motion. There was every disposition to meet the demands of hon. Members for delay, but it was, he thought, too early an hour to stay the further discussion of the Estimates. The understanding was that the Army Estimates would be taken if they were brought in before eleven o'clock.

said, that such was the understanding, but since then Vote 14 had been postponed, and a great many Members were not aware of the change.

said, he thought such a Motion should not be made before eleven o'clock.

said, he was quite certain that there would have been a greater attendance of Members if it had been thought likely that the Vote would have been proposed that night.

said, that, pursuant to notice which he had given, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the constitution of the Council of Military Education. That Council as at present constituted was, he said, the result of the disasters which had occurred during the Crimean War. A Royal Commission had been appointed in 1856, to take into consideration the subject of the military education of our officers, with the view to the introduction of improvements, especially in the Staff Department. That Commission made its Report in 1857, and a Council was shortly afterwards appointed, whose duty it was generally to supervise the education of the army, to control the preliminary examinations which all officers had to pass before obtaining their commissions, and, what was of more importance still, to conduct and control the competitive examinations in the higher branches of the service—the engineers and artillery. It was also its duty to conduct the examinations for appointments on the staff of officers below a certain rank. The duties performed by the Council, especially with regard to examinations, were very analogous to those discharged by the Civil Service Commissioners. They were extremely important, and it was therefore expedient that the Council should be not only composed of officers of great ability, but of considerable determination and firmness. Now, he had heard it rumoured that it was the intention to establish the rule that the staff appointments in future should beheld only for five years. If that change were introduced and were to apply to members of the Council, a fatal blow would be struck at the usefulness and independence of that body. If that rule were adopted it would be impossible to procure the aid of distinguished officers, who would be unwilling to retire from active service to accept the appointment for so short a period as he had mentioned, while those who did so would not be placed in that position of independence—for officers, after all, were only human beings—especially with respect to their superiors at the Horse Guards, which it was desirable they should occupy. He wished to know whether or not there was any truth in the rumour that the Horse Guards meant to apply the five years' rule to the members of the Military Council of Education? The middle classes of the country were deeply interested in this question, and he would regret if anything took place to weaken their confidence in the entire independence of this Council. He hoped the noble Marquess would resist any interference with the duties and integrity of this Council, which stood between the old system of patronage and the new one of competitive examinations. The members of the Council were, in fact, civil servants, and military regulations ought not to be applied to them.

said, he was not aware that there was any change in. the original intention with respect to applying the five years' rule to the Military Council of Education, or that any assurance had been given to the officers composing the Council that their appointments would be differently circumstanced from ordinary staff appointments. He did not see the grounds why the rule should not apply to those officers, but, on the contrary, it seemed to him that the rule applied with greater propriety and convenience to their appointments than to many staff appointments. One object of the five years' rule was, that positions of this description should be held by a succession of men, who would import new ideas and bring fresh minds to the consideration of many questions, also men who knew something of the feeling of the army and of the progress of public opinion with respect to the great question—education. With respect to many appointments, such as that of the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and other staff appointments, considerable inconvenience must ensue when an officer who had held an office for five years, and had become efficient in the discharge of its duties, suddenly quitted it and was succeeded by one comparatively unacquainted with the duties; but surely, when a Council was composed of five or six members, the appointment of one new member every now and then could lead to no practical inconvenience. He had never heard it argued that the members of the Military Council were to be held incapable of receiving promotion; indeed, only a few weeks ago General Hamilton, President of this Council, had been appointed to a command. If the hon. Member wished to carry out his views, he must abolish these promotions. He was not aware that the Military Council and the Horse Guards came to any serious collisions. Differences of opinion there might be, but they were always referred to the War Office. The Council was the mainstay of the competitive examinations. They were conducted under the superintendence of the Council, but it was not true that the Council themselves conducted those examinations. All the Council did was to recommend the examiners, receive their report, be present at the examinations, and exercise a general supervision. For the selection from the candidates, the examiners, and not the Council, were responsible.

said, that there was an order which compelled every member of the Council to sign its reports, and if a report unpalatable at the Horse Guards was made, the officer who signed it might, after the term of five years, when he gave up his office as member of the Council find that he had lost all chance of promotion. He was strongly of opinion that the fact of the examiners of the Council sending back a friend of the Horse Guards from, the examination might be fatal to the subsequent promotion of the members of the Council, and this could not tend to their independence.

said, he wished to ask whether the resignation of the officer after the term of five years was to be compulsory? He thought it perfectly right that the Commander-in-Chief should have the power of retaining in office any of the members of the Council longer than five years, if necessary. One or two of the members had been appointed as far back as 1858. The Council was perfectly independent and had shown its independence. It would be seen from the Report of the Committee on Military Organization, that when the Commander-in-Chief suggested that, as there was a scarcity of officers, three young men who had attained superior marks, though they had failed to obtain the compulsory number, should be passed for commissions, the Council was against the Commander-in-Chief, and no one acquiesced more readily in their decision than the Commander-in-Chief himself.

said, that the rule was not peremptory in every case.

said, he should like to know whether the rule with regard to the five years' appointments was compulsory or not? He could not help thinking the system of the five years' appointments would be most detrimental to the service.

said, he wished to know what was the precise application of the rule as to these five years' appointments? The noble Marquess stated that it was not peremptory. Were the members of the Council to serve no longer than five years, or would it be competent for the Commander-in-Chief to re-appoint them at the end of five years? He could not agree that because the Council had hitherto been independent, they would always be so. Hitherto they had not been subject to this five years' rule, and, therefore, they had been independent. There must be very special qualifications for this service in connection with military education. He rather thought the noble Marquess had underrated the duties of the Council, and he could not agree that the five years' rule was at all applicable to the case. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee—he meant the cost of the military schools. He considered the charge for education at military schools much too large. The cost of maintenance was as high in France as it was in this country, but that of teaching in this country enormously exceeded that of France. In Woolwich the cost of teaching was £60, of superintendence £30, and of living £80, making together £170. Another point was the entire division of the military supervision in these schools from the educational department. He thought it would be more economical, and of great advantage, if the military officers who had the supervision were also employed in teaching, as it would tend to promote more harmony and better feeling between the cadets and their teachers. An enormous amount of teaching power was apparently wanted, as there were at Sandhurst six teachers of mathematics, besides one in the Staff College; seven teachers of military surveying, and one in the Stall' College; and three professors of military history, in addition to one in the Staff College. As compared with any of the great public schools in the metropolis, University College School, or King's College School, the amount of teaching power at Woolwich was greatly in excess. For teaching 180 students in Woolwich there was as much teaching power employed as for teaching 330 students in University College. There would be no difficulty in getting clever officers to act not only as captains of companies in those schools, but also as tutors; and this arrangement would promote a better feeling between the authorities and the students.

said, he was not able at the moment to apply to the rule itself, but he thought he might say with regard to all staff appointments they were to be for a term of five years. There was, however, a discretionary power in the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War to extend the term if the exigencies of the service should require it. It only applied to military appointments. It had never been proposed to extend the rule. The only chance of collision between the Council and the Horse Guards was with reference to the examination of officers for staff appointments; but there was not much chance of the Council coming into collision with the Horse Guards on that subject. The rule had not yet been strictly applied, for the first officer about to retire under it had held office for eight years. As to what the hon. Member for Longford held to be the extravagant cost of the military educational establishments, in the first place he must remark that supposing any considerable reduction could be made in the expenses of those establishments, it would be of no great service to the Army Estimates, because a very large portion of the expenditure in those schools was met by payments from friends of the cadets, and if the cost could be reduced very considerably it would not be fair to charge the same amounts to students. Some reductions were made some time since, and so far as he could learn the Secretary of State at that time was satisfied that the efficiency of the Academy would be impaired if more extensive reductions were made. With regard to the number of professors, whether the figures of the hon. Member were correct or otherwise, he must remind him that mathematics, and the application of mathematics, required a much larger place in the military instruction at Woolwich than they did in public schools. As to the professors of fortification and of military surveying and drawing, he was informed that, as they had to teach their pupils out of doors, a much larger number of them was required in proportion to the number of students than if the instruction could be given indoors.

said, he thought that when the subject of the chronic state of rebellion of the cadets at Woolwich was brought forward, the answer referring the House to a Report issued in 1857 was insufficient. This state arose from alleged insufficiency of food and other matters, and the Report of 1857 could have no sort of connection with the present state of things whatever. The whole of the present system pursued at the military colleges had been formed since the Report was issued. And so with regard to the discipline at Sandhurst. If there was one officer more important than another at Sandhurst, it was the Major Superintendent of Studies, who was supposed to understand everything, and to be able to examine in the several branches of study, as well as the professors themselves, and yet he had only £300 a year, a sum infinitely less than the professors. That was a matter which required explanation.

said, he thought there was no good reason why boys should not go to Woolwich at fourteen or fifteen, and enter the army at an early age, as their fathers did before them. If that course were followed one-half of the professors and other persons employed in disciplining the cadets might be done away with.

said, that the change in the age was a consequence of the recommendations of the Commission to which he had already referred. It was then thought that the defects in the two institutions were owing to the extremely early age at which the cadets entered. The present discussion had resulted in a proposition to increase the pay of the Major Superintendent of Studies. That was the only practical suggestion that had been made, and it was remarkable that it often happened that some proposition for increase of pay was the only fruit of a discussion which turned upon an economical question. He was not able to give an explanation why the pay of the Major Superintendent of Studies was not higher, but he would endeavour to find out, and he had no doubt that next year they would have to propose to raise the cost of these institutions considerably. He should wish to know whether there was any ground for saying that there was an insufficiency of food, or that the quality was not good. He felt quite surprised to hear that there could have been any complaint on the subject.

said, it had been the alleged cause of the disturbances which had taken place at different times.

said, that if there were good authority for the statement the matter ought to be inquired into at once.

said, he hoped that a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the education of the army.

said, that he had understood when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department last night undertook to have this Bill reprinted, that he would have given time to hon. Members to read it, as it now appeared, so that if they disagreed with any portion of it they might have an opportunity of placing Notices of Amendment on the table. It appeared to him that the course adopted throughout with regard to this measure was to force it through the House with as little consideration as possible. No one, however, could pretend that this was an insignificant subject, for it related to the repeal of the greater part of the oath relating to the Supremacy of the Crown and of the law, as it had existed since the first of Elizabeth. It was a measure which ought not to have been decided upon at a private meeting of Members; when the question came before the House it was introduced with the least amount of explanation he had ever heard with respect to any Bill of equal importance. He did not wish to move an Amendment at almost twelve o'clock on such a subject as this; but he therefore gave notice that he would on the third reading (as he had intended on the Report) move that the Bill be re-committed with a view to inserting the following words at the end of the oath:—

"And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath by law or ought to have any rightful jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm."

In this it would be seen he had added the words "by law," which were suggested by Lord Russell when the subject was before the Upper House, and "rightful." a word suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will only detain the House while I quote a few words from The Tablet (the most influential of the Roman Catholic organs) of Saturday last, which expressed in distinct language the sort of expectations to which the decision of the House on this subject gave rise-—

"In our opinion it would be a good thing if the provisions in the Emancipation Act were repealed, which convert into criminals, punishable by deportation, such of Her Majesty's native-born English or Irish subjects as choose to bind themselves by monastic or religious vows. It would also be very desirable that, as we Catholics are very poor and commit many crimes, we should have the full benefit of the zealous ministrations of our clergy in the workhouses and prisons into which our poverty and crimes introduce us in such large numbers. It would also—at least we think so—be desirable that Catholics in England should be allowed to claim exemption from the payment of church rates for the support of the English Protestant State Church, and that Catholic landowners in Ireland should be exempted from paying rent-charge for the support of Irish Protestant State Church …… In our opinion also it would be desirable that the State, instead of ignoring the sees and titles of the Catholic bishops of England and Ireland, and instead of proscribing those sees and titles, should repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and recognize the existence and legality of the Catholic Church and of its administration within the realm. Nay, we go so far as to think that it would be a wise and a good thing to give recognized rank and precedence to the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church within the realm, by making Peers of Parliament of the Catholic Archbishops of England and Ireland …… Moreover, we need scarcely say that, in our opinion, the restoration of regular diplomatic intercourse between the Crown and the Holy See would be most advantageous to all parties; and that it would be a good thing if the relations between the State on the one hand, and the Catholic Church in the British Empire and its dependencies on the other hand, were regulated by a convention between the supreme spiritual authority in the Catholic Church and the supreme temporal authority in the British Empire. In other words, we think that a concordat is advisable. Whether a State endowment for the Catholic Church, its hierarchy, clergy, universities, seminaries, colleges, and schools, would or would not be a desirable feature of the concordat, we do not assume to know, referring ourselves on that point to the wisdom of the Holy See. …. We need not lengthen this list of things thought desirable; we have said enough to indicate the leading features of a whole system and of a distinct policy."

By its indifference to subjects such as these, the House then was raising expectations which by their disappointment would lead to great discontent. When he moved the re-commitment of the Bill on Monday night he hoped to find that hon. Members were not so closely bound by party ties as to be satisfied with the decision arrived at; and that at any rate they would think it necessary to have a distinct answer from Her Majesty's Government how far the expectations—which he had shown were raised by re-opening this matter of the Parliamentary oaths—would be gratified. He wished to observe, with respect to himself, that he had from the first thought the form of oath proposed by the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) to be insufficient, and had stated in his place that he would not be included amongst those who approved it. His Opinion that the terms of that form of the oath of supremacy suggested in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were insufficient was confirmed by the opinion of the Attorney General and of other competent persons, and for that reason he felt justified in now giving notice of the Motion he had just read.

said, he wished to call attention to a provision introduced by the Duke of Wellington into a Bill for regulating our diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and to suggest that the principle of that clause might be introduced into the present Bill. It might remove any uncomfortable feeling in the minds of Roman Catholic Members.

said, he thought it would have been better if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given notice of what he intended to move on Monday. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), the House would not have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman had voted yesterday in favour of the insertion of words which would have the effect of excluding every Roman Catholic from Parliament.

said, he had stated that Roman Catholics would not accept them so far as related to the spiritual authority of the Pope.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was of opinion that the clause he had referred to was applicable to the present Bill, he might put a Notice of an Amendment on the paper, and the House would then see whether the party which acted under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) were prepared to agree to the addition of such words.

said, he was of opinion that the oath now imposed upon Roman Catholic Members was not the cause of a substantial, but merely of a sentimental grievance. He submitted that this Bill would inflict a further grievance on the Roman Catholic laity, whose interests, it should be remembered, were by no means identical with those of the priesthood. Roman Catholicism, as far as regarded its public position, must be regarded not as a religion at all, but as a political combination fraught with danger to this country. He could see no substantial grievance in Roman Catholics taking the oath which had hitherto been sanctioned by their own dignitaries.