said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement made by his predecessor on the 23rd of July last, that the claims against the late State of Oude, which have been investigated and reported upon by a Commission in India, "were claims of a moral character;" and to the fact that a notarial Copy of the Bond granted to Captain Thomas Edwards by the Vizier of Oude, as admitted in the Report of the Commission, was produced before it from the archives of the Supreme Court at Calcutta; What arrangement he proposes to make with a view of coming to a settlement of the amount due under the Bond, in order to carry out the pledge which was given to this House by the President of the Board of Control, on the 12th May 1857, "that all the public and bonâ fide claims against the State of Oude would be paid out of the revenues of the country."

, in reply, said, the Question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman was a peculiar one, and he thought unusually argumentative. The only answer he could give to it was, that this question was considered by his predecessor and his Council on the Report of the Commission to which the Question referred, and that the Report of the Commission had decided that it was not a case in which, from the evidence, there was any claim on the part of the representatives of Captain Edwards against the late State of Oude. His predecessor in Council had approved the Report of that Commission. He need not inform the hon. Member that in matters of finance the Secretary of State had no power to act without the assent of the Council. The matter had not been brought before him officially; but he had looked into the evidence, and he was perfectly disposed to believe that in the form in which it was presented to the Commissioners, and afterwards brought under the notice of his predecessor and Council, the conclusion arrived at was right. But he had been told privately that there was certain evidence not brought before the Commissioners which might have affected their opinions. If that was the case, and if his attention were called to the fact of any evidence not brought before them, he should be perfectly willing to refer that evidence to them and ask them if it would have made any difference in the conclusion at which they had arrived. But he might just say that, as this was described to be a "claim of a moral character," he understood that moral claims against the British Government arose in this way—when we took possession of Oude, and prevented the Sovereign from paying any debts that might be due from him, the Government considered itself liable for any debts that would otherwise have been paid; but this was a claim in respect of a very old debt, incurred seventy years before the annexation of Oude, which had been repudiated by the Sovereigns of Oude, and which, if the annexation had not taken place, in all probability would not have been paid. In that case he could not think there was any moral claim for payment out of the revenues of this country.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the Second Report of the Irish Law and Equity Commissioners, it is the intention of the Government to fill the vacancy in the office of Master of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland?

replied, that he had not heard that there was any vacancy in the office of the Master of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. In fact, he rather believed there was no such vacancy. Of course, if such a vacancy should occur it would be for the Government to consider whether it should be filled up or not.

said, in referring to the Notice that stood upon the Paper in his name, announcing his intention of calling the attention of the House to the necessity that exists for a reorganization of the War Office, in order that the efficiency and prompt action of all the subordinate departments may be increased, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of accomplishing that object, he had to state that when he put that notice upon the paper some days ago, he was ignorant that the right hon. Member for Inverness had a previous Motion upon the same subject upon the paper. Having since been informed of that fact, he begged to withdraw the notice that stood upon the paper in his name.

Mr. Speaker—I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given notice—

"That this House dissents from so much of the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education as provides for an increase of the Grants now made to Primary Schools."

I have to preface what I have to say upon this subject by congratulating the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu)—and I must also congratulate Her Majesty's Government—upon his accession to the place of Vice President of the Committee of Council. I beg further to congratulate his party and the country upon the appointment to such a position of a nobleman who holds such enlarged and liberal principles upon the subject of education. I read with the greatest pleasure the speech that the noble Lord delivered at his re-election, from which it would appear that we are at last in a fair way to have settled a question which has proved most irritating, vexatious, and difficult. I saw with much pleasure that the noble Lord intends to adhere to the Conscience Clause, which he intends shall be not only the condition upon which building grants to schools are to be made, but also the condition upon which the annual grants are to be made. I read that declaration with the most sincere pleasure, and I hope that when the noble Lord rises to take part in this debate, he will inform us what measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to give the utmost effect to that most wise and auspicious declaration. I must entreat the patience—which I will endeavour not to exhaust—of the House while I draw its attention to this subject, which is of a very abstract and technical character, though I think the issue before us is one that we can all understand. The question we have to determine is, whether the Education Estimates shall be increased by the sum of ¢70,000, and I ask the House to dissent from that increase being made. I beg not to be misunderstood in making that observation. I would not grudge the sum of £70,000 per annum, or a much larger sum, for the education of the people, if I believed that the money would produces beneficial effect. I have assisted on more than one occasion in reducing the amount of the grant for public education: but on those occasions I saw that the reductions were consistent with—nay, I believed would be the cause of—the greater efficiency of the system. Therefore, I beg that the House will understand that, although I am a friend to economy, I only uphold economy when combined with efficiency. I think that no sum that this House would grant would be too large if by its aid the education of the people would be rendered more efficient. But the House should recollect that our system of education is a voluntary system, and that it is quite possible to spend large sums upon a voluntary system, not only without increasing, but actually diminishing its efficiency. A voluntary system depends not so much upon grants of public money as upon the spirit of those who volunteer, and if you overload the system by grants of public money you merely clog the efforts of those who are endeavouring to carry it out; you deaden the action of the system rather than enliven it. Now, Sir, in 1862, those who had then the charge of public education saw by the light afforded them by the Report of the Royal Commissioners that the grants were given in such a way, that they were obtained by schools, whether they deserved them or not, that they were given in such a mannner as to impede the control that the manager ought to have over his school; that vested interests were being created which it might be difficult to get rid of, that the system was altogether one of great complexity, and that it could not be expected that any ordinary person who did not devote his time to the subject could really understand it. Acting upon these views, we introduced very large and sweeping changes; we reduced the grants from a large number of heads to two. We allowed 4s. on every child for average attendance, and 2s. 4d. for every child who could satisfy the inspector in reading, the same for writing, and the same for arithmetic, making in all 8s. on each child. By this means we reduced the system of grants to something like simplicity. We did away altogether with grants to teachers, thus avoiding the creation of vested interests, and we also did away with the very pernicious practice of giving bounties to pupil-teachers. This latter part of the system then in force was likely to have had a very bad result, because while the Government paid only one-third of the salaries of the adult assistant teachers, they paid the whole of the salaries of the pupil-teachers, thus giving a premium upon the employment of pupil instead of adult teachers. It is necessary that I should state these facts in order that the House may fully understand the state of things with which we had to deal. The alterations of 1862 created a great panic among the managers of schools, who succeeded not only in frightening the public but themselves also—

"Scared by the noise themselves had made,"

and no doubt for a year or two that panic had a most injurious effect upon the extension of the system. Since that period, however, the advance that the system of education has made has shown that the plan of 1862 has worked most satisfactorily. The increase in the number of schools since 1862 has been 1,035, while the number of pupils has increased by 110,000, and this increase in efficiency has been effected with a saving of expenditure, as calculated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Bruce), of £400,000, but which I am inclined to place at £100,000 higher. We are now asked to add £70,000 to the expenditure, and I should be only too happy to assent to that proposal if I thought that the public would receive a quid pro quo for their money; but I am afraid that by this additional expenditure we shall not be extending the advantages of the present system or giving any real impulse to education. On the contrary, I believe that this additional grant will be wasted where its effect is not mischievous. These certainly are strong assertions, but I will endeavour to prove their truth. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) in proposing this Minute said, that there were three faults in the present system—the first was that the smaller schools were unable to comply with the conditions of the Revised Code—that is, that the conditions were too hard and too stringent for these small schools to comply with them, and that they therefore lost the grant. The second objection was that too much attention was given to reading, writing, and arithmetic—the subjects beyond them of geography, astronomy, grammar, and history being much neglected, and that the pupils were not thoroughly well taught, and, in proof of this allegation, he showed how few pupils passed through the three uppermost examinations. The third objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman was that, under the present system, the number of pupil-teachers had declined very much indeed, and this he considered to be a very great blow to education. [Mr. CORRY: Hear, hear!] I gather from that expression of assent from the right hon. Gentleman that I have stated his objections correctly, and I need scarcely say that it is my desire to state them as accurately as possible. Now, with regard to the first of these objections, I am not sure that the fact upon which it is founded can be considered an evil. I believe that whatever grants are made they should be uniform, and that if the grants are to bear hardly upon any schools, it should be on the smaller ones, as there is a tendency in the denominational system under which education in England is regulated to make schools small. Each denomination likes its own school. Where there should be only one school there are two or three. I cannot think that that is an evil which counteracts this spirit of subdivision and dispersion, and induces the denominations to coalesce in schools where the education will be better, and where the money will go much further. For the sake of argument, however, I will admit that the regulation upon this point is an evil, and I will presently proceed to show how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remedy it. I do not see that there is any force in the right hon. Gentleman's second objection, which alleges that reading, writing, and arithmetic are attended to, to the neglect of higher branches of study. This system of education is not intended to apply to the upper or the middle classes, hut to those who are too poor to pay for education themselves. It is a very anomalous system to say the least of it, and I think that we cannot too firmly direct our view to its essential portions, disregarding that which I may, perhaps, describe as its ornamental features. There can be no doubt that an enormous number of children leave school before they are twelve years of age, and if we can teach them to read with facility, to write legibly, and to cast accounts, I think we do a great deal. It is more than we have been able to do up to the present time. My right hon. Friend, however, while complaining of neglect in this direction, complains also that the higher subjects are not sufficiently well taught; but it seems to me that one objection answers the other, for if they cannot teach children to read and write during their school life, what chance have they of teaching them grammar or geography? Then, as to the decline in the number of pupil-teach- ers. The number of pupil-teachers was artificially increased by the determination of the Privy Council to pay the whole of their salaries from the public money, while a third only of those of the adult teachers was so paid. That policy, of course, gave an enormous bounty upon the employment of pupil-teachers, and it always appeared to me that that was a false principle, contrary even to the very rudiments of political economy. It must also be remembered that until 1862 the teachers received a grant in augmentation of their salaries. This augmentation was then withdrawn, and it was determined that the money should be paid to the managers to do as they pleased with it—a course by which the Government and the teachers were no longer brought into contact with each other. That course was, no doubt, necessary, because vested interests, which would have been intolerable, were growing up under the old system. Having taken the teachers, however, from the hands of Government, and having handed them over to the iron laws of political economy, we now, when the bitterness of grief is past, begin again to tamper with those laws of political economy in a contrary direction, and after throwing the teachers upon the market we now proceed by our bounty to create an artificial supply of competitors. I have been no advocate of certificated masters; it has been my misfortune before now to give them great displeasure; but I cannot conceive greater injustice to that class than to send them into the market, and then artificially to glut that market with competitors, who but for our conduct would not be there. I entirely dissent, therefore, from my right hon. Friend's statement of grievances; and, so dissenting, I cannot be expected to assent to the remedies he proposes. I will, however, for the present, waive all question of assent, and proceed to inquire how far his proposals will remedy the evils of which he complains. I will state what I regard as a crying evil. The crying evil is not, I think, the inevitable fact that while small schools are more expensive to maintain than large ones we are obliged to apply the same measure in all cases. That fact is inseparable front the principles of rendering Government assistance, and the adoption of any other course would give rise to endless disputes. That is not the difficulty of the system. The difficulty is that, being a voluntary system, it is liable to break down for want of volunteers. There are many parishes in the country where persons will not come forward to assist schools. Consequently those parishes whose inhabitants contribute to the taxes, as well as others, and who have children to be brought up by the State, see this golden river of the Privy Council flowing past them without leaving any of its wealth on their shores. If my right hon. Friend had come forward to supplement what has been done without destroying the system as it exists, I should have thought £70,000, or even a much larger sum, a very small amount to pay for such an object. But the fault of the system does not lie in the direction that my right hon. Friend, from the short time that he has had experience of the office, has not unnaturally supposed it to lie. Now, I come to see how far the remedies which my right hon. Friend proposes are calculated to attain the object for which they are intended. He lays substantially two minutes before us—the one addressed to the question of pupil-teachers, and the other to the question of capitation. At present the school has to employ one certificated master or assistant teacher for every eighty children after the first fifty, and in the new grant he proposes to reduce the number of pupils from which you are to take the departure from fifty to twenty-five. He then proposes to give a grant of £8, I think, for every pupil-teacher who passes a first-class examination in a training college, and £5 for every pupil-teacher who passes a second-class examination. I may inform my hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart Mill) that this ungallant minute refers entirely to the male sex, excluding the female pupil-teachers altogether. Now, this grant will, no doubt, be very acceptable to those schools which by means of capital, energy, and enterprise have done well, and which are well furnished with pupil-teachers, but it will not afford any stimulus to schools which do not possess these advantages. This is a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. The cost of a pupil-teacher we assumed to be £15 a year, and consequently those who do not already employ the pupil-teachers will not be induced to do so by this grant, because by doing so they will sustain a heavy pecuniary loss. They will have to advance the salary of the pupil-teacher for several years, amounting to perhaps £50, and will receive perhaps £8 at the end of them, perhaps nothing. Now, a grant of that kind I call a waste, because it will be given to those whose present arrangements will entitle them to it, while, owing to the great discrepancy between the amount of the grant and the expense which would be incurred to obtain it, it will not stimulate the employment of fresh pupil-teachers. Even admitting, therefore—a thing that I entirely dispute—that it is right and proper to spend the public money in turning the market against the certificated masters whom we have deprived of their augmentation, the money would, I believe, still be wasted. I now come to the more important and the more complicated part of the matter. At present 2s. 8d. is granted to the managers of the schools for every child who passes in reading, writing, and arithmetic. This grant my right hon. Friend proposes to increase by 1s. 4d., but he attaches to the payment of the grant to a school the condition that the passes in reading, writing, and arithmetic must exceed 200 per cent of the annual average number of scholars in attendance who are over six years of age—a condition which I take to mean that the passes must be twice as numerous as the pupils above that age, or that each pupil above six years old must pass in two subjects. He then says that the school must have at least one-fifth of the scholars above six years of age passed in the three upper standards, and he says, moreover, that there must be one subject besides reading, writing, and arithmetic in which the inspector shall report the children to be proficient. Now, I would not grudge this or any larger increase if I thought it would do good; but let us take my right hon. Friend's own showing that this is intended to benefit the small schools. Observe, we begin by paying to all schools, small or great. My right hon. Friend will not dispute for a moment, I am sure, that the larger schools are amply paid under the present system. The large schools already get quite as much as we should wish, and perhaps in some cases more. Where a school is in a town and is attended by the children of respectable people who can pay, and pay handsomely, it is in a prosperous state and can afford that tuition which enables it to obtain large grants; but where a school is small and in a remote locality it cannot afford to do so. What, then, does my right hon. Friend propose? He says he wants to help small schools, and in order to help them he gives a grant, 99–100ths of which will go to the large schools which do not want it, while the small schools can only get the remainder by complying with very strict and difficult conditions which they are notoriously unable to comply with, for they are the very schools which, as he himself admits, are unable to satisfy the existing requirements of the Privy Council. So that the course we are asked to pursue is to make a grant for the aid of small schools, the lion's share, and much more than the lion's share, of which shall go to the large schools, which do not want it: and as to the remainder, to clog it with conditions which shall prevent the small schools getting even that. And that is what is called stimulating and assisting small schools! Sir, if that is not a waste of public money, I do not know what is. It is doubtless desirable to assist small schools if possible, but the difficulties are great. In assisting small schools there are two principles upon which we may proceed. If we are to give grants for efficiency, it is impossible to assist small and poor schools to the same extent that we do large ones. If we are to give it for need, we may indeed do that, but it will break down the whole system. Between these two alternatives we are placed, and what I submit is that my right hon. Friend has not extricated himself from either. He has not broken down his system by giving to poor schools, but what he has done is this—while he has had in view giving assistance to small schools, poorly supported and weak in their staff, he has really given a quantity of prizes to large schools that do not want it. I do hope, therefore, that the House will pause before they grant £70,000 to be expended in this manner. As I said before, it is not here that the shoe pinches; it is in a different direction—it is in the inability of the voluntary system to extend itself all over the country. I think my right hon. Friend has turned his attention in the wrong direction. The problem he had to solve was not to give more grants to schools that do not want it, in the vain hope of giving it to those which do, but to extend the system and make it pervade the country. Education I know has an all-atoning sound, and it appears very invidious to refuse anything that is asked for in its name. If my right hon. Friend can show us that this money will do any substantial good to the cause of education, by all means let us vote it; but, till I am answered, I shall maintain that I have shown the House that the objects which my right hon. Friend wishes to attain are not objects which it is peculiarly desirable to attain, while even assuming that they are desirable his means entirely miss the end he has in view. They would not in reality largely increase the number of pupil-teachers, they would not give any impulse to studies beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, and would not do anything worth speaking of towards helping small schools; for, while my right hon. Friend makes grants and spends an enormous sum of public money to be able to include them, he annexes conditions which would effectually exclude them. It is like the old story of the man who could not think of any way of roasting his pig except burning down his house. I beg to submit this also—that having got a system which works efficiently and economically, we should do wisely for the present to let it alone; and for this reason—that such is the feeling of nervousness and anxiety all over the country from the changes that have been made, and made under the compulsion of the Report of the Commission, that even a beneficial change—a change by which more public money finds its way to managers of schools—will be looked upon with jealousy, because it will shake the feeling that this matter is not likely to be tampered with. I think managers of schools are entitled to this security as long as the system under which they act does really perform what its projectors contemplated. As long as schools go on increasing, and the attendance of children becomes larger year by year—as long as the grant is kept within reasonable proportions, we should not interfere with it and alter the conditions, because the inference is obvious, that the same interference which in a hot fit adds to these grants, may, in a cold fit, take away from them. Nothing is more desirable than that those on whose money we count to support the schools should feel that they have something permanent and definite on which they can count, and adapt their arrangements to it. I am quite sure that the changes which were made in 1862, however much they were repined at at the time, have given the present system a new lease and a new chance. I do not regard that system as abstractedly right, and I have never concealed that opinion; but I should be most unwilling to see it swept away, because before a new system could be organized on its ruins—and it has struck deep roots into the country—the education of one generation of Englishmen would be nearly lost in the course of the transition from the old to the new. Try, therefore, by all the means you can to extend the system where it has not yet reached; keep it economical, that it may be popular and tolerable; above all things, look carefully to its efficiency, and then I think we shall be in a condition, when some few years have passed, to see whether the system can be moulded or extended so as to be worthy to be a national system, or whether it must give way to something more logical. Of this I am quite sure, that those are the worst enemies of the system who, for whatever reason, tamper with it—whether from feeling the difficulties which managers have to contend with, or perhaps from a feeling of the great popularity to be gained all over the country by undoing changes which were wrought out with so much unpopularity to those who made them. If once it is understood that he who tries to economise the public money and to secure efficiency is only labouring to give some one else a douceur to give away and so acquire popularity, the death knell of the system is sounded, and it must make way for something which, whether more efficient or not, will be more in accordance with the feelings of Parliament and the reasonable wants of the country.

Although I am no longer connected with the Department which this Minute concerns, yet as the author of the plan on which it is founded, I think it right to say a few words in its defence. My right hon. Friend has stated that while he regarded it as a great mistake to add £70,000 to the Education Vote, he would not complain of that large expenditure if he believed it would conduce to any useful purpose; but that not believing it would do so, he felt it his duty to oppose it. I quite agree that if this additional expenditure would not serve any useful end the House ought to refuse to grant it; but I am convinced not only that it will be usefully employed, but that the state of education in some of the schools receiving a public grant is becoming such as to render it absolutely necessary. My right hon. Friend has remarked that one of the objects of the Minute is to give assistance to small schools, which is quite true. But he has added that he does not look on the exclusion of small schools from sharing in the grants as an evil. My right hon. Friend stated on a recent occasion that his position was one of isolation, and that he could not get any one to agree with him. But in this instance he does not even agree with himself; because in 1862, when he explained the Revised Code to the House, after having enumerated 964 parishes, in five counties only, having a population of less than 600, which derived no assistance from the State, he said—

"These districts contribute to the revenue equally with others; and it is exceedingly desirable, on the ground both of justice and policy, that they should receive back some share of the money."—[3 Hansard, clxv. 199.]

Yet my right hon. Friend now thinks the exclusion of small schools is not an evil.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? What I said was, that I thought the exclusion of small schools was a great evil; but that it was not a great evil that small schools should be more expensive to maintain than large ones.

I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend admits the exclusion of small schools to be a great evil. It must, therefore, be desirable to give them some assistance. My right hon. Friend went on to state that although it had been complained that under the existing system the education given in schools was almost exclusively confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic—grammar, English history, and geography being neglected—he did not think that that was an evil, because the great object in educating the children of the poor was to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic. On a former occasion I quoted the opinions of some of the most intelligent of the inspectors of schools, who agreed in regretting the practical exclusion of higher subjects. I do not want to introduce any very ambitious system of education; but I certainly think it desirable that children should know something of the country in which they live, and something of what its history has been. During the autumn I happened to be in a country town, in which there were several Protestant schools and one Roman Catholic school. I happened one day to meet a respectable looking boy and got into conversation with him. In answer to my questions he told me he was eleven years old, and had lately left school, that he had never learnt anything of geography, and had never heard of such places as Dublin, or Edinburgh. I then asked him whether he had been at the Roman Catholic or at a Protestant school? He said a Protestant, and when I further inquired if he knew the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, he said, "Oh! the Roman Catholics are people who burn candles in the daylight,"—which this intelligent youth considered a convincing proof of the errors of Popery. I am not quite certain whether the boy's answers may not have put it into my head that this was a common case of neglect in all schools, and so have led to the inquiry which resulted in the framing of this Minute. My right hon. Friend alleges that if the reading, writing, and arithmetic are not in a satisfactory state it affords a conclusive argument against teaching boys grammar and history; but I remember quite well that when I proposed my Minute, some weeks ago, my predecessor in the office of Vice President of the Council (Mr. Bruce)—for whose ability and judgment everything that I saw when I was in that office inspired me with the greatest respect—agreed with me, and disagreed with my right hon. Friend; for he stated that, in his experience, in whatever schools the higher subjects were successfully taught, there also reading, writing, and arithmetic were also found to be most carefully attended to. Therefore, my right hon. Friend (Mr Lowe), I think, fails to make out his argument that teaching the higher subjects tends to weaken the instruction in the elementary branches. With regard to the number of children examined and their proficiency, I will again state what the latest statistics show. The average attendance of children in England and Wales for the year ending the 31st of August was 863,240, of which number 566,371 were presented for examination. 284,027 of these passed the three lower standards, and upwards of 80,000 in the fifth or higher standard. But the number of those who passed Standard VI, or the highest standard, was 13,000 only, out of a total of 566,000. My right hon. Friend stated, not in a speech, but in a much more formal manner—that is to say, in the Report of the Committee of Council for Education for the years 1861–2, drawn up by himself and by my noble Friend Lord Granville—

We regret that our first proposal to examine children for grants according to their age had to be withdrawn. We cannot think that the opposition which this measure, adopted upon the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, encountered rested upon good grounds. The school itself, for the purpose of instruction, must, of course, have continued to be organized according to proficiency; but age and proficiency coincide, in fact, far oftener than not. The change of arrangement for examination (supposing such a change to be necessary, which it is not) would have been partial only. The reason for examining according to age was this; the amount of proficiency required by Standard VI. represents the minimum of book instruction which can be put to practical use in life. Less than this is almost sure to be forgotten, because it cannot be used with pleasure or profit."

Only 13,000, therefore, out of 566,000 have attained the standard which my right hon. Friend thinks the minimum amount of book learning that can be of practical use to a child. When it became my duty to consider these things I came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to give some further encouragement to education, and to raise it from the state of stagnation in which I found it. With that view I recommended to Her Majesty's Government, by whom it was adopted, the Minute which I had the honour to propose some weeks ago. My right hon. Friend refers to pupil-teachers, and considers there is no necessity for encouraging an increase of their numbers. But men who know as much of education as my right hon. Friend himself—Mr. Tuffnell, for instance, in his evidence before the Education Committee, and nearly the whole of the twenty-three inspectors of schools in England, whose general Reports are appended to the last Report of the Committee of Council—allude not only to the decline in the number of pupil-teachers, but express the greatest alarm at the growing deficiency. I will not trouble the House with quotations; but the deterioration in the character of the education given in some of our schools is almost universally attributed to the falling off in the number of the pupil-teachers. My right hon. Friend talks of this attempt of mine to increase the number of pupil-teachers as inconsistent with the principles of political economy. I do not care what the principles of political economy may be; but this I will say, that, as the Minister charged with the education of the people of the country, when I found a great falling off in teaching power, and by the reduction in the number of pupil-teachers a great injury resulting to the education of the children, and when I found, moreover, a great diminution in the supply of candidates for the certificate, threatening to break down the whole system of certificated teachers, it appeared to me that my duty was clear to take immediate action, and I lost no time in submitting the outlines of the Minute for the consideration of the Cabinet. I do not care whether I violated the rules of political economy or not; my object was to improve the quality of the teaching in the schools by increasing the number of pupil-teachers; and, notwithstanding the sinister auguries of my right hon. Friend, I have no doubt that the Minute will effect the object at which it aims. My right hon. Friend says that before the introduction of the Revised Code, the salary of a pupil-teacher was £15 on the average of the five years of apprenticeship. But at that time the State paid the salary of the pupil-teacher, and the State always pays more than persons in private life. I inquired a short time ago from a very intelligent diocesan inspector what was the average rate of payment to pupil-teachers in his district, and he told me about £9 a year. That was in a rural district; in an urban district it would undoubtedly be higher. But, at all events, the rate of £15 put by my right hon. Friend is far above the present average even in large towns. As to the cost of an extra pupil-teacher, you must remember that additional teaching power can hardly fail to produce additional results of teaching; and that it must, therefore, be assumed that the number of passes would be increased by the employment of a greater number of pupil-teachers. In looking over one of the Inspectors' Reports recently received, but not yet presented to the House, I found a particular school mentioned, in which a pupil-teacher having been dismissed, through the poverty of the school, there had been a falling off of 30 per cent in the number of the passes, and, of course, the payment on results to which the school was entitled was diminished in proportion. It may naturally be inferred that if, under this Minute, a pupil-teacher is again employed in this school, the payment on passes would be restored to its former amount, which would be a further contribution towards the salary of the pupil-teacher. My right hon. Friend is of opinion that the educational conditions required by the Minute are too stringent, and that few schools will be able to fulfil them; but they were very carefully con- sidered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), by Mr. Lingen, and by two of the inspectors of schools, and they all came to the conclusion that they were not too severe. In point of fact, the conditions, in general, require less than what the average of schools now accomplish—our object being to place the increased rate of payment within the reach of indifferent schools, and thus lead to their improvement. One of the points made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) was that this additional grant of £8 would be mainly for the benefit of large schools which did not want it, to the exclusion of others by which it was really more needed. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that he is quite wrong in that respect. He says all these large schools are very rich. I believe a great many of them are very poor. A clergyman—the incumbent of a parish in London—told me some time ago that the managers of the school in his district were obliged to work it at the minimum cost possible—which he explained to mean that, whenever the limit as to numbers prescribed by the Code was reached, they suspended the further entry of children, as their funds could not afford the expense of an additional pupil-teacher. That is a state of things far from satisfactory. The effect, then, of this Minute will be not only to give assistance to necessitous small schools, but also to such large schools as may require it. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been the very last person in the House to object to the Minute, because its objects are in strict conformity with the views which he himself expressed in the year 1862, but which the Revised Code has in some respects failed to realize. It offers some assistance to small schools with the view of helping them to fulfil the conditions which would entitle them to a public grant—and this my right hon. Friend stated to be in accordance with every principle of policy and justice. It holds out inducements to improved teaching, and I have shown that, under the existing system, the results fall far below the minimum which my right hon. Friend considers indispensable. It encourages the employment of a pupil-teacher where there are sixty-five children in average attendance, instead of ninety, as at present, and the original draft of the Revised Code, as prepared by my right hon. Friend, pro- posed that there should be a pupil-teacher for every thirty children. If you are of opinion that one unassisted teacher can be capable of instructing eighty-nine children of various ages, vote with the right hon. Gentleman—if not, vote with me. If you consider the results of the examinations, as shown by the statistics I have quoted, to be satisfactory, vote with him—if not vote with me. In short, if you wish to discourage education you will vote with him, but if you wish to encourage it, you will vote with me.

said, that on former occasions he had made complaints of the continual changes of the system, on the ground that they produced uncertainty and prevented its extension and expansion. But the difficulty arose to a great extent from the fact that all the changes had been in the direction of economy. It was rather surprising, in the present state of politics, to find the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) such a persistent advocate for fixity and permanence of system. The right hon. Gentleman looked upon the Revised Code with the view of some ancient law-giver, who desired that his laws should remain in a state of fixedness. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated, before the Committee on Education, that he—

"Considered the Minutes as they then existed did very well, and felt like Lycurgus did when he made the Spartans promise to keep his laws until he came back again."

But even Lycurgus was a benevolent man, and would have had no objection to an improvement of his laws to meet an altered state of society. He (Mr. Powell) hoped that means would be found to improve our educational system which would be consistent with perfect efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to underrate the difficulty of school management; and he had not borne in mind the necessity for a high standard of teaching. The children of the working classes came from homes where books were rare, and the faculty for using them with advantage rarer still; and this rendered it necessary that they should have a much more powerful teaching staff. No doubt there was a great diminution of pupil-teachers. This would cause in time a reduction in the number of masters. Therefore, the Government were bound to take into consideration this state of things. The deficiency existed more with regard to males than females; and therefore he thought that the Government had done right in giving the greater stimulus to male teachers. No doubt with regard to small schools the great difficulty had been that they did not receive sufficient assistance from educational grants. In many small parishes there did exist schools; but the education was of a very defective character, and he understood that it was the intention of the Government gently to draw these schools within their influence, and to supply them with a higher class of teachers, in the hope that education might receive a corresponding advance. He believed that under the proposed system a considerable number of small schools would be drawn within Government influence. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to consider that as schools increased they would require an increased number of pupil-teachers; that they must increase the number of pupil-teachers to supply the place of those who passed into training colleges; and that inducements must be offered to managers to effect these objects. He (Mr. Powell) thought that it was a wise and just provision that children must pass a higher standard in a greater proportion before the schools could derive advantage from the increased grant; for there was reason to suppose that the children were too often kept within the lower standard. He believed that the absence of teaching in the higher subjects was a great deficiency of our present system, and that they should teach reading and writing with a double object—first, that of merely teaching it; and secondly, that of impressing the minds of the pupils with higher knowledge. In some parts of the Continent education had been narrowed, as with us, to its very elements; but last year a proposal was made to improve education in France, and part of the plan was to teach geography and the history of the country. The Minute appeared to him to be beneficial.

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) had divided his attack on the Minute into two parts. In the first place, he said that nothing was required; in the second place, he argued that if anything was required the present attempt to overcome the objections to the Revised Code was ineffective and futile. Great as had been the exertions of his right hon. Friend, great as had been his courage, and great as had been his public virtue in passing that Code, still he (Mr. Bruce) was far from saying that the system was perfect and could not be improved. What had been the immediate effect of the Revised Code? All must agree that it had pressed very heavily on the resources of the managers. He had stated the other day, and he adhered to the calculation, that the schools were now receiving two-fifths less than they would have received under the old Code—namely, £622,000 instead of £1,000,000. Economy was a great advantage; but his right hon. Friend had himself said that if it could be shown that the schools had suffered by an excess of economy he should be the first to sanction a larger grant. His right hon. Friend had referred to certain defects as being inherent in the voluntary system.

said, his remark was that the proper course would be to try whether that system could not be supplemented.

said, his right hon. Friend in his last speech on the subject had warned the House against the patching-up of the system. It was, indeed, a defective system; but whose fault was that? Over and over again Parliament had been asked by statesmen of the greatest eminence to endow the country with a system which would be adequate to its wants, and to supply it with a really national system of education. Earl Russell had asked Parliament to lay down the principle that every district should be obliged to supply itself with schools. A proposal had also been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) that such districts should be at liberty to levy rates to defray the cost of schools. The House, however, refused to adopt either principle, and the result was that the Committee of Council on Education were compelled to adopt the present system, which, he admitted, was a wasteful one. He stated the other day that a small school ordinarily cost from 35s. to 45s. per head on the inhabitants of the place, whereas a large school could generally be conducted at a cost of between 18s. and 25s. per head. Those figures showed plainly enough that, if possible, more assistance should be given to small schools than to large ones. But when the attempt was made to remedy the defects of the system, which was less generous to the poor than to the rich districts, it was met by the opposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe). The practical difficulty was to define what were large and what were small schools. At present about 9s. per head was given to all scholars alike by the Government, and the consequence was that the small schools laboured under difficulties unfelt by the larger ones. Unfortunately, too, financial difficulty meant imperfect teaching. Nobody had been more strenuous than his right hon. Friend in asserting the principle that a school depended upon the teacher, and that a certificated teacher was essential to a good school. He (Mr. Bruce) went even further than that, and maintained that a sufficient staff of masters was more especially essential in small schools. The difficulties encountered by small schools in reference to the subdivision of classes were very great indeed. Having but few masters it became necessary for them to group together children of very different attainments, and the consequence was that the progress made by the pupils was less than in the large schools. When he held office in connection with the Committee of Council on Education, he felt that the small schools were suffering on account of their not possessing a sufficient amount of teaching power, and his noble Friend (Earl Granville) and himself accordingly tried to devise means for remedying the evil. Without saying that the proposals which they would have brought under the notice of Parliament were identical with those submitted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), he must at least admit that they would have been similar in principle. In regard to this matter he felt bound to say that the Revised Code was partly to blame. Under the old Code, after the first fifty children a pupil-teacher might be employed for every forty children, and, being paid by the State, he always was employed. The result was that there was always a staff of teachers adequate to, and sometimes in excess of, the requirements of the school. Under the Revised Code it was not necessary to employ a second teacher until the number of children reached ninety, and the result was that the minimum number of teachers required to obtain the grant were almost invariably engaged, to the manifest injury of the school. No doubt great benefits had been derived from other parts of the system, such as the scheme of individual examinations; but those benefits had been diminished in consequence of there not being sufficient teaching power. In 1861 the number of pupil-teachers was about 16,000; but now, when there were about 350,000 more children in the schools than there were then, the number of teachers was reduced to about 11,000. Yet at this very time Parliament was engaged in considering measures to compel children to go to school under the half-time system, the effect of which would be to send hundreds of thousands to schools. Should it, then, be to good or to bad schools? In his judgment, it would be well to insist that children employed on the half-time system should be sent only to such schools as were provided with certificated masters. When they were about largely to increase the number of schools there was no fear, in this country at least, that the position of the certificated masters would be injured by an excess of supply. The evidence of the representatives of the British and Foreign Schools, before the Select Committees which sat in 1865 and 1866, was in favour of certificated masters, and they said that the reason why they were debarred from receiving assistance from the State was because they could not get a sufficient supply of such masters. Such being the case, was it not the duty of the State, which had undertaken so much for the education of the people, to provide also for the supply of sufficient and competent masters? His right hon. Friend had said that if any schools were to suffer it was well that the small schools should, because their smallness was owing to the denominational system which multiplied schools unnecessarily. But surely his right hon. Friend must be aware that the fact of a school being small was generally owing to the thinness of the population, and that the small schools were ordinarily to be found in the rural districts. Therefore, they had a primâ facie claim for a special amount of assistance. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of giving increased assistance would be not that the small schools which required it would receive it, but that some large schools which were already more than sufficiently paid would receive in most cases this assistance, without wanting it. It was undoubtedly true that large schools in flourishing districts might often do without State assistance at all; but that was the result of the existing system, and Parliament had over and over again refused to adopt a wiser and more elastic one. At the same time there were many large schools, for the maintenance of which the necessary funds could not be at all easily raised. In the East of London, for instance, and in the outskirts of all our populous towns, it would almost be impossible to obtain the requisite funds without raising the fees, and the effect of raising the fees would obviously be to keep the poorest children away from the schools. He was far from finding fault with the Minute of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), because it was too liberal; indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken the task of dealing with these defects in our system, he wished he had been more liberal. Instead of the 800,000 or 900,000 now at school in England and Wales, there ought to be 2,000,000. A great many schools were kept from receiving State assistance because they were unable to comply with the pecuniary conditions required by the Government. By the proposals of the Government the grant to a school of 100 children could not exceed £8, and this could not be earned except upon conditions which, however wholesome in themselves, were difficult to comply with. It was proposed that an additional grant, which certainly would not have the effect of choking and overwhelming the voluntary system, should be made to all schools with an average attendance of sixty-five children. Even that additional grant, however, could not be made without conditions. It was certainly right and desirable that every child on leaving school should know reading, writing, and arithmetic, and, indeed, in his opinion, they ought also to know something of geography, history, and other subjects. He repeated the assertion he had made on another occasion, that where these subjects were taught best the lower branches of instruction were also best taught. The results desiderated could be attained only by increasing the teaching staff; and vast numbers of schools were at present unable to employ certificated masters. The new Minute had in view the double object of increasing the teaching power in our schools and of raising the standard of elementary education. Whether the measures proposed were sufficient or not, time would prove. But they were in the right direction, and had therefore his sympathy and support.

said, he had listened with great interest to what fell from the right hon. Member (Mr. Lowe) in the attack he made on the Minute. Having heard the answer, he could not say that the attack had been sustained. There could be no doubt that when the Revised Code came into operation, there was a tendency to a great redundancy of pupil-teachers: but that tendency had been checked. It would be interesting to learn from figures, which must be accessible, the number of certificated masters that would probably meet the wants of the country; and the average yearly number of pupil-teachers it would take to supply that want. The matter was one calling for nicety of calculation, which, perhaps, Do one official person alone could make. He would not venture to express an opinion as to whether a surplus was being created; but he was quite disposed to bow to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry), who had the best opportunities of forming a judgment; and both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Bruce) seemed to consider that there was a falling off, and that something was required to bring the number up again. There could be no reasonable objection to that part of the Minute which related to the aiding of the smaller schools. He hailed it as a pleasing symptom, and as an evidence of an indisposition to be bound by cast-iron rule. It must be remembered that the Privy Council really aided the voluntary effort of the country; that there was no system apart from that effort; and that the Government simply afforded in grants a limited amount of public money, to supplement the still greater voluntary contributions of the public. Sometimes the Privy Council was disposed to look too closely into the circumstances of a case which might greatly need their aid, and which their system did not reach. He had never spoken on this subject without expressing his regret that the Privy Council did not think that it came within the scope of their duty to endeavour to reach many of those forlorn children which in all great centres of the population were left untouched and without any assistance at all. They were the most needy, and yet they never had anything. He was consoled, however, by the fact that the Privy Council, taking a step towards those whom hitherto they had not reached, were in the right path. Therefore he would be sorry to express an opinion hostile to what the Privy Council were doing, and would give his support to the Minute as far as it went. The subject was a difficult one, and no doubt involved an enormous amount of official trouble. It was a great advantage in a public office to lay down a strict rule, and not to deviate from it; but the consequence of that must be that while spending enormous sums in aid, those who most needed aid were not reached. The Minute evinced a disposition to act upon rule, because it had been framed to meet the wants of the smaller schools only; but if some of the larger schools reaped any advantage, he, for one, should not grudge them it. He hoped that those for whom it was primarily intended would be able to take advantage of it.

who rose amid cries for a division, said, he would be very short. He knew what time it was, and what hour it struck last—

"Uteroque recusso

Insonucre cavæ gemitumque dedêre cavernæ."

He wished to state briefly that he cordially supported the policy of the Government as indicated in this Minute, because it showed their desire to remove some of the difficulties of the rural districts, and to render assistance to their schools. He had no wish to undermine the Revised Code, of which the principle was good—namely, payment for results, and he did not believe the Government wished to undermine it. They were too wise in their generation; but it could not be denied that, while the old Code had ignored the rural districts, the Revised Code had, from the difficulty of the subject, or from other causes, continued the ignoramus. The rural districts had long reminded him of a celebrated character of former times, of mournful celebrity, who said that he came asking but little, and getting less than little, and that sufficient for him; and he went on to say—and the parallel still held good—that his adversities, his antiquity, and the nobility of his nature taught him to be contented. The rural districts had not murmured, had not made themselves heard, had sounded no note of expostulation; but they thought that, in comparison with towns and other highly favoured regions, they were to a certain extent left out in the cold.

"Unconscious they in waste oblivion lie—

In all the world of busy life around

No thought of them."

And yet it would be unjust to say that their case had not often engaged anxious attention. After a diligent consideration of the question for many years, he was unable to point out any party, or any section of any party in that House, from which there had not at some time proceeded a cordial admission that the Codes, however beneficent in their action in other quarters, had failed to benefit the rural districts.

"Quæ regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?"

But he had a confidence in the wisdom and justice of Parliament that induced him to believe that for Parliament to know of a grievance, to be conscious of its existence, was, sooner or later, effectually to redress it. He believed that the Government were anxious to take a step in that direction, and he thanked them for their good intentions.

said, it would have been far better to have left the question of education in the hands of the people and intrusted it to their voluntary action, than to have deranged the taxation of the country by the making of grants in aid. Many of the young persons who had been trained as pupil-teachers at the expense of the State had turned clerks or adopted some other profitable occupation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had done himself great honour by his attempts to stem the flow of money from the Public Exchequer for the purpose of education. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) would take the sense of the House; and, sooner or later, it would be proved that he was right.

said, he rose to call attention to the practice of not issuing a Writ for a vacancy in this House if the Seat which has been vacated be claimed on behalf of another Candidate; and to move—

"That whenever a Member of this House shall accept an Office of Profit under the Crown a Writ for a new Election may issue, notwithstanding that the time limited for presenting a Petition may not have expired, or that a Petition praying for the Seat may have been presented."

This was a matter of considerable importance as affecting the general interests of the public. According to the practice of the House, when a petition praying for the seat was presented against any person who had been appointed to an office of profit under the Crown no writ could issue until the petition had been decided. According to the old practice no writ could issue if a petition was merely presented against the return. But in 1852 it was decided by the House, in the cases of Southampton and Carlow, that the writ should issue in those cases where the seat was not prayed for. He could see no difference between the cases where seats were prayed for and where they were not. By the present practice no writ for a reelection could be issued at the commencement of a new Parliament until after fourteen days of the meeting of the House. If on the death of Lord Palmerston Earl Russell had not been able to form a Ministry, and Earl Derby had been called upon to form a Government, the consequence would have been that the Members of the Government could not have taken their seats in the House until three weeks after the meeting of Parliament, fourteen days being required to elapse before the writ could be moved to see whether petitions against their return would be presented. Last year, at the commencement of the first Session of the new Parliament, matters of great public interest came before the House—namely, the Cattle Plague and the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. What would then have been the result if the Members of Her Majesty's Government having seats in the House had been petitioned against and the seats prayed for? If therefore they balanced any supposed personal advantage under the present system against public convenience, private feeling should give way to the latter. That a seat was prayed for was no ground for preventing a dissolution of Parliament by Her Majesty's command; why, then, should it be a reason for preventing the issue of a new writ when it might be for the public advantage that a writ should be issued? The present practice was also liable to abuse. On that ground also it required to be altered. Any person wishing to keep a Minister out of his seat for the purpose of gratifying a malicious feeling, might, at the last moment, present a petition praying for the seat, and thereby keep a Minister out of his place in the House for some months. On the last day for presenting petitions at the beginning of the last Session, a Mr. Wellington Shegog presented a petition against the return of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), then Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the ground of intimidation, and praying for the seat. Now, it appeared, according to a Return which he moved for, that from 1832 to 1866 not one person had been seated on petition on the ground of intimidation solely. The petition against the right hon. Gentleman was presented on the 20th February, and he was actually kept out of the House until the 12th of March, and might have been for a much longer period had not he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) made a similar Motion to the one then before the House, when the petition was withdrawn. The petition against the return of Mr. Morris was presented on the same day, and was not disposed of until May, and if the petition against the right hon. Gentleman had been tried he would have been kept out of the House a similar lengthened period. That, too, during the discussion with reference to the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and other questions of importance relative to Ireland, at a time when his presence was most required. The only ground upon which the present practice could be defended was some supposed interest the person might have in the seat he prayed for. But that was not to be considered for a moment in opposition to the public inconvenience it occasioned. He moved—

said, that by the rules of the House the hon. and learned Member could not then make a Motion, inasmuch as an Amendment had already been moved and negatived on the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out no sufficient case for altering the rules of the House on the subject to which he had called attention. That which might turn out to be the property of one person ought not to be given to another. In the very rare event of Cabinet Ministers not being able to take their seats for a fortnight or three weeks as had been described, the Secretary to the Treasury or some of the subordinate officers of the Government who did not vacate their seats might very well discharge the necessary business in their absence.

said, he had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the sentence passed by Mr. Baron Bramwell, at the recent Kingston Assizes, upon two prisoners, Burton and Hay, aged twenty-three and twenty-nine, who were indicted before him for burglary, and sentenced to eight and ten years' penal servitude, respectively, and who having been removed from the bar by the police were ordered to be brought back by the Judge, who there upon sentenced them each to a further term of five years' penal servitude. If, when on a recent occasion he had put a Question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) he had been able to inform him that he was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and that the learned Judge had not proceeded beyond the limits of his authority, he should have abstained from mentioning the matter a second time. It appeared from the accounts which had been given in the newspapers that the two prisoners named had immediately after sentence was pronounced upon them become exceedingly violent in the dock, and had used most outrageous language towards the Judge. From those accounts, not only he himself, but many others supposed that the additional sentence which had been passed upon them was a punishment for their insubordinate conduct in Court. He had since learnt from the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the penalty of five years' penal servitude had been inflicted as part of the original sentence, and that it was perfectly within the discretion of the Judge to impose that increased penalty. Under those circumstances, disclaiming all intention of unnecessarily impugning the sentence of a Court of Justice, or of making, directly or indirectly, a personal attack upon the learned Judge, than which nothing could be further from his views, he should not press the right hon. Gentleman for any further explanation on the subject.

said, that as a member of the Home Circuit, and an intimate friend of Mr. Baron Bramwell's for many years, he could not allow the subject to drop without making a few observations. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend had withdrawn the Question, and so far had made the amende honorable; but he must say it was rather a hasty course of proceeding in giving notice of the Question. Such questions brought forward without sufficient inquiry and information of the facts had the effect of shaking the authority of the Judges of the land. [Mr. GILPIN: No, no!] Such was their practical effect; and therefore it was desirable that they should be very cautious before they called attention to judicial sentences in that House. There was not a more upright or humane Judge on the Bench than Mr. Baron Bramwell, and he would be the last man to be induced from a spirit of anger or ill-judged feeling to aggravate a sentence on a fellow-creature. Such insinuations were worse than direct charges. He, however, accepted the hon. Gentle- man's disclaimer on behalf of Mr. Baron Bramwell and the profession generally.

said, that nothing could be further from his intention than to make an attack on Mr. Baron Bramwell, and no one was more alive than he to the necessity of upholding the dignity of the judicial Bench, but he could not help thinking that the occurrence in question was unfortunate. The conduct of the prisoners had undoubtedly been most disgraceful, amounting as it did to a very gross contempt of Court. There was no doubt that it was open to the Judge in point of law to increase as he had done the punishment which was originally inflicted upon them. It was not the mere passing but the recording of the sentence which was the decisive act. At the same time it might, he was afraid, appear to the public that the Judge having felt himself insulted by the conduct of the prisoners had lost his temper, and sought to punish the insult offered to his dignity. He thought the incident unfortunate, for anything wearing the appearance of personal feeling on the part of a Judge had a tendency to impair the dignity of the Bench, though there might be no personal feeling in the matter.

Sir, the Question to which I have to call the attention of the House is one of great importance, not only to my own constituency, but to several others who happen to be placed in a similar position. I have to ask the Vice President of the Council, On what grounds it has been decided to exclude Aberdeenshire from participation in the Grant of £35,000, voted by this House, for the purpose of compensating the Owners of Cattle slaughtered under compulsory Orders in Council? It will be in the recollection of the House that during the cattle plague in this country in 1865, an Order was issued by the Privy Council, according to which owners of cattle affected by rinderpest were obliged to kill and bury them without compensation. That Order in Council continued in force from August, 1865, until the middle of November in the same year. In consequence of that Order a great number of cattle, both in England and Scotland, were slaughtered. Of course, the Order was very unpopular at the time. To apply the case to Aberdeenshire—it will be in the recollection of the House that in the course of the present Session a Vote of £35,000 was granted to compensate owners of cattle which had been slaughtered in accordance with this Order in Council. During the whole period of the operation of that Order, the people of Aberdeenshire had acted on the principle which has been sanctioned by the House. Owners of cattle, occupiers of farms, and the landlords in that county, had met together and agreed to form an association for the purpose of assessing themselves voluntarily, to compensate for the slaughter of their cattle. That was the main feature of the society which had been formed in Aberdeenshire—a principle which was carried out in such a way as commended it to the gratitude and imitation of the whole country. In the course of the present Session, Parliament resolved to compensate owners of cattle slaughtered under the compulsory slaughtering clauses of the Order in Council of 1865; and out of the grant voted, a sum of £900 would have fallen to the share of Aberdeenshire. But Aberdeenshire was in the position that the owners had already been pail, or, rather, had paid themselves by means of the Rinderpest Association. Accordingly, that Association presented a humble memorial to the Privy Council, praying for its share of the grant; but it received a refusal, for which no reason was assigned. The consequence will be that Aberdeenshire will have no participation whatever in the grant for compensation. I believe there is a sum of £20 which will be received by one man—a man who by his very recklessness in refraining from giving the association support is to receive this compensation. Such is the position in which the decision of the Privy Council has placed Aberdeenshire, and all places which acted in the way that county did with respect to compensation. The House of Commons, by making this grant of £35,000, has affirmed the principle on which Aberdeenshire acted; but the Privy Council, by its allocation of the grant, denies the reward Aberdeenshire is entitled to for having given a good example to the country. This is a decision which was not expected by the farmers of Aberdeenshire in their simplicity. They do not understand this sort of compensation. It seems to them to be a tax on forethought and energy, and a premium upon apathy and indifference. Their argument is this, and I think there is logic in it—that if it is a sound principle that owners of property taken by the State for State purposes should be compensated by the State, there should be no exceptions, but wherever the case applies the owners should have compensation; and they think that, in the cases where the owners of cattle have been compensated by the landlords or by voluntary associations, the principle still holds good that the State should pay. All that is required in the present instance is, that a little more trouble should be taken by the Privy Council Office; and that trouble surely is nothing compared with the satisfaction of undoubted justice which Aberdeenshire claims.

said, that he had also to complain of Aberdeenshire being excluded from the benefit of the national fund. That county was the first to set a good example; its policy of compensation had been adopted by England, and it was only just that those who had displayed prudence, resolution, and disinterestedness should be compensated as their neighbours were. In England compensation had been given by the State to farmers placed in the same position as those to whom it was denied in Scotland. The conduct of Government was a remarkable instance of one-sidedness.

said, that the Order in Council for the slaughter of diseased cattle was made on the 26th of August, 1865. It was an Order for the slaughter of cattle not by the owners, but by inspectors appointed by Government. That Order remained in force till the 23rd of November, when it was rescinded by another Order in Council. The money voted by the House was to pay for the cattle slaughtered by the inspectors during the period which intervened between these two Orders. The sum was calculated upon the returns made, at the time, by the Government Inspectors, of the cattle which they slaughtered and of the value of the cattle at the time of slaughter. In December, 1866, another Order was made as to the distribution of the money. It runs thus—

"That the amount to be awarded for cattle slaughtered, shall be according to the same rate as is provided by 29 Vic. c. 2, with regard to animals slaughtered under such Act, having previously deducted all compensation received from Local Rate, Insurance, Sale of Carcases, and any other sources."

The Rinderpest Association of Aberdeenshire was not "an association for the relief of the sufferers under that Order." The people of Aberdeen had shown a great deal of public spirit. They had been before the rest of the country in endeavouring to stamp out the plague by slaughtering the diseased cattle; and they formed an association to pay each other for the cattle killed by themselves with that laudable object. This they did for their own good. They knew that by this means they would be subject to less loss. In time the whole nation followed in their steps, and by similar means, stamped out the plague throughout the whole country. The Privy Council had killed no cattle in Aberdeenshire except in the one case referred to by the hon. Member who had put the Question, and he had been paid by the loss which he had suffered under the Orders of the Privy Council. The £35,000 granted by the House was apportioned in accordance with the returns, made by the inspectors, of the cattle killed by them under the Order in Council. But in Aberdeenshire, with one exception, no cattle had been killed by the inspectors under that Order. How, then, were the Government to know the value of the cattle killed? The ipse dixit of the owner must be taken; but this would be out of the question. Again, an enormous inconvenience would result if this matter were re-opened. We stepped in when the plague was over; the people had settled down. Some had suffered total loss; others had since been satisfied. Some of the farmers who had lost their cattle had been re-imbursed by their landlords; others by the county Association; and if the Government were to say that they would compensate in these cases, claims would pour in by thousands, not from Aberdeenshire only, but from places all over the country. The class of claimants also would be different; it would not be the farmers who would claim; but the landlords or associations who had recompensed them. But the hon. Member thinks that "Associations have a right to claim compensation." What is an Association? A certain number of persons banded themselves together; and, if they could estimate the probable loss in the year, they divided it between them, and each paid his quota; so that the many paid a small sum, and the few sufferers were recouped. But, if you paid compensation to the Association, the money would not go into the pockets of those who bad lost their cattle, but into the pockets of those who had not. As the farmers had already been compensated by the Association or by the landlords, the compensation awarded would really go to the two last; in other words, the State was to compensate persons who had not lost their cattle. Again, an association is not limited as to size. If you are to compensate one association you must compensate another. Now, suppose that Sir James Shuttleworth's plan of a National Assurance Association had been carried out. Then every one who lost cattle would have been compensated out of a general rate on land; and the landowners might have claimed to be re-imbursed out of the Consolidated Fund. This would be absurd; but it rests on the same argument as the claim of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member thought he had a good case, his proper course was to bring it before the House of Commons and try to get an additional grant to compensate the Aberdeen Rinderpest Association.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the buildings now in course of erection on the site of Burlington House, especially with reference to the pledge given to Parliament last year. The late Government desired that the Burlington House site should be appropriated to a building for the reception of the national pictures; but, chiefly through the influence of the present First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners), the Vote proposed for that purpose was negatived and the scheme thrown out. For the interests of Art no more disastrous Vote ever passed the House. If a National Gallery had been erected on this spot a most important question affecting Art would have been settled; the national pictures would have been rescued from injury; and an admirable building, of which the plans and elevation were submitted to the House, would have been provided for their reception. It would now take many years to settle the question, if it were settled at all. The scheme of the late Government having being rejected, it was decided to appropriate the site for the purposes of the Royal Academy, the London University, the Royal Society, and other learned bodies. Certain hon. Members, admiring the architecture of Burlington House, thought that it ought not to be interfered with. The house was a handsome gentleman's residence, and a very fair specimen of domestic architecture, but he did not attach the value to it which was attached by many persons; and if, as he was told, no living English architect could hope to rival it, this country must be very badly off for architects. The principal merit of Burlington House was the tout ensemble formed by the main building, the wings, the colonnade, and other parts of the structure. Owing to the feeling he had mentioned, it was decided that Burlington House should be kept standing. The question then arose how the building should be turned to account, because to keep up the wings, colonnade, and the screen or frontage in Piccadilly would be to sacrifice a large extent of valuable ground. At length certain plans were proposed, and were originally accepted by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper). It was determined that Burlington House should be utilized by being gutted and made a portico, as it were, through which access should be had to buildings to be erected behind it. The Royal Society and the other learned societies were to be accommodated in front. Burlington House was to be made the centre of two wings, which were to be carried out at right angles to it to Piccadilly, and there united by a sort of façade, in the centre of which was to be a grand triumphal arch leading to the court-yard in which Burlington House stood. Behind Burlington House was to be erected the Royal Academy, and behind the Royal Academy, again, a building for the accommodation of the London University. By following the plan proposed, an important feature in the house, its colonnade, would altogether disappear, and therefore one of the reasons for keeping it up would disappear also; and, again, to raise new and lofty buildings round about it was like marrying a little short man to a very stout woman who would be smothered in her embraces. The absurdity of this being apparent to everybody, another story was now to be added to Burlington House; and to give it strength at the base an arcade or portico was to be erected, uniting the two ends of the building. Thus Burlington House would lose its distinctive character altogether, and the reason for sacrificing so much valuable ground in order to preserve the original building would no longer exist. Now, considering that the buildings now to be erected would form one group, it was natural to suppose that one leading mind would superintend the erection of the whole. However, this was not thought right; and as on the French stage we often saw one play written by two authors, so here this group of buildings was handed over to three architects. Burlington House was to be transformed by Mr. Smirke, the new wings and façade were intrusted to Messrs. Banks and Barry, and Mr. Pennethorne was charged with the erection of the London University behind. The natural presumption was that the buildings behind Burlington House should follow the style of that building—the Palladian or Classic Italian. Accordingly, Mr. Pennethorne proposed a plan in this style for the London University. Meanwhile, however, a change had taken place in the Government, and the noble Lord became Chief Commissioner of Works. Unfortunately, the noble Lord had a certain attachment for the Gothic style; and Mr. Pennethorne, abandoning his Palladian plan after having submitted it to the noble Lord, sent in an Italian-Gothic elevation; whether by the direction of the noble Lord or not it appeared doubtful; but the noble Lord accepted the new designs. The hon. Member for Roscommon asked the noble Lord the other night to say what Italian-Gothic was; and well he might. He (Mr. Layard) was puzzled to know what was meant by Italian-Gothic. Was it the chaste, early Gothic so generally used by the Franciscan order in their churches, or the ornate style of Milan Cathedral, or what? Mr. Pennethorne retained the original interior plan of the building, but converted the exterior elevation from Classic into Italian-Gothic, which was an anomaly, because the interior arrangements that would suit a Palladian building would probably not suit a Gothic building. The face of a building could not be changed without a corresponding change of the interior. Already fourteen feet of the building had been erected, but the London University Committee appeared not to have been consulted in the matter. When they found they had got this Italian-Gothic building, on the 22nd of February they adopted the following resolution:—

"They much regret that they cannot speak favourably of the elevation. They are, however, fully sensible of the disadvantage under which the architect has laboured in putting a Gothic casing upon an edifice planned for the adoption of an entirely different (and, indeed, antagonistic) style. Believing that ornament should be subservient to structural expression, they would gladly see the whole series of spires and pinnacles done away with. The sub-Committee also feel that the concealment of the roofs of the wings produces a want of harmony in the general effect, the centre having a high-pitched roof which is really picturesque. The design of the windows in the wings also seems to them capable of improvement; and they dislike the present aspect of the arcade at the entrance. They also cannot but regret that the principal range of windows should light a series of small or moderate-sized apartments, and thus give a certain character of unreality to the design; but this has been in a great measure the result of adopting a Gothic elevation without recasting the plan of the building."

The building, it would appear, was one which had all manner of spires and pinnacles. Having made several attempts to induce the noble Lord to withdraw the Italian-Gothic façade, on the 25th of March the Committee of the London University passed this resolutionߞ

"That, having reference to the style of the adjoining buildings and to the character and purposes of the University of London, it is the opinion of this Committee that the modern style of architecture would be preferable either to the mediæval or to the Italian-Gothic, for the elevation of the new building. That in case the Senate feel precluded by the communication from Lord John Manners from proposing any such fundamental change as that implied in the preceding resolution, the Committee would think it desirable to have some conference with Mr. Pennethorne on various modifications of the Italian-Gothic elevation now before them, which would not interfere with the early and economical completion of the building."

He understood that the answer they got was to the effect that they were to mind their own business; they had to live in the house, but had nothing to do with the building of it, and that the design was to be carried out as a whole. Such was the history of this Italian-Gothic building to be raised behind Burlington House. He had seen the elevation for the additional story to Burlington House, and for the wings and façade in Piccadilly, and he admitted that they were very handsome, and that Mr. Smirke had done all he could to adapt that building to its object and to the surrounding edifices. On the whole, the grand entrance in Piccadilly, and the lofty ornamental buildings in the Palladian style for the wings, did great credit to Messrs. Banks and Barry; and he trusted that when Members saw the plans, as he hoped they would do, in the Library of the House, they would meet their approval. But the noble Lord had not only sinned against taste, but against the House of Commons. Last year they were called upon to vote £20,000 on account of buildings to be erected on the Burlington House site. The House objected to vote the sum without having an idea of the class of building to be erected, and a distinct pledge was given that the House should not be called upon to vote any more money until the plans and elevations had been submitted for the inspection of its Members. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said—

"The great question related to the frontages to the north and south.… He should like the Committee to pass this vote. But he accompanied that with this arrangement. His right hon. Friend had already the ground plan prepared, and there would be no difficulty in immediately proceeding with the preparation of the designs, so as to give hon. Gentlemen what opportunities for criticism they might desire before any step was taken in the erection of the building.—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 190–1.]

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) said—

"He could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space, which would accommodate the learned societies. The plan might be executed at different times, but the whole would be settled before any part was commenced. The Royal Academy building would be designed by their own architect, subject to the approval of the Board of Works, and care would be taken that it harmonized in character and general arrangements with the University building. They need not be identical in style, but all the buildings that would cover the site would be viewed as one composition."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 192.]

That was a distinct pledge to submit the designs to the House. The present First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) was reported to have said—

"He was of opinion that before this Vote was agreed to the House should be in possession of some general scheme for occupying the ground facing Piccadilly and the gardens behind. He thought it would be desirable for the Government to postpone the Vote for the present."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 189.]

The noble Lord was then in Opposition; but since he had come into office he had violated every pledge that had been given, and the buildings had been commenced without any plans or elevations being placed within the reach of hon. Members. Notwithstanding the fact that the House voted the £20,000 on the understanding that no further demand should be made upon them until the House had seen the plans and elevations, the noble Lord, he understood, now put forward the extraordinary doctrine that the head of a Department was not bound by any pledges made by his predecessors in office. That was a most mischievous and dangerous doctrine, which, if carried out, would result in a general want of confidence in the heads of Departments, who might be changed at any time, and whose pledges would not he binding on their successors. Unless some distinct explanation should be given which would show a good reason for the course which had been pursued, he should move, when the next Vote on the subject was proposed to the House, that it should be rejected, and that the works should be stopped until the House had had an opportunity of inspecting and approving the plans for the whole group of buildings.

said, that there would be no objection to produce the Correspondence which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the London University during the entire period the negotiations had been in progress. The miseries of private gentlemen who engaged in building were proverbial; but they were nothing to what were suffered in similar cases by the head of a public Department. It was now nine years since the House had first commenced discussing this subject, and the hon. Member blamed it for having at last decided that the National Gallery was to be in Trafalgar Square, and the Royal Academy in Burlington House. He put it to the House that if, by any action on their part, they were to prevent that great scheme which had been decided on two or three years ago, by which Trafalgar Square was to be reserved for the National Gallery, and the Royal Academy was to be placed in Burlington Gardens, from being carried out, very great inconvenience must be the result. The hon. Gentleman, in the opening of his speech, had found great fault with him with reference to the design adopted for the building of the London University in Burlington Gardens, and also for the manner in which, according to the hon. Gentleman, he had not fulfilled certain pledges given to the House by his predecessor. With regard to the first point, he really felt a difficulty in approaching once more the old worn-out question of "the battle of the styles." The history which the hon. Gentleman had given—founded on what authority he could not even pretend to guess—as to the manner in which this particular design was formed was erroneous from beginning to end. He begged leave to state, in the most emphatic manner, that he never directed Mr. Pennethorne to form the design in Palladian, Gothic, Italian-Gothic, Byzantine, or any other style. When he succeeded to the office which he had now the honour to hold, he found that the House of Commons had voted £20,000 for the erection of a building for the London University, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), on the 30th of April last, had told the House that it was of the utmost importance that not a moment should be lost, that the Vote should be taken without delay, and the work at once commenced. When he found that such was the state of things, and that his predecessor before leaving office had commissioned Mr. Pennethorne to prepare specifications for the foundations of the building, he felt it to be clearly his duty not to stop the work, but to take the necessary steps to carry that work to completion. He therefore instructed Mr. Pennethorne to prepare a design; but he begged leave to deny, in the most emphatic manner, that in giving those instructions he expressed any preference whatever for one style of architecture over another. The result showed it. For how did Mr. Pennethorne fulfil those instructions? The hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that he had sent in what the hon. Gentleman rightly or wrongly called a Palladian design. The hon. Gentleman also said that his charge must be well founded, because it was founded on documents received from the London Univerversity. He begged to say that such was not the fact. Mr. Pennethorne of his own free will proposed two alternative designs. What became of the charge that he had shown a complete indifference to the wishes of the London University, who were to inhabit the building? What did he do? He requested the authorities of the London University to come down and examine the designs to see which of the two they preferred. The Chancellor was not in London at the time, nor he believed the Vice Chancellor; but Dr. Carpenter, the Registrar, came to his office, and he (Lord John Manners) begged that he, in conjunction with Mr. Pennethorne, should examine the designs and report which they preferred. The result was that, without expressing any very decided preference for one or the other, both Dr. Chancellor and Mr. Pennethorne said they rather preferred that the Italian-Gothic design should be adopted. They went carefully into the question how all the requirements of the London University would be met, and Dr. Carpenter seemed quite satisfied that ample provision would be made for them. And that was the whole of this tremendous affair of these two alternatives. He had no more notion of forcing Mr. Pennethorne or the London University to adopt a design which they did not like than the hon. Gentleman himself. Then the hon. Gentleman went into a matter very difficult to discuss in Parliament—the question of taste. That was a question which had been brought forward on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman thought that what he called the front and back of buildings ought to be in the same style of architecture. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman; but the whole question was, what was the front and what the back? The hon. Gentleman said that any building erected behind Burlington House on the north side must be in the same style of architecture as the building on the south side. Now, in what style of architecture were the authorities of the Royal Academy going to carry out those works which had met with approval of the hon. Member, and which were to be erected at the rear of Burlington House at their own expense? Were they to be in the Palladian style? [Mr. LAYARD: I hope so.] They were to be in the plainest possible style—they were to be architecturally adapted for galleries for pictures. The house with which the new building would be brought into immediate contact was that which belonged to General Cavendish, and he would challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell what was the style of architecture of that house? He should like further to know from him whether he thought the new building ought to be in that style. For his own part, he had not expressed an opinion in favour of one style of architecture over another. But the hon. Gentleman had referred to what had been said by late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) on the 30th of April last, and also to what had fallen from himself on that occasion. It was quite true that he had then observed that, if it were in the power of the Government to do so, it would be well to place before the House a general plan, and to show how the whole of the piece of ground in question was to be appropriated. But the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking after him, and he believed in answer to him, said—

"It was necessary to take this Vote because the case of the University of London was urgent in point of time. If they were not allowed to take a Vote until they could produce a plan for the appropriation of the whole site, there would be a loss of a whole year, and even then the object in view would not be attained. The Royal Academy was going to build out of its own funds, and it would require a good deal of time to settle the mode of filling up the intermediate portion of the site."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 190.]

Now, he was not disposed to be unreasonable, and that answer of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to him was, he thought, sound one. The House took the same view, because the Vote, after considerable discussion, was allowed to pass without a division. The hon. Gentleman, however, accused him of breach of faith, because he had not produced those plans which could not be produced last year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), it was true, on that occasion said—

"He could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space, which would accommodate the learned societies."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiii. 192.]

But he gathered from that statement that it referred to the plans for the distribution of the ground, and not to the elevations and designs, which were things perfectly distinct. In answer to a Question which had been put to him on July 31 by his hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope), he said—

"It is impossible for me to exhibit the design referred to by the hon. Member, as it is not in my possession."—[3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1762.]

And that was the fact, because, although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), after the Vote had passed, gave instructions to Mr. Pennethorne to prepare specifications for the foundations of the work, he issued no instructions for the preparation of designs so long as he remained in office. As soon as the plans for the appropriation of the ground could be prepared, he (Lord John Manners) was perfectly willing and ready and anxious that they should be placed in the Library for the inspection of hon. Members. There was necessarily great delay in dealing with the various bodies concerned. Arrangements had to be made with no less than six learned societies, and accommodation to be provided for the Royal Academy, as well as a new building for the London University. Those arrangements were now concluded, and the plans would be immediately placed before the House. Before any fresh Vote was asked for, the complete appropriation of the whole site of Burlington House and Burlington Gardens would be distinctly shown. Hon. Members would, when they saw the accommodation which was to be provided for the Royal Academy and for the different learned societies, and the new building for the London University, admit that the appropriation of the property at Burlington House was such as was originally contemplated by the nation, when the purchase of that property was made. It was such as would satisfy those who set a value on the objects which those great learned and artistic societies had in view. He understood from those who had seen some of the designs for the Royal Academy and the accommodation of the other societies that they met with general approbation. Nothing, he could assure the House, could be further from his intention than to treat it with the slightest disrespect, or to depart in the least degree from any pledge which might have been given. He had always, in the discharge of his duty, endeavoured to take the House fully into his confidence, and he hoped that in the present instance it would find that the Government had come to a wise and satisfactory decision.

said, he could assure the noble Lord that the London University with which he had the honour to be connected as a Member of the Senate, so far from making any complaint of him, were very sensible of the courtesy which they had received at his hands in reference to their new building. He might also say that, having for a long time sat in that House with the noble Lord, he should be last person to charge him with violating any pledge he had given. Through the kindness of the noble Lord he had been enabled within the last few days to see the elevations in accordance with which building was to be erected. Without entering into a discussion on a matter of taste, on which he did not feel that he was an authority, he might state it to be his belief, as a matter of fact, that if the elevation which it was proposed to erect in Burlington Gardens for the purposes of the London University had been exhibited in the Library of the House before the Vote was taken for it, not a single shilling would have been voted for carrying out such a plan. The extracts from the speech of the right hon. Member (Mr. Cowper) contained a statement that the plan would be submitted as a whole, and that the House of Commons would have the opportunity of declaring whether the buildings should be made consistent and harmonious with one another. But the noble Lord seemed to think it very absurd to suppose that because the Royal Academy was constructed in accordance with one style of architecture, the London University, on the same piece of ground, might not be built in a style entirely different. It appeared to him that the House would very likely be of an entirely different opinion, and if Burlington House was to be preserved, and other buildings were to be erected on the grounds, and to be parcels of the same block, the House would probably think that all the buildings should be in harmony one with another. It was very desirable that a large sum should not be voted and expended on buildings which instead of being an ornament, would be a disfigurement to the metropolis, until the House of Commons had had the opportunity of forming a judgment with respect to them. As the noble Lord proposed to place the design of the elevation in the Library in a few days, hon. Members would be able to pronounce an opinion in respect to it. He knew that the Senate of the London Unisity was of one mind in thinking that the building would be not an ornament but a disfigurement to the metropolis. He had been under the apprehension that the noble Lord, having a great liking for that particular style of architecture, had in this case yielded to his predilection. He was relieved from that apprehension, for it appeared that the noble Lord only desired Mr. Pennethorne to make two elevations, that those elevations were submitted to Dr. Carpenter, and that the two, in a few minutes, determined on the design without consulting the noble Lord. No doubt Dr. Carpenter supposed that his opinion was asked upon the convenience of the arrangements of the plan for the London University, and never for one moment believed that there was vested in him authority to speak for the Chancellor and Senate of the London University, and give their opinion as to the elevation to be erected. However, it was not for the London University, much less for Dr. Carpenter, to decide the question how public money was to be spent in ornamenting or disfiguring the metropolis. That was a question for the House of Commons, and it could not be decided without the House seeing the plan of the elevation. One duty the London University had to discharge, and that was to express their opinion on the subject. He bore testimony to the courtesy with which the noble Lord had treated the London University. He should like to know what amount of smart money the country would have to pay if this elevation were got rid of and another substituted for it. He hoped that a third elevation, preferable to either of the other two, might be adopted by the House.

thought that the present discussion showed how ill-advised the last Parliament was under the advice of those now in power in throwing over the scheme for building the National Gallery on Burlington Gardens, and erecting there one uniform and harmonious structure. The House would recollect how he had been supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark on his Motion last Session to reverse this decision, and what little support he had received. All he had realized was saving Burlington House at the loss, however, of its best portion, its picturesque colonnade, which he hoped might be erected elsewhere. In the conversation which took place on the 30th of April in last year he clearly understood the right hon. Member for Hertford to promise that all the plans and elevations of the new buildings should be submitted to the House. Several hon. Members were taken aback at the suddenness with which the idea of putting the London University in Burlington Gardens had been produced full fledged; but a distinct promise was given by the then Commissioner of Works that the elevations and designs should be produced, and though a change of Government took place, he could not have thought that that promise would have been so entirely neglected. Under the old scheme there would have been one grand harmonious palace erected on the ground, with a direct through communication and two façades saving withal Burlington House. So much did he admire the scheme that he waived in favour of it his personal preference for Gothic. But this had been given up, and the ground was to be cut up and frittered away partly between the Royal Academy and the London University. Each building would now have its own entrance front, and neither of them would have any intercommunication, nor back nor sides, but simple blank walls, except the façades. Moreover, there could not conceivably be two structures which it would be more impossible to comprehend in the same coup d'œil, except from a balloon, than the Royal Academy looking down upon Piccadilly, and the London University up Cork Street. Accordingly, the unity of structure which had to be maintained in the days when the National Gallery was to cover the whole space no longer existed. The question whether Mr. Pennethorne's design was good or bad should be tested by its own merits—if good, let it be adopted; if bad, corrected, for a bad Gothic design would raise a prejudice against its style. The good scheme that would cover Burlington Gardens with one building was passed and gone. It was to be covered with two buildings totally distinct in their objects. Let them be dealt with on their own merits. Let them forget that there was a Royal Academy to the south, and deal with the London University merely with a view to Burlington Gardens. Take it in hand—make it as commodious and picturesque as possible, and if it could be made a new starting point for metropolitan architecture, so much the better. The time had come when the revolt was sounded against that monotonous repetition of Italian architecture in stucco and compo which had too long defaced our streets. Men were beginning to appreciate the picturesque forms of the Middle Ages so well adapted to the purposes of our present life. A Gothic club-house was rising in St. James' Street. A Gothic Insurance Office of great beauty had been planted within Temple Bar; a Gothic warehouse of great originality had been erected in Thames Street, while of all Members whom he felt sure would most warmly hail this happy change he would name the Member for Southwark, whose labours of love in the Arundel Society had done so much to impress our minds with the beauties of the mediæval art of Italy.

said, he thought that there was one building in London which was admirably adapted for all practical purposes, and that was Somerset House. He felt that they were all much obliged to the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) for the candid manner in which he had acted and for the candid explanations he had given, by which he had liberated himself from all accusation. He had himself strongly urged getting the London University out of the rooms in which they were at present so inconveniently placed; but he certainly understood that before anything was undertaken they would have not only the plans but the elevation of the buildings. He would humbly suggest to the noble Lord that he should at once produce the plans. After the emphatic denunciation they had heard they ought to look carefully at this design before going further. The "battle of the styles" had been ill-fought on the present occasion. The same foundation would avail for a classical and a Gothic building. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) asked what amount of smart-money they would have to pay? He did not think it would be very much. The main thing was that the noble Lord should stay further progress in order to produce the design, and within a week they might come to a determination whether the judgment of the London University was right, and the judgment of the architect was wrong. If the feeling of the House was in favour of a Gothic design, no one could carry it out better than Mr. Pennethorne. With the opening from Piccadilly through the University buildings, he thought the three distinct styles of Burlington House, the Royal Academy, and the University building would in some sort or another be united. He understood that there was to be a way through the Burlington House galleries into the University building, and it would be very objectionable if the galleries were in one style and the new building in another. He could not conceive that with such a variety of style a result satisfactory to the nation could be carried out. This debate might well stand adjourned till they saw Mr. Pennethorne's design.

said, he gave his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) every credit for the great frankness with which he had made his statement. At the same time, there was one important point to which he had not adverted—namely, that Mr. Pennethorne's first design was in harmony with Burlington House, and that it was only on second thoughts that he furnished the present design. He quite agreed that they ought to endeavour to blend in one design the two buildings. As to any supposed breach of faith towards the House, he might say that having listened to the debate of last year, his opinion was that what was said by the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cowper) had been carried into effect. It was a question of accommodating three bodies—the Royal Academy, the Learned Societies, and the London University. He (Mr. Bentinck) took objection to the multitude of architects, and the answer he received was that they should work together. The whole depended on the Royal Academy agreeing to go to Burlington House. What happened after that? Sir Francis Grant declined, and would not go there till lately. Now he heard for the first time that the Royal Academy was going to Burlington House. He hoped that his noble Friend would throw aside any prejudice he might have, and comply with the request that had been made to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Until the Estimates were brought forward, which he assumed they would be at no very distant day, he would suggest to his noble Friend that directions should be given to stop any artistic work which had been commenced, and that the designs should be exhibited in the Library or in some other convenient place. When there had been an opportunity of taking the opinion of the House, no doubt a building would be erected which would be a credit to the metropolis.

said, he wished, after what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Tite), to offer a practical suggestion—namely, that the work in this case should be stopped until the designs had been laid before Parliament, and the House enabled to form an opinion upon them. Some years ago the advocates of the Gothic style for the new Foreign Office were defeated; but he thought the result must have rather shaken the faith of those who had voted in favour of the style recommended by Lord Palmerston. As to the building now in question, it was to be regretted that the back of it would not correspond more with the front. In order to fulfil the understanding which was apparently come to by his predecessor in office, his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) should lay the plans before Parliament previous to proceeding with the building; otherwise, if they should see reason to object to what was done, they might be met with the answer that it was too late to make any change.

said, that when in April last the Vote was proposed to the House and carried it was the intention of the then Government to place the Royal Academy on the south side of the Burlington House site, and that the north side of the site should remain open for the purposes of the London University. At that time many hon. Members were much afraid that the building would be erected without any reference to a general scheme and to that proper harmony which ought to mark all the buildings on the Burlington House site. He remembered that the first in pressing that view upon the House was the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). To such a degree, indeed, did the noble Lord push it that he proposed to postpone the Vote because he feared there was not a complete and harmonious scheme for disposing of the whole of the site. He himself at once met that objection by saying that although it was not for the advantage of public business then to postpone that particular Vote, yet he was quite prepared, on behalf of the then Government, to state that they would satisfy the House that the whole of the ground was laid out with a general intention and a harmonious design, and that they were quite ready to let the House see the plans on which they meant to proceed, though those plans were not at that moment prepared. Therefore, the noble Lord must have been quite aware of the engagement into which the late Government had entered; and he was surprised that the noble Lord had not thought fit to act upon that understanding. There certainly was an understanding on the part of the late Government that the House should have information as to the plans for the building, though the elevation was not specially mentioned. At that time he had not caused any elevation to be prepared, for the very reason that he never intended that the London University should be a distinct portion of the building which was to occupy the site of Burlington House. He thought it should be in harmony with the other buildings which the Royal Academy were prepared to erect on the southern side; and until the architects employed by the Royal Academy could begin to consider what elevation they should propose for the assent of the First Commissioner of Works, he had not thought it right that any elevation should be prepared for the London University. Italian-Gothic was a style in which beauty and variety might be successfully combined with grandeur of effect; but that style was not appropriate to the position or the purpose of the building in question.

Sir, I can hardly expect the House at this late hour (twelve o'clock) to give its attention to the subject which stands on the paper with my name attached to it. At the same time, I venture to crave its indulgence for a few moments, while I refer to that topic. I was quite willing, Sir, to give way to my hon. Friend (Mr. Tite), because I always regard him as a patron saint of architecture. He so impressed me to-night with the idea of wings and structures without rears or fronts, that I am inclined to look on Italian-Gothic, as if I may so describe it, the Cherubim style. Having made that passing allusion to my hon. Friend, I am anxious to refer to the Question of which I have given notice, and which is one of great importance. Judging merely from the small superficial area involved, it may, perhaps, be viewed as of very limited moment, compared with the great territorial adjustments which have been taking place on the Continent. But, at the same time, it affects considerations which in my humble judgment are most important in their bearing upon the interests of Europe, and which, unless the negotiations are conducted in a spirit of fairness and of conciliation between the two principal Powers concerned, will, I am afraid, involve Europe in a very grave crisis. We have not yet heard anything from the Government upon this subject, though, no doubt, this morning's papers have informed us that the negotiations for the transfer of Luxembourg to France was at an end. I hope that may be the case; though, of course, until we hear what remarks the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) may make upon the subject, we shall be in the dark upon the point. But I am afraid that, even if this be the case, it will only tend to increase the perplexities of France, and will only tend to make still more patent the evils of that harassing policy which has placed her in so humiliating a position in the eyes of Europe. This morning's papers have stated that the negotiations for the annexation or the cession of Luxembourg to France are at an end. But it was only the other day that we were informed that Ministers, or at least ex-Ministers, do not read the newspapers. If I recollect right, it was only the other day that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) informed us that he had not seen in the newspapers an account, which occupied two or three columns of The Times, of a meeting which all the world was talking about, which he held at his own house, with some advanced Reformers; I do not know who. [A laugh.] At any rate, then, we hear that ex-Ministers do not read the newspapers. I therefore now ask the noble Lord to give us some information as to whether or not it is the case that there has been a proposal emanating either from France or from Holland—I presume it did not emanate from Prussia—to sell about 200,000 inhabitants of Luxembourg—180,000 of whom are Germans—to France, at the rate of 500 francs, or about £20 per head. That is part of the policy of the Emperor of the French. That policy has failed for the last seven or eight years. It is impossible to understand what he aims at. I cannot for a moment conceive that he tries to humble France in the eyes of Europe—such an idea would be absurd. Twice during a very short time he has told Europe of the gratification with which he has attempted to upset the treaty Vienna. From the very moment when having deceived Lord Cowley and all Europe, he stood with Victor Emmanuel on the summit of the Alps, and proclaimed the annexation of the two Provinces of Savoy and Nice, he has committed a series of blunders, which have involved him in the perplexing position in which he now stands. I do not know whether the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) will be able to give us any explanation as to the negotiations that have taken place in this mattter, and as to the frankness of France in such negotiations. I, in common with the House generally, have every confidence in the ability of the noble Lord, and in the course he may think fit to adopt in his administration of our Foreign Affairs at this moment. I heard a high compliment paid him the other evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would have sounded better had it come from some other person than a Colleague. Still, I fully endorse that expression of esteem. But I wish to impress upon the noble Lord that for some years he and the party with which he was acting were constantly saying that the policy of Lord Palmerston and of Lord Russell was more and more isolating this country from the affairs of Europe. I do not wish to see this country indiscreetly meddling upon every occasion in European affairs; but sometimes I think that it is scarcely wise that we should be isolating ourselves to the degree which I fear is becoming so conspicuous in regard to our relations with foreign nations. I hope that the noble Lord, in the debate that we shall certainly have in the course of next week, when the whole question of our foreign policy must be brought before the House and the country in reference to the dispute with Spain—will give us some better assurance upon this point than we received the other day in "another place." The country was then informed by a noble Duke that upon notice having been given of a Motion to be made in this House he had telegraphed two hours before the debate took place to St. Petersburg to know whether it was true that Russia had ceded an extent of territory, amounting to 300,000 square miles, to the United States. The Government of the day and the Minister for Foreign affairs knew nothing about it. That circumstance shows how much our policy of isolation has tended to disassociate this country from the nations of Europe. I hope the noble Lord will not accuse me of taking a liberty in pointing this out to him, because I think nothing can be worse and nothing more injurious than that this system of our standing apart from other European nations should be carried out to too great an extent. I have made these observations with the view of eliciting from the noble Lord whether the breaking off of the negotiations for the annexation of Luxembourg by France is owing to any representations which have been made by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that such is the case. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord, with that excellent good sense that distinguishes him, has pointed out to the Emperor of the French and to the King of Holland—to the latter particularly—that this shabby traffiking in the sale of people will not do. I hope the noble Lord has pointed this out to them, and that he will be able to tell us that he has recommended them to let the matter drop through. Not that it will drop through altogether, I am afraid. I cannot conceive any question more likely to involve Europe, and certainly England, in a war than the question of a cession of this kind, which is one to which certainly Prussia would never willingly agree. Although we are sometimes indifferent to certain rectifications of frontiers, we should, nevertheless, scarcely be likely to assent to a transfer of territory that will affect Belgium and other States of Europe. Is it likely that Russia, as one of the five parties to the Treaty of 1831, that sepa- rated Belgium from Holland, would view this annexation with indifference. There is, however, no doubt whatever that this barter—this sale—was contemplated. The noble Lord admitted the other day, in his reply to an hon. Gentleman below the gangway, that there was no doubt communications had passed between the Governments of France and Holland with reference to the possible transfer of this territory. But the matter does not rest solely upon the statement of the noble Lord. By a singular coincidence, on the same day that the noble Lord made that statement in this House, Count Bismarck, in the North German Parliament, in reply to a question, stated, that so far back as October last, the subject had been raised. The King of Holland had at that time questioned the Prussian Ambassador, whether his country would be prepared to yield the occupation of Luxembourg. Count Bismarck further stated that while he was willing to respect the susceptibilities of France, Holland must take upon itself the entire responsibility of every transaction in the matter. That is the only answer we should have expected from Count Bismarck. There, however, appears officially in the Constitutionnel a statement that clearly shows the aim of the Government of France in making this demand. Only a short time after the battle of Sadowa, France asked for an enlargement of territory. That demand was peremptorily refused, to the evident annoyance of the Emperor of the French, though be bore it with an appearance of chivalrous disregard. But, now that he asks the King of Prussia to consent to this cession, an article appears in the Constitutionnel, the official journal of France, and which is therefore supposed to have been inserted by authority. It says—

"France has no desire to threaten the interests of Germany, or to bring her honour into question. France has no warlike tendencies, but has solely a deep sense of what is just and equitable. Now, it would be neither just nor equitable that Prussia, after having achieved her great conquests without obstacles, should watch jealously the smallest acquisition that may be desired by her neighbours—not in the interest of ambition but of security."

We know well enough what the Emperor of the French had in view, or, perhaps, I should rather say, what the writer of the article had in view, when he says that he tried to get Luxembourg, "not in the interest of ambition, but of security." It is this. During the Revolution of France one of the greatest men—perhaps the greatest military man in the early period of that revolution, Carnot, was intrusted with the drawing up of the military arrangements on that side of the Moselle. He says, in his memoirs, that the holding of Luxembourg is a matter of vital importance to France. Carnot says—

"Le seul point d'appui pour attaquer la France est de la coté de Moselle."

Therefore we have the authority of Carnot, which has evidently influenced the Emperor, that the holding of Luxembourg is a matter of the first importance for France for defensive or offensive operations against Germany. When this proposed cession was mentioned, it caused even greater dissatisfaction to Europe than that of Savoy and Nice. That there have been strong manifestations in Germany cannot be denied. Even Bavaria has strongly protested against this threatened action on the part of Holland. In the official journal of Prussia it was stated that in the event of war on account of Luxembourg Italy and Prussia would act together, and the King of Italy would look forward to that war in order to recover Savoy and Nice. When statements like these are made in official and semi-official journals of Prussia and France, there is evidently some deep-laid scheme at the bottom, which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind so as to prevent serious convulsions in the state of Europe. If the noble Lord will look to the Treaty of Vienna in 1815 and the Treaty of 1831, he will find it laid down that when by the Treaty of 1815 Luxembourg was ceded to Holland, it was in exchange for some part of Nassau, but on the distinct understanding that Luxembourg should be continued as part of the Germanic Confederation. When in 1831 Lord Palmerston and, I think, Talleyrand, and other statesmen were engaged in drawing up the treaty, it was distinctly laid down that Luxembourg should not go to Belgium, but should remain with Holland, and continue part of the Germanic Confederation. If hon. Members will read the admirable memoir of Earl Grey and the correspondence on the Reform question of 1831 they will find this question alluded to. In the first speech of the King of the Belgians on opening the Chambers in 1831 he expressed the dissatisfaction which he and the Belgian people felt at not having Luxembourg. Earl Grey resented that speech, and an intimation was sent to the King of the Belgians that he must withdraw any expectations as to the occu- pation of Luxembourg by Belgium. This is a matter of the deepest and most pressing moment to the peace of Europe. If the attempts of France are in any way encouraged or connived at by the Government of this country, it will lead to serious complications into which we shall most undoubtedly be drawn. I trust that the Government of Her Majesty have endeavoured to impress upon the Governments of Holland and France the inexpediency and the danger of pressing forward questions of this kind, knowing, as they must do, that Prussia, with all its power, and with one of the most capable Ministers that ever guided the destinies of a people at its head, will resent that irruption into a pure German population. Of course, this country has no direct interest in trifling territorial adjustment. We only want to see France great in the power of her arts and commerce. But it is this continuous agitation—this disregard of treaties, which is the primary cause of the uneasiness that exists in Europe. I hope that the reply of the noble Lord has been such as to enhance the position and influence of this country abroad.

Although this question of Luxembourg may be in its ultimate result one of great importance; and although the mere stirring of it up during the last ten days has agitated Europe in no inconsiderable degree, yet the facts, which the right hon. Gentleman has accurately stated, he in a very narrow compass. And, although he has made some remarks to which I cannot agree, and said one or two things which I regret were said, still I am glad he has given me the opportunity of stating, so far as I am able, what has passed in this matter. Every one knows that the French Government have desired to possess this territory of Luxembourg. It is also pretty generally known that the King of Holland was ready to part, on certain conditions, with the interest he had in it. I must remind the House that this is a matter for the King of Holland rather than for the Dutch Government. The territory is detached from that Government, and it is only connected with Holland by the tie of a common Sovereign. I am bound to say, in the interest of truth, that, so far as I am aware, the Dutch Government and the Dutch people do not regard this outlying territory as of any importance to them, or as adding to the strength, security, and prosperity of their country. But it is not the fact that the King of Holland was ever ready to part with this territory unconditionally. As I am informed there were various stipulations which he proposed, and on which he insisted as indispensable to the transfer, if it took place. One of them was, that he should receive certain compensation; but whether that compensation was intended to take a direct pecuniary form I have no information. Another stipulation which I feel bound to mention after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, on which the King of Holland insisted, was, that the wishes of the people of Luxembourg should be consulted, The third, and, for practical purposes, the most important of all, was, that the consent of the Great Powers should be obtained—and especially the consent of Prussia. Now, Sir, Prussia, as the House is aware, possesses and claims to possess by special treaty the right of garrison in the fortress of Luxembourg; and both on that account and as a neighbour—and particularly as the head of the Confederated States of Germany—Prussia has a deeper and closer interest in this matter than any other European Power. When the matter came to the knowledge of the Prussian Government a communication was made by it to the other Powers which signed the Treaty of April, 1839. That treaty regulates the relations of Belgium and Holland, and guarantees Luxembourg to the King of Holland. One of these communications was addressed to Baron Beust, and another to Her Majesty's Government; and the latter was received by me on Sunday last. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this negotiation as of an old date. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Last October.] I do not know what may have passed in secret; but all I can say is that no information reached Her Majesty's Government as to the transfer being in contemplation until about ten days ago. The Questions that were put to me by the Prussian Government were in substance two. One was, whether the British Government would endeavour to dissuade the King of Holland from going on with the negotiations supposed to be in progress; and the other was, what construction was put by the British Government upon the guarantee contained in the Treaty of 1839. As to the second of these Questions, I could not undertake to give a definite reply at once, for this reason—that it was obviously very desirable, if any representation or action were required to be taken on the Treaty of 1839, that such representation should not be the act of any single Power, but should be made in concert with the other Powers by whom that treaty was signed, and who equally with us were responsible. But I did not conceal a doubt (and I might use a stronger word) which existed in my mind as to whether the guarantee given by that Treaty of 1839 was one of a character to apply to the present case. And for this reason. That guarantee was undoubtedly intended to defend the interest of the King of Holland in his capacity of Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and to maintain the integrity of the territory. But, of course, if the King of Holland voluntarily surrendered his interest in Luxembourg, and was a consenting party to the arrangements made, his interest as contemplated by the guarantee ceased to be in question, and the matter which remained was a totally different one, between France on the one hand and Germany on the other. Now, neither by that treaty nor at any other time were we pledged to defend the integrity of the German Empire. Germany united, as she is now, and I am glad that she is so—united to an extent which has never before occurred, is perfectly capable of providing for her own defence. I do not think it would be easy to argue, although the right hon. Baronet's reasoning seems to point in that direction, that it is the duty of England to interfere to prevent a transaction which might result in some small aggrandizement on the part of France, when the Government and the people of this country have seen with entire acquiescence, and even, I believe, with approval, the enormous aggrandizement which has accrued to Germany, or rather to Prussia, as the head of the German States, within the last twelve months as the result of the late war. As regards the question whether we should dissuade the King of Holland from proceeding with this negotiation, my answer was that we had been informed—and subsequent intelligence has verified the presumption on which I acted—that the consent of the King of Holland was from the first made conditional on the consent of Prussia and on that of the people of Luxembourg. What may be the feeling of the people of Luxembourg I cannot undertake to say. But from the first I had a strong idea that the consent of Prussia would never be obtained. If these conditions were not fulfilled, the transaction fell to the ground. If the people of Luxembourg offered no objection, and if Prussia—the Power most interested in the proposal—gave her consent, it cannot be said that it was the duty of the British Government to interpose. That is the answer I gave provisionally on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There was no time for more detailed consideration, and there was no need for further expression of opinion on my part. As the House knows, yesterday information was received, not indeed at the time of an official or of an absolutely certain character, but which, nevertheless, bore marks of authenticity, and which I believed to be true, stating that the cession of Luxembourg had been relinquished by the King of Holland. I have had that statement confirmed by the representative of the King of the Netherlands, who called upon me this afternoon and authorized me to make that statement as coming from his Government. I think that is the end of the question as far as Holland is concerned. Whether or not it will put a final end to other questions which may arise out of it is impossible to say. If, however, they should be revived, they will be revived in a different form and under entirely different circumstances. It was in the late case supposed that the King of Holland was a consenting party to the transfer. That state of things is now entirely altered, and I do not, of course, pretend to say what will arise out of the new state of things which has arisen in consequence of his refusal. I have now related all the material facts, and I have done so more in detail than I otherwise should have done because every communication which I have received on the subject having been confidential, I am unable to lay the documents upon the table. But the House may rely upon it that I have given the whole facts of the case as they came before me. Further consideration has confirmed me in the conviction—a conviction in which the House will, I think, share—that we were right in declining to involve ourselves further in a transaction which might be, and still may be, productive of very serious consequences. No interest of ours was either directly or indirectly involved, and we stood absolutely free and unfettered. Sir, that is the whole case as far as it has gone. Something was said by the right hon. Baronet as to the security of Belgium. The security of Belgium is an entirely different matter. Upon that question we are involved in a guarantee solemnly and deliberately entered into. But the question as to the security of Belgium did not in the slightest degree arise during the course of the present transactions. I dealt with the subject as it arose, and I do not think that it is worth our while to go out of our way to anticipate difficulties which have not arisen and which probably never will arise.

The noble Lord has omitted to answer one Question I put. I asked whether the relinquishment of the cession of Luxembourg was in any way owing to the representations of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said that the Powers had agreed to make some joint representation. [Lord STANLEY: No, no!] Pardon me. Russia has made a representation to the Government of France. I wish to know from the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representation to France or to Holland, with a view of inducing either or both of those Powers to relinquish this projected cession?

I thought I had already answered that Question. With regard to any Russian protest against the transaction in question, I heard of it for the first time from the right hon. Baronet. No information has reached the Foreign Office of any action of that kind having been taken by the Russian Government. As to the abandonment of the cession of this province being due to any remonstrance on the part of the British Government, I thought I had stated that considering the cession proposed by the King of Holland was conditional, both upon the consent of the people of Luxembourg and of Prussia, and considering from the first that that consent on the part of Prussia was not given, and did not seem likely to be given, l did not feel myself called upon to make any remonstrance on the part of the British Government. The abandonment, therefore, of the project, if it be abandoned, is certainly not due to any action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, that the Government proposed that it should be considered in Committee on Monday, when the clause relating to flogging would be amended, so as to agree with the Bill relating to the army. The House would then be asked to pass the Bill through all its stages, that it might be disposed of before Easter. According to the Returns received that morning, there had, in the last year, been only two cases of corporal punishment amongst the 9,000 Marines serving on shore in England.

said, he should offer no objection at the present stage, because he understood that clauses to which he objected were to be amended in Committee.

moved the second reading of this Bill. He disclaimed all responsibility on the part of the Government in respect of the fortifications referred to by the Bill. They had been projected entirely by the late Government, and it now became the duty of Ministers to see that the works were not left in an unfinished state. The progress which bad been made in the science of defence had caused some additional and unforeseen expense to be incurred. No one, for instance, could have anticipated the necessity for plating the works at Portsmouth with iron, which was now considered advisable. £500,000 was required for this plating, and he was sorry to add that the Estimates had been exceeded by upwards of £100,000. Some purchases of land also were necessary. In order to cover this extra expenditure of nearly £700,000, it was proposed to abandon works at Chatham to the extent of £500,000, and at the central arsenal at Cannock Chase to the extent of £150,000. The Bill did not ask for any fresh money, but simply authorized the re-appropriation of this money, and he hoped there would be no unnecessary delay in passing it.

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. The right hon. Gentleman had very fairly described the Bill; but his description showed that it dealt with matters of great importance, which demanded more attention than could be devoted to them at five minutes to one o'clock.

said, the only principle involved in the Bill was as to whether the money which it had been already agreed to raise for certain fortifications should be distributed in a different manner from what was originally intended. The money had already been voted. It was only now proposed to re-distribute it. That question could be easily decided, and he hoped the House would understand how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if the Bill were not passed before Easter.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, that if any discussion were desired it might take place in Committee. It was impossible for the Government to proceed with the works if the Bill were not passed. The Government inherited this Bill from their predecessors.

said, that although the Government might have inherited the works from their predecessors, they had not inherited the changes, and it was the new proposals which the House wished to discuss. He did not see how the Bill could be passed before Easter.