said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Irish Government are taking steps to remove the prohibitory restrictions upon the importation into Ireland of North Country Sheep, in accordance with the prayer of a Memorial recently addressed to the Chief Secretary by the Farmers and Stockmasters of Northumberland, setting forth the injury inflicted upon them by the continuance of this prohibition, which does not apply to Scotland?

said, in reply, that the Government were considering whether it was advisable to extend the same permission which was given some months ago for the importation of Scotch sheep into Ireland to sheep from the Border Counties of England; and he hoped that in the course of a week an Order in Council would be issued for that purpose. For the present this permission would only be extended to Northumberland and Cumberland, and it would be necessary that sheep sent to Ireland from these counties should go from ports in the counties, or from Scotch ports.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the statement which appeared in the public newspapers, that telegrams had been sent to their Governments by Foreign Consuls in Candia, that—

"The Turks are massacring women and children; the Turkish authorities are neither able to subdue the insurrection nor to put a stop to these massacres; humanity demands the immediate suspension of hostilities or the transference of the Christians from Greece;"

and, whether he has received any such communication from Candia; if he has, what is its date, when did it reach his hands, and whether he has any objection to place it upon the table or to state its contents to the House?

replied, that his attention had been called to the telegram to which the hon. Gentleman referred. All the information they had received at the Foreign Office, except what he would refer to directly, was a despatch from the British Consul, dated the 21st of July, in which it was stated that no doubt massacres had been committed by the Turkish soldiers, especially by the Irregulars. The Consul did not, however, speak from personal knowledge, but only from what he had heard from other sources. On the other hand the Turkish Government entirely denied that any acts of cruelty on a large scale had been committed, and they declared that whenever such acts had been discovered they were severely punished by the military authorities. If he had any personal opinion on the subject, he should say he believed the Turkish authorities were really desirous to prevent such outrages, but they had comparatively little control over their irregular troops. Just before leaving the Office to come down to the House some fresh despatches arrived, which he had not had time to examine except in a very cursory way; but, so far as he could see, it appeared by them that there was very considerable suffering and distress among the inhabitants. With regard to the presentation of Papers, it would be better that they should all be laid on the table together, rather than extracts from a few. But as at present negotiations were still going on on the subject, their production would be premature.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government will afford an opportunity during the present Session for the Sea Coast Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, to be proceeded with; and, if not, whether he will undertake to say that a Bill will be introduced by the Government next Session to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee?

, in reply, said, he thought it quite impossible at this time of the Session to proceed with so important a measure as the Sea Coast Fisheries (Ireland) Bill; and he could not pledge the Government to introduce a Bill exactly in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the subject would be carefully considered, and, if possible, they would legislate on it next Session.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the fact that the Board of Trade has reported against the granting of a Royal Charter of Incorporation to "The Society of Engineers;" and, if so, on what grounds has the Board of Trade so reported?

said, the Board of Trade had not reported against the granting of a Charter, but—

"That it was not expedient that the Society of Engineers should be incorporated by a Charter granted by Her Majesty under a designation so closely resembling that of the Institution of Civil Engineers."

He believed that there had been of late years, at any rate, no instance of a Royal Charter having been granted to more than one institution associated for the same objects in the same town, under names closely resembling each other. It was indeed manifest that such a practice would be highly inconvenient, and might lead to great confusion and misapprehension. He ought, perhaps, to add that this system of giving Royal Charters to private associations had long been felt to be extremely questionable, and that one of the objects of the Companies Act of 1862 was to substitute a general law for an exceptional privilege.

said, that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty in his speech last March had made certain statements with regard to Mr. Henwood's plans which had given pain to that gentleman, and he therefore wished to give the noble Lord the opportunity of explaining or qualifying those statements in any particulars which might seem to him desirable. The hon. Member read some extracts from the speech referred to of Lord Henry Lennox, and in conclusion asked:—1, Whether, in making his statement on moving the Naval Estimates in March last, the noble Lord was not led into error when he alluded to Mr. Henwood's scheme for converting screw line-of-battle ships into sea-going Monitors; 2, Whether, in the case of the Victoria, the armour plates would not be less than 500 tons, and not, as he then stated, 1,055 tons; 3, Whether it was not true that it had never been proposed by Mr. Henwood to fit small ships, such as the London and Conqueror, with three turrets, but with two only; 4, Whether the deck referred to in his statement was not the gun or monitor deck, over which the guns of the turret are fired, and which would, in all cases, be not less than 3 feet 6 inches above the load water line, the upper deck being 16 feet above the sea; 5, Whether he was not misinformed when he said that Mr. Henwood had no experience in designing or in building ships of war; and 6, Whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to give Mr. Henwood an opportunity of testing his scheme of conversion?

said, that by the courtesy of his hon. and gallant Friend he had been placed that day in possession of the various Questions which he had now addressed to him. He was happy to give his hon. and gallant Friend a very decided answer as to the first point. Shortly after his speech was delivered the Engineer drew a very vivacious, but not very complimentary picture of the statements he had made; and this induced him to refer for corroboration or otherwise to the professional officers who had supplied him with his data. These officers at once declared in writing their willingness to adhere to the figures which they had previously furnished. And, in support of this view, he might mention that Mr. Henwood had thought it right to modify the plans which were the subject of his official criticism, by sending in amended calculations professing to take some considerable amount of weight off the hulls of the ships he proposed to convert. His hon. and gallant Friend was probably not in the House when he made the statement with regard to the Victoria; but what he then said was in exact accordance with the fact—namely, that the heavy armour plates for the sides of the ship amounted to 501 tons, and the light plates to 554, making a total of 1,055 tons. As to the question of whether the smaller ships should be fitted with three turrets, or only with two, the terms of Mr. Henwood's proposal to the Admiralty were to convert a three-decker into a ship with four turrets, and a two-decker into a ship with two turrets. He sent in drawings or designs for the larger ship, but none for the smaller. It was an error to describe the London and the Conqueror as belonging to a small class of line-of-battle ships, for the Conqueror's tonnage was 3,270, and the tonnage of the small class of line-of-battle ships was only 2,650. With respect to the fourth question, he begged to state that he had referred to the gun deck, and he dissented from the hon. Gentleman's statement that the gun deck would in all cases be not less than 3 feet 6 inches above the load water line, for the calculation was that under the most favourable circumstances it would only be 2 feet 8 inches, and the height of the hurricane deck above the sea must depend on the height of the gun deck. With regard to the fifth question, he had to observe that he was still ignorant that Mr. Henwood, though an eminent shipbuilder, had ever designed or built large men-of-war. There was a war vessel for which Mr. Henwood took credit, and the disaster which happened to the Affondatore Mr. Henwood attributed to his plans being altered by the Italian authorities. As to the sixth question, whether the Admirality intended to give Mr. Henwood an opportunity of testing his scheme of conversion, he could only say that the Admiralty were most anxious to see Mr. Henwood mature his plans; but they were not prepared, so long as the drawings and calculations as to weight and displacement were erroneous in the opinion of the professional officers of the Admiralty, to hand over to Mr. Henwood a ship of a considerable number of tons to be dealt with as he pleased. Mr. Henwood's last design was under consideration.

rose, pursuant to Notice, for the purpose of calling attention to the recent grant of a free pardon to Edward Greenland, late manager of the Leeds Banking Company, who was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment for perjury, and to move for the Correspondence on the subject. He said the remission of Greenland's sentence had occasioned great surprise in Leeds and the neighbourhood. The main facts of the case were these—six months ago Greenland was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment on a charge of perjury. He had been manager of the Leeds Banking Company, which had failed two years and a-half ago, and the specified charge on which he was convicted was that of having falsified the returns it was his duty to make to the Board of Inland Revenue of the notes issued by the bank. Up to the time of its failure the bank occupied a high position; and its failure was due, not to the ordinary chances of commerce, but to reckless management. When the bank suspended payment its deficiency amounted to £500,000, and few events of the kind had caused such extensive ruin. Of 243 shareholders at the time of the failure, little more than fifty were now able to meet the calls made upon them; twenty-five had died, some from distress of mind, some by suicide; while some of the shareholders had lost their reason, and were now confined in lunatic asylums. After the failure the inhabitants of Leeds, feeling that the case was one which cast discredit on their town, applied to the Board of Inland Revenue for the purpose of ascertaining whether they intended to prosecute Greenland for the forgeries it was believed he had committed. The Board replied that they did not intend to prosecute; but that they would assist those who might undertake a prosecution. Some of the inhabitants undertook the duty at a heavy cost; and the presiding Judge expressed his surprise that the prosecution of the case had fallen on private persons. The Judge also said that had it not been for the advanced age and bodily infirmity of the prisoner he would have sentenced him to penal servitude. As soon as Greenland went to prison he was placed in the hospital for three months, but in consequence of a report received by the visiting justices he was removed to one of the cells. The visiting justices were, therefore, greatly astonished when they afterwards received intelligence that Greenland had obtained a free pardon. As far as he could understand, the solicitor of Greenland addressed a memorial to the Home Office, asking for a remission of the sentence on the ground of the prisoner's health, and on receipt of the memorial instructions were sent from the Home Office to the gaol directing that inquiries should be made respecting the state of Greenland's health. The concluding portion of the surgeon's certificate was as follows:—

"Under these circumstances he was placed under careful supervision, and precautions were taken during the cold weather against a return of these affections. In consequence his health at first appeared to improve, the only evidence of declining health being a gradual though steady loss of weight, amounting now to twelve pounds, point of considerable importance in the case of a man seventy-two years of age. Since he has been placed in closer confinement he has become more depressed in spirits, and his mind less able to bear up under the influence of his late reverses and present imprisonment."

He supposed no person in prison would be likely to improve in health; but he could not think that such a report from a surgeon was sufficient to justify a free pardon, particularly as the surgeon had thought Greenland so little ill that he had not recommended the visiting justices to place him in hospital. He thought it important to call attention to the case, because the facts, without explanation, might give rise to certain impressions which would have a most mischievous effect. Doubts would arise whether, in the administration of justice, distinctions were not made between different classes. It was difficult to believe that a poor man who had no solicitor would have received a remission of the greater part of his sentence, because he was in a state of health which, in the opinion of the surgeon, did not justify his removal to the hospital. He therefore asked for some explanations on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman. If it were contrary to the usual practice to produce the Papers connected with the case, he should not press that part of his Motion.

, in seconding the Motion, expressed his concurrence in the statement of facts submitted by the noble Lord who had brought the matter before the House, and stated with reference to the failure of the Leeds Banking Company, that it had been attended by some of the most frightful consequences that had ever been known to result from a similar catastrophe. Many deaths had taken place, and hundreds of families had been reduced from a state of prosperity to absolute destitution. It was believed that all this was owing to a long course of reckless extravagance, and even criminal proceedings on the part of Greenland the manager. But it was not for this long course of misconduct that he was tried and convicted; it was for perjury he was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. Two memorials had been presented. The first he had been requested by his solicitor, a very respectable man, to present to the right hon, Gentleman, and he had done so. There was an end of it, so far as he was concerned. The second memorial was not presented through him. The solicitor came to London and requested an interview with the Home Secretary. He then stated that since the former memorial had been presented the case of Greenland as to health had become much worse—in fact he had been shocked with the rapid deterioration in his appearance and condition. The first memorial only asked for removal from the cell to the hospital. The second went much further, and stated that if life or reason were to be preserved the sentence of imprisonment must be abridged. The next he heard of the case was that the right hon. Gentleman had found it consistent with his duty, under all the circumstances, to grant a free pardon. He would only further say that, as he thought the case liable to the inferences mentioned by the noble Lord, he hoped the whole Papers would be laid before the House. At the same time he must be allowed to add that not the slightest imputation was meant to be thrown on the conduct, least of all on the motives, of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he did not think that any great advantage could be derived from discussions of that description before any inquiries had been made or any explanations had been given. He would not enter into any examination of the offences with which Greenland had been charged; but he should observe that the specific accusation on which he had been convicted was one of perjury. In a Petition signed by the Chairman of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce it was stated that the offence of which Greenland had been accused was insignificant as compared with the greater crimes of which all Leeds knew that he had been guilty; that was to say, the petitioners attributed to Greenland not only perjury, but an acquaintance with the forgeries which had contributed to the ruin of the bank. But no evidence of any of those additional crimes had come before him (Mr. Gathorne Hardy); and on looking over the report of the trial he perceived that the jury while finding the prisoner guilty, recommended him to mercy, on account of his extreme age and the loose manner in which the business of the bank generally appeared to have been conducted. Mr. Richardson, whom he had not at the time known to have been the solicitor to Greenland, had presented to him a memorial praying for a remission of the sentence on the ground of the declining health of the prisoner; and that application was accompanied by a report from the surgeon of the gaol, which, as it seemed to him (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), was of a more serious character than the noble Lord appeared to imagine. On receiving that statement he thought it his duty to consult the Judge who tried the prisoner, and he recommended that if the prisoner's illness should continue it would be right to remit part of his sentence. A Minute to that effect was made on the Papers for the remission of part of the sentence. Subsequently he saw Mr. Hamilton Richardson, with whom he had been previously acquainted. Mr. Richardson confirmed the statements in the memorial, and spoke of the great change which had taken place in the appearance and condition of Greenland. Coupling that with what had been stated by the Judge—that if the prisoner's health was not improved part of his sentence might be remitted—he did not think it his duty to try how much more the prisoner, a man seventy-two years of age, could bear, and he did not think that he exceeded his duty in permitting him to be discharged altogether. In these cases he could only act from the best of his judgment, and under the circumstances he had taken upon himself to remit the whole of the sentence. Taking into consideration the recommendation to mercy by the jury and the illness of the prisoner, he did not think he had acted improperly in permitting this old man, dishonoured as he was, and for ever prevented as he would be from regaining his former position in society, to go at large.

said, he thought it was desirable that questions of this kind should be brought forward, if it were only for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Home Secretary for the time being from the importunities of those criminals who might happen to be in a wealthy condition of life. After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he confessed he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could have done otherwise than he did; but he must remind him that though the crime of which Greenland was convicted was an act of perjury, yet this had been committed month by month for twenty years together. As he was residing in the West Riding at the time, he recollected the feeling of indignation which was expressed there at the light sentence Greenland received. It was true he was then an old man, over seventy years of age, but it was to be recollected that when he began his career of perjury he was a hale, hearty man of fifty. The Leeds Chamber of Commerce had, very much to its credit, taken upon itself all the expense and unpopularity of the prosecution—for, strange to say, it was actually said they were prosecuting an old man—and it was so important that there should be no suspicion as to the motives which had actuated the Government that he felt glad the matter had been brought forward, and that the Home Secretary was able to give the explanation he had done; but he could not help thinking that if Mr. Greenland had not had an able solicitor like Mr. Richardson, and if he had not possessed wealthy and influential friends, he would have been left to serve out the whole of his lenient sentence, instead of undergoing a sentence of only six months.

said, he should be happy to show the noble Lord the Papers, but it would be contrary to the usual practice to produce them publicly.

rose to call the attention of the House to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, so far as it relates to the right of seizing enemies' goods in neutral vessels. The hon. Gentleman said: I rise, Sir, to ask the attention of the House to a subject more germane to the business of a Committee of Supply than most of those which the Motion to go into Committee gives occasion for bringing before the House. The immense burthen of our naval and military expenditure would of itself give ample reason for reconsidering the position in which this country has been placed by the abandonment of its maritime rights eleven years ago. Of these eleven nearly ten have been years of profound peace, in which international commerce, which we had always believed to be our truest guarantee against war, has increased to an extent previously unexampled, while the doctrines and practice of Free Trade have been spreading through the different countries of Europe, and those Protectionist theories which have so often made commerce a provocative to war instead of a deterrent from it, have lost their hold on all the leading minds of the Continent. Yet during this period we have been engaged, not, as might have been expected, in diminishing, but in enormously increasing our naval and military establishments, until our total expenses exceed by about £20,000,000 a year, not what economists like Mr. Hume used to maintain that they ought to be, but what they actually have been in the life of the present generation. Why has this happened? What has been our inducement for maintaining those "bloated armaments?" To protect ourselves against the bloated armaments of our European neighbours. Other powers—as much, perhaps, for internal as for external purposes—are keeping up gigantic and ruinous military establishments, the existence of which we justly feel to be a danger to us. But why is it a danger? What obliges us, an insular people, to measure our necessities by the wild extravagances of the military rulers of the Continent?—extravagances which, let us do as we will, we cannot compete with; for if our wealth is equal to the effort, the numbers of our population are not. Why, then, do we find ourselves engaging deeper and deeper in this mad rivalry? Because we have put away the natural weapon of a maritime nation—because we have abandoned the right, recognized by International Law, and legitimated, as much as the consent of nations can legitimate anything, of warring against the commerce of our enemies. We have made this sacrifice, receiving a merely nominal equivalent. We have given up our main defence; but the other Powers who are parties to the transaction have not given up theirs; they have divested sthemselves not of their special means of warfare, but of ours; they have, with a good grace, consented not to use the weapons in which they are inferior, but to confine themselves to those in which the advantage is on their side. The greatest naval Power after ourselves has been far too wise to join in so unequal a compact. Unless by resuming our natural and indispensable weapon we place ourselves again on an equality with our possible enemies, we shall be burthened with these enormous establishments and these onerous budgets for a permanency, and, in spite of it all, we shall be for ever in danger, for ever in alarm, cowed before any Power or combination of Powers capable of invading any part of our widely-spread possessions. We shall be condemned to see what we have seen, and worse than we have yet seen, great international iniquities perpetrated before our eyes, and our expressions of deprecation, even of reprobation, passed over with civil, or scarcely civil, contempt; until our most patriotic advisers feel obliged to recommend to us, as the only rule for our conduct, that which despots prescribe to their subjects, "Hold your peace: keep your moral disapprobation within your own breasts; for as you cannot back it by the only argument which the wicked and the oppressor can feel, you only bring yourselves and your just indignation into contempt." Thus it will be while we abstain from that which once made a war with England a formidable thing even to the united strength of all Europe. Sir, I venture to call the renunciation of the right of seizing enemy's property at sea a national blunder. Happily it is not an irretrievable one. The Declaration of 1856 is not a treaty. It has never been ratified. The authority on which it was entered into was but the private letter of a Minister. It is not a permanent engagement between nations; it is but a joint declaration of present intention; binding on us, I admit, until we formally withdraw from it; for a nation is bound by all things done in its name, unless by a national act it disowns them. Why did not the Parliament and the people of the country protest at the time? Some of them did; among the rest several of the most important Members of Her Majesty's present Government. The bulk of the Liberal party acquiesced, silently or approvingly: and therein, I confess, we showed less knowledge of the subject, less understanding of the situation, than the Conservative Leaders. There is much to be said in excuse for us. Nearly the whole world shared our error. The world was fresh from the recent triumph of Free Trade—fresh from the Great Exhibition of 1851, which was to unite all nations, and inaugurate the universal substitution of commerce for war. The first enthusiastic days of Peace Congresses had scarcely past; the short episode of the Crimean War had not shaken the belief that great European wars were drawing to a close. We were mistaken; "but the light that led us astray was light from Heaven." We have since had opportunities of learning a sadder wisdom. We had not then seen wars of conquest and annexation renewed on a great scale, and fresh wars of the kind continually impending over Europe; we had not seen the Continental Powers outvying one another in converting all the flower of their youth into standing armies, ready at any moment to draw the sword, not in defence, but in aggression. We had not seen what is, to my mind, a still more warning sight. Some twenty years ago a great French thinker, by way of showing how alien a thing war is to the modern spirit, remarked that though destruction is incomparably the easiest of the works to which human ingenity applies itself, the science and art of destruction had remained greatly in arrear of the arts of production, and might almost be said to have been passed over by the inventive genius of later generations. What would this philosopher see now? He would see inventive genius, with all the lights of modern science and all the resources of modern industry, girding itself to the work of destruction as its principal task, and bringing forth every year more and more terrific engines for blasting hosts of human beings into atoms together with the defences by which they vainly seek to shelter themselves. While this work is going on all round us, is there nothing for us to do but to exhaust our invention and our finances in striving to provide ourselves with engines still more destructive?—engines which other nations will instantly adopt when their superiority has been proved, unless they in the meanwhile contrive for themselves others yet more murderous. Sir, we have a better resource; to shake off the chains which we have forged for ourselves, and resume that natural weapon which has been the main bulwark of our power and safety in past national emergencies, and without which neither ironclads nor fortified harbours will suffice for our security in those which may be yet to come. Sir, great almost beyond calculation as are the British interests dependent on this issue, it is on no narrow grounds of merely British patriotism that I now raise it. I should be ashamed to claim anything for my country which I believed to be a damage and an injury to the common interests of civilization and of mankind. I will not even urge, though the feelings of the élite of Europe would bear me out if I did, that the safety and even the power of England, are valuable to the freedom of the world, and therefore to the greatest and most permanent interests of every civilized people. No, Sir, my argument shall not have even a tinge of nationality about it. It is on the broadest cosmopolitan and humanitarian principles that I rest the case. I maintain it to be for the general interest of the world, if there is to be fighting, that every Power should fight with its natural weapons and with its best strength, that so there may be the greatest possible division of force, and no one Power may be able to bestride the world, nor any two or three Powers to divide it among them. Above all it is for the interest of the world that the naval Powers should not be weakened; for whatever is taken from them is given to the great military Powers, and it is from these alone that the freedom and independence of nations has anything to fear. Naval power is as essentially defensive as military is aggressive. It is by armies, not by fleets, that wars of conquest can be carried on; and naval Powers, both in ancient and in modern times, have ever been the cradle and the home of liberty. Take away the naval Powers of the world at this moment, and where would be the main defence of the minor European States? Two or three military monarchies could, in a few years, parcel out all Europe, and everything else on this side of the Atlantic, among them; and after they had done so, would probably desolate the earth by fighting for a re-division. Happily the naval Powers exist, and long may they exist; but short will be the duration of their existence if they disarm themselves of their most powerful weapon; if they leave the entire navies of their enemies free to convey troops to their shores, being no longer required to protect the enemy's commerce; if they, who can be invaded, but who cannot successfully invade, abandon the chief means they possess of doing their enemies substantial damage, and wearying them of the war. There is another consideration of vital importance to the subject. Those who approve of the Declaration of Paris mostly think that we ought to go still further; that private property at sea (except contraband of war) should be exempt from seizure in all cases; not only in the ships of neutrals, but in those of the belligerent nations. This doctrine was maintained with ability and earnestness in this House during the last Session of Parliament, and it will probably be brought forward again; for there is great force in the arguments on which it rests. Suppose that we were at war with any Power which is a party to the Declaration of Paris. If our cargoes would be safe in neutral bottoms, but unsafe in our own, then if the war was of any duration, our whole export and import trade would pass to the neutral flags: most of our merchant shipping would be thrown out of employment, aud would be sold to neutral countries, as happened to so much of the shipping of the United States from the pressure of two or three, it might almost be said of a single, cruizer. Our sailors would naturally follow our ships, and it is by no means certain that we should regain them even after the war was over. Where would then be your Naval Reserve? Where your means of recruiting the Royal Navy? A protracted war on such terms must end in national disaster. It will thus become an actual necessity for us to take the second step, and obtain the exemption of all private property at sea from the contingencies of war. But are we sure that we shall be able to do so? Our own consent is not all that is required. Will other Powers, having got us at this disadvantage, consent to relieve us from it? And if they would, what a spectacle should we then behold! Nations at war with nations, but their merchants and shipowners at peace; our own merchants driving a roaring trade with the enemies whose resources we were endeavouring to cripple, and contributing, perhaps, a great part of their revenue. Some persons think that this would be a great improvement—that it would be a gain to humanity if war were confined to what they call a duel between Governments. A strange gain to humanity, if the merchants, manufacturers, and agriculturists of the world lost nothing by a state of war, and had no pecuniary interest in preventing it, except the increase of their taxes—a motive which never yet kept a prosperous people out of war—a burthen which such a people is often but too ready to take upon itself for mere excitement, much more from the smallest motive of self-assertion or desire of aggrandizement. How war is to be humanized by shooting at men's bodies instead of taking their property I confess surprises me. The result would be, that as long as the taxpayers were willing, or could be compelled by their Governments, to pay the cost of the game, nations would go on massacring one another until the carnage was stopped by sheer impossibility of getting any more soldiers to enlist, or of enforcing a conscription. That would be the amount of gain to humanity. These fine notions of making war by deputy may go down for awhile, so long as a nation fancies itself safe from invasion; but let an enemy once touch our shores, and I think we should regret that we had not, by making war on his imports and exports, kept him at a distance from our hearths—that we had not preferred to defend ourselves by our cruizers rather than by our Rifle Volunteers. Many who do not like to recede from the Declaration of Paris are quite aware of its dangers; but they think that the evil is irreparably done, and that we cannot withdraw from it, for fear of embroiling ourselves with France and America. Sir, if the Declaration of Paris has brought us to such a pass that we can neither stand still nor move, our national independence is as good as gone; our being yoked to the car of some great military potentate is a mere question of time. But this apprehended danger from France and America seems to me to have little reality in it. France, though a great military, is also a naval Power, and is historically identified almost as much as ourselves with what is called the right of search. She has always asserted it for herself, except when she has waived it during a particular war by express engagement with some particular country. The first Napoleon, it is true, while carrying the war against British commerce to extremities never before practised or justified, thought it suited his purpose of the moment to declaim pompously against what he called our tyranny of the seas. But the interest of France in this matter is greatly changed. The immunity of neutral bottoms could be of service to her, if at all, only if her enemy were England or the United States, and even then the benefit would not be without alloy; but if the calamity should occur of a war between France and any other great Power, it is more likely that her antagonist would be either Germany or Russia, and against either of these the right of seizure would be so important to France—would be so powerful a weapon in her hands—that she could not dispense with it for herself. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary must think so; for, in the important Correspondence which has gained for him the distinguished honour of averting an European war, the noble Lord urged upon the Prussian Government the certain extinction of the maritime commerce of Germany, in case of a war with France, exactly as if the Declaration of Paris had never existed. As for America, she is not even a party to the Declaration of Paris; and I greatly doubt if she ever will be. She is herself one of the great Powers of the sea, and, in case of war, the destruction of her enemy's commerce will be her most potent weapon. Many are misled by vague and inaccurate notions of the American war of 1812. It is asserted far too positively that the war was provoked by our stoppage of the neutral navigation. People forgot that the United States had a far more serious quarrel with us, through our unjustifiable pretension to impress American citizens on board American ships when they were, or even were falsely said to be, natives of any British possession—a pretension which we did not even renounce at the Peace, but which it is earnestly to be hoped we shall never revive; if we were wise, we should even come forward unasked and surrender it. Such a grievance is quite sufficient to account for the war, even had there been no other subject of quarrel. But there was another, equally independent of the right now under consideration—our paper blockades; which were a new practice, not authorized, as the right of search was so fully authorized, by the law and practice of nations. I believe it will be found, by examining the diplomatic correspondence of the time, that our differences with America about the right of search were capable of being made up, and would almost certainly have been made up, but for those additional grievances. Before I conclude, I am obliged to speak of a notion which I am afraid is rather common among us, but which I am almost ashamed to mention—that, dangerous as is the position we should be placed in by adhering to the Declaration of Paris, it is of no practical consequence, because, if war comes, the Declaration is sure to be treated as waste paper. Sir, I should be indeed humiliated in my feelings as an Englishman, if I thought that these were the maxims by which my countrymen were content to guide themselves, or on which they would allow their rulers to act. No, Sir, let us either disown this obligation or fulfil it. Let us disclaim it like honest men in the face of the world, openly and on principle, and not hypocritically profess one doctrine up to the very moment when our immediate interest would be promoted by exchanging it for another. If England should choose that moment for announcing a change of opinion, she would justify the most prejudiced of her foreign revilers in the accusations which they are never tired of bringing against her of national selfishness and perfidy. It is not when the emergency has come, but before it comes, that we have to form our resolution on this most momentous subject: and not only to form our resolution, but to declare it. And I implore every hon. Member, and especially those who have now, or may have hereafter, a share in the direction of public affairs, to consider these things well before they commit themselves any deeper than they may be already committed, to persistence in a course to which they are so likely to repent that they ever, even by their silence, allowed themselves to be committed at all.

said, though he did not take so exalted a view as the hon. Member who had brought this question forward with so much ability, he agreed with him that the Declaration had placed us in a position of great difficulty. They conld not stand where they were. They must either recede to what they were before the Treaty of 1856, or they must take a step in advance, and declare all merchandize, except contraband of war, free from seizure on the high seas. As a shipowner, he considered it would be wise, humane, and in the especial interest of this country to adopt the latter. He agreed with the hon. Member that if we were at war with a great maritime nation a great portion of our trade would pass into neutral hands. Merchants would not dare to ship in British vessels, and the result would be that we should either lose our carrying trade or place our vessels under a foreign flag, by a direct sale or by some of the subterfuges usually resorted to in such cases. It was impossible to protect a commerce so extensive as ours. The hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient weight to the great change which had taken place in the mode of conducting our foreign trade within the last few years. There was a time when it was possible for our vessels to assemble under the protection of a convoy; but that was no longer possible, and, if attempted, it would utterly fail. When we so unwisely in 1856 objected to the amendment in the law of nations, and America agreed to the principle that a neutral flag should cover an enemy's property if we would exempt all the merchandize from capture, we made a great mistake. It would be of little advantage reverting to the old law, because England of all nations in the world had such an immense amount of foreign trade in every sea, and consequently would be more exposed to injury from capture than any other country. No doubt, we might do a considerable amount of injury to other nations; but, certainly, not anything like the injury which we should receive. He reminded the House that the introduction of railways throughout the Continent had placed the carrying trade, so far as they were concerned, on a wholly different footing. If we were unfortunately at war with France, we might drive her navy from the seas, and blockade her ports, yet, by means of her railway communications, she would be able to obtain from those countries which surrounded her the luxuries and comforts of life, and even obtain such articles from this country as she required. There was a notable instance in the Russian War of the extent to which land carriage was resorted to. We sent a powerful fleet into the Baltic and blockaded the ports, but we could not cripple her trade. A system was organized of transferring produce through Prussia overland—there being at that time no railways connecting Russia with the rest of the Continent—by means of horses and carts and relays of men, and in that manner they actually received from us and from other Continental countries a supply of necessaries and luxuries sufficient to meet their wants. If that was the case when there were no railways, what would be the consequence now there was a complete system of railway communication between Russia and the rest of the Continent? So far from war being shortened by the capture of private property at sea, he was of opinion that, by causing great irritation in the national mind, it was more likely to prolong it. Viewing the question merely from a mercantile point of view, he considered that England had greater interest than any other nation in agreeing that in time of war all property not actually contraband of war should be exempt from capture at sea.

I regret that this question, which is undoubtedly one of European interest and importance, should have been brought forward, not only at a late period of the Session, which, however, is from no fault of the hon. Member for Westminster, but also at a time when the public mind is occupied by other affairs, because the hon. Member's statement, able and lucid as it is, will not receive, either here or out of doors, that attention which it deserves. If I were to criticize some parts of the speech of the hon. Gentleman—which it is not my wish to do—I might say that I do not think that he has done good service to the cause he undertakes to defend, when he says that, if England had not deprived herself of the use of this weapon, we might have intervened with more effect in various disturbances in which foreign Powers have been or may be engaged. The power to intervene effectually is a temptation to do so; and, if the Declaration of 1856 has prevented us from mixing ourselves up with Continental complications with which we had nothing to do, all I can say is that that is one of the best arguments I have yet heard in its defence. And the hon. Member was, for a moment, forgetful of the circumstances when he said that the arrangement was accepted by Parliament, and especially by the Liberal party, at a time when not much attention was attached to this question, because it was thought that the days of wars were over, and that universal peace had begun; for, although in 1851 and 1852, and perhaps even as late as 1853, a singular illusion of that kind had taken possession of the minds of even sensible men as the result of the Great Exhibition, that illusion was quite dispelled by the sanguinary struggle of the next year; and the Declaration did not precede, but followed, the Crimean war. I may note also, in passing, that I do not admit the inference which the hon. Member draws from the passage in the blue book published on the subject of Luxemburg. The hon. Member contends that I have shown that I look upon this Declaration as worthless, because in the Luxemburg Correspondence I pointed out the possibility of Prussian trade being destroyed by the superior naval force of the French Empire. But I said nothing of neutrals; I spoke of Prussian trade carried on by Prussians; that trade is very considerable, and it would have been sacrificed on the breaking out of war. With regard to the subject generally, I entirely agree with the hon. Member in laying down the principle that it will not do to go on with a Declaration of this kind if we do not mean to act upon it. You are bound either to repudiate it at once, or to act on it when the occasion arises. But I do not think that any man, either in this House or out of it, has contended that the course of allowing it to stand, and yet determining not to act on it, is that which we ought to follow. The utmost that has been said tending in that direction, and for which there is, perhaps, some justification, is that the rules which are applicable to ordinary war may come to be disregarded in extreme cases. As to what may be done in such extreme cases, I certainly decline to predict; where the existence of great nations has been concerned I apprehend that ever since the world began diplomatic engagements have been esteemed very lightly. The necessities of self-defence override all compacts. That is a state of things which we must allow for; but such cases are not to be regarded as types of any ordinary war such as we are likely to see. Still, having regard to such wars as we may expect as probable, or even possible, I think we ought not to maintain this engagement unless we are prepared to act upon it. I agree to the assertion that this Declaration has very materially altered the position of neutrals and belligerents in future wars; and that the British Government, in assenting to it, divested itself of a weapon which on some former occasions has proved very powerful; I do not say it has proved so on all occasions, because the circumstances of each case have been different. There are some further considerations which, without expressing any opinion on the abstract principle agreed on eleven years ago, we are bound to bear in mind. One of these, and perhaps, the chief consideration, is the position in which we, under the old system, placed ourselves as regarded all neutral Powers, the tendency of which was that the extreme rights we claimed to seize enemy's goods in neutral ships necessarily led to our turning all neutrals into enemies. It may, no doubt, be argued, on the other hand, that whereas formerly neutrals had the strongest possible inducement to terminate a war by which they were sufferers; now that interest has disappeared, and they are gainers rather than otherwise, inasmuch as they lose nothing, while they get the carrying trade which the belligerents cannot carry on. But when you come to look at the question closely, I apprehend that the advantage is one rather in theory than in practice. In point of fact, trade is so universal and capital is so diffused that the inconveniences which arise to neutrals from a state of war between two great Powers in proximity to their territories are so great that when war breaks out there is generally a very sincere desire on the part of the neighbouring communities and Governments to bring it to an end as soon as possible. There is one incidental advantage arising to society in general out of the present state of things, though I am bound to say I do not think it was contemplated when the Declaration was framed. The trade of the countries going to war, for the time only, but still for the time, passes into neutral hands; in other words, both the combatants suffer heavy loss, both are heavily fined, so to speak, for their breach of the peace, and the fine goes for the benefit of those who have contrived to remain on good terms. But the main question, I think, to consider is this, whether a war could now be carried on under what I call the old system, without provoking such reprobation from the neutral States—who will be always more numerous and probably more powerful than the belligerents themselves—as would in the end drag those neutral States into the quarrel, and thus render the struggle general? That is not a new danger; it has occurred again and again at former periods of our history. It is not necessary that I should do more on that head than refer to the Armed Neutrality of 1780, and to the attempt which was made to renew it at the beginning of the present century. With the increase of international communication, and with the increase of trade following upon it, the tendency of neutrals to assert their claims and to vindicate their rights is one which must increase rather than diminish. However, I for one, am not interested in denying that the question, as it arose, and as it was decided, in 1856, was one open to much argument and to very grave doubt. But we stand in a different position now. The question is not what we ought to have done eleven years ago. I do not think it is possible to deny that we have bound ourselves to a certain extent by this compact, to which nearly all the maritime Powers have acceded, except Spain and the United States. The engagement was observed and acted upon in the Italian war of 1859, and in the subsequent war which took place between Prussia and Denmark. The war last year did not raise the question, partly because both the combatants agreed to respect private property at sea, and partly because, in fact, the war was confined to operations upon land. In all these cases we have been neutrals, and, so far, gainers, by the arrangement that exists, and I think it follows from the argument of the hon. Member for Westminster that it would be hardly suitable or fair for us, who have thus accepted the position of neutrals, and as such acquired the profit of that position, to decline to hold ourselves bound to that engagement if in our turn we should become engaged in war. Having so far reaped the advantages, we are bound to endure the corresponding disadvantages. Again, this circumstance must not be overlooked, that if one part of that Declaration is done away the whole of it disappears. I understand that a good deal of stress was laid on that point in the negotiations—namely, that the several points of that Declaration should be considered as one and indivisible. Now, the minor States have adhered to that Declaration, abandoning the right of privateering, which for those who do not possess navies of their own was, in fact, the only weapon of naval warfare which they could use. If, therefore, the House were to consider that in point of policy the Declaration of 1856 could not be defended, we should then be bound to reflect whether by repudiating our share in that Declaration we should not be reviving certainly, though indirectly, that very practice of privateering which everybody condemns, and by which we probably should be greater losers than anybody else. But I am not arguing that point now as a matter of advantage; I think we have to look at it as a matter of good faith and consistency. We have given a pledge, not merely to the Powers who signed with us, but to the whole civilized world. We have urgently and continuously invited other States to join in that Declaration; we have done so with very considerable success, and it would be hardly intelligible or in accordance with our position to turn suddenly round and change our policy. I think we are bound morally to maintain this compact while those with whom we entered into it maintain it. At any rate, we are so far bound to it that it is impossible to recede from it without the most ample and solemn notice, and without notice of such a duration that no inconvenience could possibly arise from its being acted upon. I admit that it is not an easy matter to decide how far any Government is authorized or enabled to contract an engagement which is perpetually binding. That is a question very often raised on various subjects, and it is one, perhaps, which does not admit of an absolute and general reply. But we must remember that this Declaration has not been an act of the Executive alone. It is quite true that it has not been embodied in a formal treaty; it is quite true that what is done in diplomatic affairs—rightly or wrongly, I will not say, but according to the Constitution of this country—is done on the responsibility of the Executive; but the matter has again and again been brought under the notice of both Houses of Parliament. It was brought before Parliament in some cases by persons for whose authority I have the highest respect, and who undoubtedly had mastered the subject and commanded the attention of those whom they addressed, but on each of those occasions Parliament refused to interfere; it refused to sanction any modification of the terms of the Declaration, and by the silence which it preserved it practically gave its adhesion to that measure. I think, therefore, we are bound constitutionally to assume that public opinion has accepted that arrangement, and that the Legislature is pledged as well as the Executive. I have avoided entirely going into the question of policy. I want the House simply to see how the matter stands at the present day, and for the same reason I shall equally avoid going into that very large and difficult, yet most important, question raised by the hon. Member who immediately preceded me—the question of altogether exempting private property from seizure at sea. I do not think this would be a convenient time for discussing that question, which is undoubtedly one of very grave moment, and which has engaged public attention already on more than one occasion.

said, he quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord, that it would not be convenient to renew, on the present occasion, discussions which had taken place more than once as to the total renunciation of the right to attack the private property of enemies in case of war. He hoped that when they were invited to discuss that question they would have a distinct and explicit notice of it. He had not been persuaded by anything which he had heard on the present occasion of the propriety of making so great a change. The Declaration of Paris was founded upon separate grounds. Each question must be argued upon its own merits, and the one did not necessarily involve the other. It might or might not be right on the merits of the case to change. He had more than once expressed his reasons why he thought it was not, but he dismissed the notion that because they abided by the Declaration of Paris that was any reason why they should renounce any power they now had of prosecuting a war with vigour against an enemy. The considerations which affected neutrals were one thing, those which affected enemies were another. If we receded from that power it must be because we were convinced, which we certainly had not yet been, that such a power was not to us an important and available instrument for carrying on a war. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Westminster that when we were at war—a very great calamity, indeed, and one to be avoided by all just and honourable means—we must enter earnestly into the war. The notion of a mercantile peace, of exempting the commercial interest from the calamities of war, was one which might have some seduction for the mercantile interest, but which, when we were at war, we must renounce. Then all classes must throw in their stake together, all must bear the common burdens, and it would sap the very life-blood of the nation if we were for a moment to admit that the trade of the country could remain at peace whilst the nation itself was involved in hostilities. He was fully convinced from the results of experience, that the mercantile community was as patriotic as any other body, and as little inclined to demand exemption from sacrifices, though in times of peace they might sometimes lend too willing an ear to suggestions of this kind. He confessed that he looked with very great dislike upon any argument which depended on technical distinctions between the different forms of national engagements. No doubt there was substance in such distinctions' when they were well understood and universally recognized, as involving particular consequences, because all nations entering into engagements with a view to those consequences, prepared themselves for the events which these recognized distinctions might bring about. But he could not think that the mode in which this Declaration was entered into was adopted with a view of entitling any of the parties, of their own will and pleasure, to recede from it. He did not say that it was diplomatically impossible, but he should be most unwilling to contemplate as likely to be necessary a departure by this country from an engagement entered into so solemnly; and to mitigate any alarm which might be felt as to the consequences of that Declaration, he would mention two or three things which had occurred to him in the course of this discussion, as tending to show that it had not introduced so great a difference as some people supposed. Before that Declaration the effect of war was in kind, although perhaps not in degree, very much the same as it might be expected to be since. Neutral vessels did successfully and extensively carry the trade of belligerents, and although no doubt the power of taking enemies' goods out of neutral ships was to a certain extent a check upon the practice, yet, considering how many vessels escaped without search, and what precautions were taken to disguise the ownership of goods, the check was very insignificant compared with the extent to which the practice was carried on. At the same time, the occasions on which the right of search was exercised led to those collisions with neutral Powers, and to that ill feeling on their part to which the noble Lord had referred; and it might well be considered doubtful whether any advantage which was given by the right of seizure was sufficient to counterbalance the irritation produced, and the tendency which that irritation had to make enemies of neutrals. In the case of the Russian war we voluntarily renounced the right, and it was under the influence of the experience of that war, in carrying on which we found that we were not crippled by that renunciation, that we concurred in the Declaration of Paris. The effect of the changes referred to by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), which had been brought about by the use of steam in navigation, and by the increase of railways on the Continent, had, he thought, been very much exaggerated, and was, at all events, totally independent of the operation of the Declaration of Paris. The success of the ravages of the Alabama had nothing to do with the operation of the Declaration of Paris, in the first place, because that Declaration had not been concurred in by the United States; and, secondly, because in their war with the Confederate States the United States voluntarily announced to other Powers that they intended to act upon its principles, by which, however, they were not prejudicially affected, because the blockade of the Southern coasts was so complete that, in point of fact, the Confederates carried on no legitimate and ordinary trade in neutral vessels, but they did carry on a great contraband trade which it was necessary to interfere with, and which they would have been entitled to stop, if they had been parties to the Declaration of Paris, just as much as if the Declaration of Paris had never been made. If it was the fact that the introduction of steam had made it impossible for Powers like England and the United States to protect their own commerce during war—which he took leave to doubt—that was a matter entirely unconnected with the right to capture enemies' goods in neutral ships, and would rather tend to show that maritime power could no longer be brought to operate effectively against commerce at sea so as to make the difference between the maritime strength of one country and another very material, inasmuch as, according to this argument, the smallest Power could, without remedy, destroy the commerce of the greatest. At all events, that was not a consequence of the Declaration of Paris; and the same remark applied to any effects which might follow from the extension of railways on the Continent. The only effect of that Declaration was, that whereas there was before a great tendency for the trade of belligerents to seek safety by means of neutral assistance, its security, in the use of those means, was now more absolute and complete. But all arrangements of that nature would be merely temporary, and at the conclusion of a war things would return to their natural condition. He would not trouble the House further, but he was anxious to protest against the idea that because we had concurred in the Declaration of Paris, and might not, except under the pressure of great urgency and after full notice, be disposed to recede from it, therefore it followed that we should renounce other rights of value and importance upon which we might have to rely in carrying on future wars.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that very little had been changed by the Declaration of Paris; he apprehended, however, that the effect of it would be that, supposing this country was at war with a State such as Portugal, the consequence must be that the rate of insurance would be raised on commerce taken in English bottoms, and that, consequently, merchants, patriotic or otherwise, would ship in foreign bottoms so as not to have to pay a high rate of insurance. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office would not hold the policy of the late Government, who were determined to do nothing but take a step backwards; but that he would recollect that all other nations were willing to come to an agreement on the question if England assented to it.

confessed that he was unable to follow the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in the distinction which he appeared to draw between an ordinary war and one of the highest importance, involving the very existence of a nation.

rose, according to Notice, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what progress had been made towards appropriating a wing of the Hospital to the purposes of the Dreadnought Hospital ship? The hon. Gentleman said that in 1864 the Committee of the Dreadnought found that the ship was insufficient for their purpose; and, moreover, that large hulk caused great inconvenience to the navigation of the Thames. The Committee therefore felt it to be absolutely necessary that they should obtain a local habitation on land, and they took some steps for the purchase of a site on which they hoped to be able to build a hospital. It had since occurred to them, however, that, owing to the recent changes in the constitution of Greenwich Hospital, it was reasonable for them to apply to the Government for a portion of that large building. A deputation had accordingly waited on Lord Derby on the subject in the spring, and his Lordship in the most frank and ready manner acquiesced in the application then made. When Lord Derby acceded to their request, the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty were present; and it was understood that the expense of adapting the portion of Greenwich Hospital assigned to them for their purpose should be defrayed by the authorities of the Dreadnought. The portion of the Hospital which the Committee of the Dreadnought were anxious to obtain was the Queen Anne's quarter; but when they communicated with the Admiralty on the subject, the Admiralty met them with the statement that it doubted very much whether the Queen Anne's quarter would be the one most desirable for their purpose; that some other portion of the Hospital would be preferable, and that a committee of medical men should decide which was the most suitable portion. That question had been on the tapis from the commencement of March up to the present time, and he was sorry to say it was not yet decided. He could not understand the difficulty which the Board of Admiralty raised on the subject. Greenwich Hospital was now nearly empty; and, as the Committee of the Dreadnought were to bear the expense of converting the part of the Hospital which might be assigned to them, he thought they ought to be allowed to select it for themselves. They wished to have the Queen Anne's quarter; but the Admiralty said that Queen Mary's quarter would be better for their purposes. Now, the Queen Anne's quarter was the one abutting upon the Thames; it had stairs from the River into the Hospital, so that accident cases, of which there were many on the River, could easily be taken into the Hospital; and it was also capable of being separated from the rest of the Hospital at a very small expense. Looking upon the Mercantile Marine as the nursery of the Royal Navy, remembering also how their sixpences had gone towards that institution, and considering likewise that Greenwich Hospital was not now occupied for other purposes, he thought there existed a strong claim on the part of the Committee of the Dreadnought to the portion of the Hospital to which he had referred. The hon. Member concluded by asking for explanations on that subject from the Secretary to the Admiralty.

said, he had brought that subject before the House when the late Board of Admiralty introduced their measure for the reform of Greenwich Hospital, and they then promised to take it into their consideration, and as far as possible to meet the wishes of the Committee of Management of the Dreadnought Hospital. Since then that body and the Board of Admiralty had been in constant communication in regard to the carrying out of the pledge given by the late Board; but it was much to be regretted that up to this time neither of the parties had arrived at a satisfactory adjustment. It was, perhaps, very natural that the Board of Admiralty should wish to relegate the authorities of the Dreadnought into the back part of the Hospital, instead of handing over to them the very front wing, which was the most conspicuous as well as the most agreeable part of the building; but it was unfortunate in a case like that, in which the interests of our crippled and maimed seamen were more concerned than anything else, that they should be left in a difficulty while a long contention was going on between the governing body of the Dreadnought and the Admiralty. It was clear that some day or other the Government would wish to appropriate Greenwich Hospital to some useful purpose. Such a building could hardly be left in a great degree untenanted; because, even after the authorities of the Dreadnought had obtained one part of it or another, the greater portion of it would still remain deserted. There was a building which had been used in connection with Greenwich Hospital, but which was entirely independent of it, and which had been erected expressly for the sick. He meant the infirmary, situate at the side of the high road leading to the landing-place at Greenwich, and he thought it would be much better, as an agreement could not be come to respecting the appropriation of the Queen Mary's or Queen Anne's wing, to consider the expediency of appropriating to the Dreadnought Hospital that infirmary, which possessed every convenience for such a purpose. For the sick persons now in the infirmary abundant accommodation could be provided in the body of Greenwich Hospital. That arrangement would be better than either of the other arrangements now proposed; and he thought it was most undesirable, where funds were not superabundant, that they should be wasted in contention or in the erection of unnecessary buildings. He trusted that the Admiralty, if they could not meet the views of the Governors of the Dreadnought, would consider the expediency of taking their own sick out of the infirmary, putting them in one of the wings of the Hospital, and giving up the infirmary to the Governors of the Dreadnought.

trusted that the Government would take the course he had recommended of clearing Greenwich Hospital altogether, retaining in other naval hospitals the few who had no friends to go to, and were on their backs, and giving pensions to the rest, who would be much happier in their own homes if they received enongh to live upon. In this way the Hospital proper would be cleared at once; and only the infirmary occupied. He hoped that when the infirmary was also cleared, the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would be adopted. That was an arrangement which would take some little time, but the Dreadnought authorities would be undoubtedly glad to wait if in the end the infirmary buildings were at their disposal. That would leave the four large blocks of Greenwich Hospital entirely separate from the infirmary to be dealt with as a whole. In answer to a Question which had been put to him at an earlier period by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), he might say that several proposals have been made for the occupation of Greenwich Hospital. The four great buildings might be devoted in part to the extension of the school; and the establishment of a girl's school had been strongly urged, almost as a claim, on behalf of the seamen. He did not say that this would be a desirable arrangement, but there was another arrangement for which the Hospital was admirably adapted. Every one knew that the Admiralty and the War Office were at their wits' end to know how to get surgeons, the increased pay offered to them having failed to obtain the additional number required. Some better measures must therefore be taken to obtain the large number of medical men required for the army and navy. He would suggest to the authorities that if they wanted a steady supply of young medical men for the army and navy, they must tap the spring higher up, and establish a Medical College in which young men could be trained as surgeons for the two services. If it were found necessary to establish such a college, Greenwich Hospital would be the best place for it. If, however, it were occupied in some other way, a large expense would have to be incurred in building such a college either in London or elsewhere. He hoped that this would be well considered before the Hospital was appropriated to any other purpose.

said, he saw very strong objections to the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. He had no doubt that neither of the two wings was at all fit for an infirmary. Queen Mary's wing might be converted at a great expense, but, after all, it would be a most imperfect hospital, and the majority of medical and scientific testimony went to prove that Queen Anne's wing would be most unsuitable in regard to space, ventilation, and light.

begged to say that the hon. Member for Hull had correctly described the negotiations which had taken place between the authorities of the Dreadnought and the Government with regard to the appropriation of a portion of the hospital to the purposes of the Dreadnought. The House was aware that the Government offered the authorities of the Dreadnought to hand over to them Queen Mary's wing and a portion of Queen Anne's wing for the accommodation of the officers. The authorities of the Dreadnought did not quite approve that offer, and they preferred to have Queen Anne's quarter. Hereupon a medium course was taken. A conference was appointed, entirely free from either an Admiralty, official, or political character, by the result of which the Dreadnought authorities agreed to abide. The conference was composed of the Director General of the Medical Department of the Navy, Mr. Alderman Salomons, and Sir Charles Bright, the Members for Greenwich, Colonel Clark, Director of Works to the Admiralty; several medical gentlemen of great eminence, the consulting physicians and surgeons of the Dreadnought Hospital, and, by the particular desire of the Dreadnought governors Mr. Tatham the consulting surgeon of St. George's Hospital. They reported unanimously that neither the Queen Mary's nor Queen Anne's quarter were suitable for the purposes of the Dreadnought Hospital, that they could not be made applicable without considerable expense; but that if one of the two was to be adopted, Queen Mary's was better adapted than Queen Anne's for the Dreadnought Hospital. Thus the Dreadnought authorities having challenged the decision of the conference found that it unanimously reported that neither quarter was available, and that the one they fancied was the least suitable for them. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and the hon. Member for Pontefract had alluded to certain changes which would have the effect of emptying the present infirmary and sending the patients down to Haslar. Sometimes, however, Haslar Hospital was quite full, and, in time of war, it would be always full. As an inquiry was pending into the question of Greenwich Hospital, he would say no more than that the suggestions of hon. Members should receive due consideration in the Committee. Until that Committee had reported the Admiralty would, of course, give no pledge that any one of the changes pressed upon them that evening should be adopted.

wished to know why it was that an inspector general of hospitals, with a salary of £821 had been appointed for the first time since the superannuation of the previous inspector general, after the Act of 1849? The cost of the medical staff had increased from £2,000 last year to £3,500, without any increase whatever in the number of inmates of the Establishment. He also wished to know why eighteen policemen were employed at the Hospital, when, as he believed, a couple of policemen would be ample for all the purposes of the Establishment?

asked what all the various people employed in and about the Hospital could find to do. There was a captain-superintendent, two lieutenants, a deputy inspector general of the hospital, four assistant-surgeons, steward, chief mate, and others to look after some 300 patients. He also wished to know how the item of £80 for clothing for policemen arose; and how it was that eighty-eight nurses were employed for 350 old people, not all bedridden? He suggested that the Vote might very well be reduced by the sum of £5,000.

said, it should be borne in mind that the managers of the Dreadnought were prepared at their own expense to convert the block of Greenwich Hospital, which they considered most appropriate for their purpose, so as to make it suitable for the reception of their patients. The managers were aware that there were some difficulties in giving them the block which they desired; but, at the same time, they were firmly of opinion that Queen Anne's quarter was the only one suitable, and that Queen Mary's quarter could not be made so, whatever expense might be expended upon it. Medical officers had, moreover, testified that Queen Anne's quarter was the only one that would answer the purpose, and if the Government would grant that quarter they were perfectly willing to incur any expense in its alteration.

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had adverted to the appointment, by the present Government, of a medical inspector general to Greenwich Hospital. In answer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman he had to state that that appointment was made in compliance with the requirements of an Order in Council, dated the 16th of February, 1866, which was before the present Government came into office. The existing Board of Admiralty had merely carried out the intentions of their predecessors. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) had alluded to the question of the police in connection with the Hospital. He (Mr. Corry) had at a former period of the evening admitted that the police force was larger than was required, and he was in hopes that some reduction would be effected. The hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) had touched upon the question of what quarter of the Hospital should be appropriated for the purposes of the Dreadnought Hospital. That matter had occupied the attention both of the public and the Government for some time past. When he entered upon the duties of his present office, he found that the subject of the desirability of giving one of the quarters to the managers of the Dreadnought had been under the notice of his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and present Secretary for War, and that the official gentlemen to whom the matter was referred had advised the Admiralty to give Queen Mary's quarter for the purposes required. Upon intimation to this effect being made to the managers of the Dreadnought, a letter was written to the Admiralty in reply, containing the testimony of the consulting surgeon of the Dreadnought, to the effect that that quarter was completely unfitted for the purposes to which the managers of the Dreadnought proposed to devote it. The Admiralty, upon receiving this information, requested the Privy Council to appoint Mr. Simon, their medical officer, to investigate the matter; but as he could not spare the necessary time the inquiry was handed over to two other medical gentlemen, who were perfectly competent to undertake it. These gentlemen reported to the Admiralty, giving their decided preference for Queen Mary's quarter. The Admiralty then offered the use of this quarter, together with such adjoining portions of Queen Anne's as might be necessary for officer's quarters. Subsequently a conference took place between the Admiralty and the Dreadnought authorities. The Admiralty, in the course of their inquiries found that the demand of the managers of the Dreadnought was unsupported by a single medical officer, and that, with the exception of two medical gentlemen connected with that ship, they had all reported in favour of Queen Mary's quarter. Under these circumstances the Admiralty could hardly have done otherwise than adhere to their decision, and place Queen Mary's quarter at the disposal of the authorities of the Dreadnought.

wished to say in explanation that he was not aware that the Committee that reported on Friday last were unanimous. He had understood that there was a division among them, one body ranging themselves on one side and one on the other.

agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that £41,000 of the revenues of Greenwich Hospital, which were invested in lands, caused a vast expenditure in management, and thought that it would be better to convert the estates into money.

said, he had explained before that the question whether the estates of Greenwich Hospital should be sold was one which come under the consideration of the Committe now sitting to inquire into the whole subject of management. He had also said that the question was one of considerable difficulty, because when it was gone fully into by the Royal Commission of 1859 they reported that it was one of those subjects upon which a great deal might he said on both sides. If the whole landed and house property belonging to Greenwich Hospital was sold, and the proceeds of the sale invested in the funds or other good securities, they might get rid of the trouble and expense of management; but, on the other hand, they would lose any advantage which might arise in future years to the revenues of the Hospital, from a gradually improving property, which that of the Hospital undoubtedly was at the present time, and, according to good authorities on the subject, was likely so to continue. The Committee now sitting on the management of the Hospital had only met a few times, and being fully alive to the difficulty of the question, had naturally carefully avoided coming to any hasty decision upon the subject. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbury as to the number of nurses and sick attendants employed in the Hospital, he had to explain that he believed the average of such nurses to each pensioner was one in five as compared with one one in seven at Haslar and other naval hospitals. But this larger proportion was to be accounted for by the fact that the whole of Greenwich Hospital might now be regarded as an infirmary. There were no pensioners there who might not be looked upon as very infirm, and, in many cases, thoroughly imbecile and helpless; and besides he was given to understand that at Greenwich the nurses and attendants on the sick assisted in cleaning out the wards and doing other duties which were not required to be done by the same class of persons in other hospitals, but were performed partly by the convalescents, and partly by labourers appointed for the express purpose. With respect to the number of police employed, that was a question which would meet with full consideration. He admitted that the number at first sight appeared to be excessive and called for inquiry; but this conideration should not be overlooked—that whereas at most military and naval hospitals there was no admittance except on business, and the police had only one entrance to guard, Greenwich Hospital consisted of a large range of buildings, with several entrances, almost the whole of which were open to the inspection of the public during the day time, and not only on Sundays and holydays, but also on the week-days throughout the greater part of the year; there was a great influx of visitors, so that a greater number of police was required than at Haslar and other naval hospitals.

said, with respect to the inspector general of Greenwich Hospital, it was quite true that the late Government had it in contemplation to appoint such an officer when the Establishment contained upwards of 600 inmates; but they did not fill up the appointment. The question therefore very properly arose why, when the number of inmates had so largely decreased, the Admiralty had appointed this officer? With regard to the sale of the Hospital lands, the Government might consider whether or not it was desirable to get rid of that property, and invest the proceeds in the funds. There would be no necessity, however, to take the Three per Cents for investment; there were other funds mentioned in the Act which would produce a very satisfactory income. But, before selling the land they ought to be satisfied that they would get buyers. When a portion of the lands was sold some time since, there were but few buyers; and the result was, as the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) knew, that the greater part of the lands fell into the hands of one man. The late Sir James Graham said he never regretted anything so much as the sale of those lands.

said, that, when the lands referred to were sold, there was no want of competition; there was, however, no valuation beforehand. In the sale of land in these days it was usual to have a prospective valuation, which secured a higher price for the land. As there appeared to be a strong feeling in the minds of some hon. Members in favour of a sale of the Hospital lands, he would ask them to look at both sides of the question. Land in England was limited in quantity; but the demand for it was perfectly unlimited, and would go on increasing; but a time of war, when land rose in value, was precisely the period at which funded property fell. When once you invested in the public stocks you depended on a property of fluctuating value. But land would, no doubt, maintain a fixed value. Mr. Grey, a land valuer of great authority in the North of England, gave it as his opinion that land would advance in value, and, with good and efficient management, was better property than the funds. Such an opinion deserved consideration from the Government before they threw all this land into the market.

called attention to the increase in the expenses of the medical staff, and moved the reduction of the Vote by £821, the salary of the inspector general of hospitals.

stated that the appointment had been made on the recommendation of the Inspector General of the Navy, and under the authority of an Order in Council of the date of 16th of February, 1866; but he would undertake that that point should be referred to the Committee which was considering the whole of the Greenwich Hospital question, and that the appointment should be rescinded if it should be found unnecessary.

said, that these were mere ordinary naval appointments, and the inspector general had no rights or privileges beyond those enjoyed by the inspector general at Haslar or Plymouth. He thought the appointment was ill-advised; but the Admiralty had authorized an efficient Committee to inquire thoroughly into the matter.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the table the reasons which induced the Admiralty to make this appointment.

said, he hoped it would be understood that no claim for compensation was to be created in case the office should be abolished. It was a common practice with public Boards to pension off one official, and then to appoint another in his place at the same salary.

said, that no claim for compensation could arise in that case.

said, he wished, with the indulgence of the Committee, to make a few observations on a subject of the greatest possible importance. He only regretted that he was called upon to do so at so late an hour (Eleven o'clock), but he hoped the Committee would extend to him its indulgence while he endeavoured to lay before it, as briefly as he could, the present state of National education in Ireland, while he, at the same time, offered a few general remarks upon the subject. All who took an interest in this great question must feel gratified, on perusing the Report which had been lately issued, to see that the system still retained its vitality, and was extending its position of usefulness. He found that on the 31st of December, 1865, there were 6,372 National schools in operation in Ireland—the number of children on the roll being 922,000. In December, 1866, there were 6,453 schools, and the number of children enrolled was 910,000, showing a small diminution as compared with the preceding year, still not a large one considering the decrease in the population. The average daily attendance for the year was 316,000. As compared with 1865, there was an increase of 81 in the number of schools in operation in 1866. The attendance was of a more fluctuating character than it had previously been. The Returns showed a decrease of 1·2 per cent in the number of children enrolled, and of 1·5 per cent in the number in average daily attendance. Considering the general circumstances of the country, we might congratulate ourselves that there was not a greater falling off in the number of children at school, and upon the progressive increase that had taken place for a number of years. Taking decennial periods, the Returns showed extraordinary rapidity in the extension of the National system in Ireland. In 1836 there were 1,100 schools, attended by 153,000 children; in 1846 there were 3,600 schools, attended by 456,000 children; in 1856 there were 5,245 schools, attended by 560,000 children; and in 1866 there were 6,400 schools, attended by 910,000. It was well to remember the enormous proportion of the cost of the system which was borne by the Parliamentary Vote and the comparative smallness of the sum derived from local sources. In fact, it might be said that the cost of the system was defrayed almost entirely out of the Vote of that House. Excluding workhouse, prison, and asylum schools, the amount contributed locally to the salaries of teachers was £52,000, and the total amount received by the teaching staff was £309,000. Therefore, 17 per cent of the total sum was raised locally, while 83 per cent was thrown upon the Vote of that House. Still very considerable sums had been subscribed for, and great exertions made by private individuals, in the building of new schools and for the residences of schoolmasters. There was one circumstance which would have great interest for the Committee. We had often heard of there being great objection to the system on the part of a considerable body of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. Now, however, a large number of National schools were under the direct patronage and management of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. The total number of patrons was 2,344, and of these 1,132, or nearly one-half, were Roman Catholic clergymen; and of the 6,000 schools, excluding workhouse and gaol schools, 4,000 were actually under the patronage of the Roman Catholic clergy. Thus it appeared that, however great and weighty might have been the objections urged against the system, these objections did not deter the Roman Catholic clergy from taking an active part in the management of the education given. Of the 159 schools added to the list in the course of last year, 94 were under the direct patronage and management of Roman Catholic priests, and the list showed seventy-one new patrons among the Roman Catholic clergy. On the whole, there did not appear to be any falling off in the interest which the Roman Catholic clergy had for so many years shown in the system. Of all the difficulties connected with the system, none had exceeded that arising from the objections to mixed schools—that is, schools in which children of different religious persuasions are taught together; and if it had been possible to teach in one school children of one religions persuasion only, many objections that had been taken to the system would have entirely disappeared. There were now 3,720 mixed schools, and 2,630 unmixed schools, and in the mixed schools the minority was often small. In Munster, there were 546 schools taught by Roman Catholics, and there were only 3 per cent of Protestants in them; but even the smallness of that minority should not prevent their considering the great importance of the question, and the difficulty which would arise if the schools were made purely denominational schools and this minority were to a certain extent deprived of education. In Ulster, where the population was equally divided, there were also a great number of mixed schools; and 25 per cent of Roman Catholics were taught in Protestant schools. Therefore, although the smallest minority in the mixed schools was to be found in the province of Munster, yet a very large proportion of the education given was of a mixed character. He would not show what was the general effect of the education given by the National system upon the general population of the country. It was difficult to say, from the number of children actually upon the rolls, what was the exact amount of the education given; but by a very careful investigation made in 1861, in connection with the Census Returns, it was ascertained that on the 17th of May there were 443,000 children at poor schools, 304,000 at the National schools, and 139,000 at other schools; so that two-thirds of the children were educated at National schools, and one-third at other schools—Church education, Christian Brothers' Orphanages, and private schools. The number of children on the rolls in December, 1866, was returned by the Commissioners of National Education at 910,000. By the Census of 1861 it was ascertained that 73 per cent of the whole number on the books of all the schools attended more than six weeks in the year, so that it was fair to suppose that during last year 664,300 children attended National schools for more than six weeks in the year. Therefore, taking the proportion of the other schools in the same manner, he found that the attendance was 318,000, making a, total of 983,000 attending school during that period. That gives a very fair view of the system of primary education given by these institutions in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Bruce) had said that an attendance of one-sixth of the population was a proportion which was only to be found in the most favourably situated districts of England; but, as the population of Ireland was now taken at 5,500,000, an attendance of 983,000 children exceeded that proportion by no less than 50,000. That of itself would, he thought, be sufficient to prove the great success and the great usefulness of the National system of education in Ireland; for though, as the Committee would see from the figures he had laid before them, it did not pretend to a monopoly of the education of the country, its effect upon other institutions had been exceedingly good, inasmuch as it had led to a feeling of rivalry which had been attended by very beneficial results. He hoped the short statement that he had made would put the Committee in possession of the general character of the National system in Ireland in regard to primary education. The results of that system had been much greater than its most sanguine supporters could have anticipated some years ago. He would, before going further, refer to some of the objections which had been urged against the system, but as the subject had been so often discussed in that House it would only be necessary to refer to a few of the most prominent. For many years, no doubt, the National system of education was seriously objected to by a large and influential portion of the population of Ireland. The Committee would doubtless recollect that many of the clergy and the members of the Established Church urged objections on the ground that they could not conscientiously support any system of education in which the daily use of the Scriptures was not enforced in the case of every child attending the school. Some years ago, in consequence of some changes made by the Board of Commissioners of National Education, the late Archbishop Whately and Mr. Blackburne, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, retired from that Board. As time were on, there was hardly a year in which some objections were not taken in some quarter to the system. Although, in the early days of the system, the great body of the Roman Catholic population and their clergy expressed themselves most favourably towards it, yet that support was gradually withdrawn until about eight or nine years ago formal and serious objections were announced by the Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland, and, in a letter which they addressed to Lord Carlisle in 1859, they stated their objections in the following strong terms:—

"Deeply impressed with a conviction of those dangers which must increase in proportion as education is placed beyond the rightful control of the Church, the Catholic Bishops deem it a solemn duty to convey to Her Majesty's Government the expression of the growing anxiety which naturally fills their minds on finding their authority so completely disowned in the various schemes for educating the Irish people which have been put in operation for several years."

They then continued, after referring to their objections, at length—

"They, therefore, respectfully but earnestly request such a participation in Educational Grants for the separate instruction of Catholic children as the numbers and fidelity of the Catholic people, as well as their contributions to sustain the burdens of the State, amply entitle them."

That was the first opposition put forward by the Roman Catholic Clergy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), who at that time filled the office which he (Lord Naas) now had the honour of holding, in replying to that letter, in November, 1859, after saying that Her Majesty's Government desired in the first instance to express, in the plainest terms, their steadfast adherence to the principles on which the National system of education had been erected, proceeded to say—

"They have been repeatedly and deliberately considered in Parliament, and constitute the recognized conditions on which education in Ireland receives assistance from the State. Her Majesty's Government observe with regret that some of the demands preferred in the Memorial are wholly incompatible with the maintenance of these principles. If those demands were conceded, the National system would be overthrown; and a system of sectarian education substituted for it calculated to revive social divisions in Ireland, and to stimulate feelings which it is the object of every just and liberal Government to allay."

That letter was written with great ability, and put in the strongest manner possible the objections which were to be urged against the proposal of the Bishops. A long rejoinder on the part of the Bishops followed, dated March, 1861, and for several years afterwards no active part seemed to have been taken by the Roman Catholic clergy. It was true that several Motions were made in that House, and the question was discussed, but no very active symptoms of opposition were made on the part of the Prelates who signed the Memorial of 1859. In January of last year, however, a most important document was addressed to the Government by the Roman Catholic Prelates, in which they not only reiterated, but considerably amplified their former objections. They said—

"The schools under the National Board divide themselves into two classes—the ordinary National schools and the model schools; and, again, the ordinary schools may be sub-divided into such as are attended by pupils of one religious denomination only, and those attended by children of different denominations, the former exclusively Catholic or Protestant, the latter mixed. First, then, as to schools exclusively Catholic or Protestant, be they vested or non-vested, a change of great importance ought to be made, and can be made, without any difficulty. It is simply to remove all restrictions upon religious instruction, to permit the fulness of distinctive religious teaching to enter into the course of daily secular education, with full liberty for the performance of religious exercises and the use of religious emblems, and to recognize the right of the lawful pastors of the children in such schools to have access to them, to regulate the whole business of religious instruction in them, and to remove objectionable books, if any."

They went on to say—

"Were the proposed change adopted, not only would the great majority of the schools now in connection with the Board assume a religious character, but many Catholic schools of nuns, monks, and others, could be taken into connection with the Board, which schools are now excluded from all participation in the Grants of money for Education, because their conductors will not accept aid from the Board on condition of observing the rules restricting the liberty of religious instruction. Under the proposed change, in exclusively Catholic schools the teachers should be Catholic; the books treating of religious, moral, or historical matters, Catholic; the inspectors Catholic, and if objectionable, subject to the veto of the Catholic Bishop in the diocese in which their duties would lie."

With regard to the mixed schools their proposal was—

"To fix the time for religious instruction at the end of school hours, strictly requiring that it should not commence for the majority of the pupils, or any of them, till after the departure of every one of the minority professing a different creed, and, in any case of proved interference with the faith of any belonging to the minority, to strike the school oft the list of schools entitled to aid from the Board."

Then, with regard to the model schools which formed an important portion of the system, they said—

"But one thing can be done with these schools—to do away with them altogether. Nothing else will satisfy the Catholic bishops, clergy, and people. A regard to public economy, too, calls for their suppression."

The demand, therefore, that they made was really and entirely to revolutionize the whole system of education. That letter was dated the 14th of January, 1866, and on the 30th of January the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), then the Secretary of State for the Home Department, wrote as follows:—

"I enclose a copy of the Memorial and of the answer given to it on the part of Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Cardwell, who then held the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. To the opinions expressed in that answer Her Majesty's Government adhere, and they would regard with sincere regret any step tending to the overthrow of a system of education which they believe to be well adapted to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, and to have been the means of conferring very great advantages on that country. … Her Majesty's Government, however, think it right that this memorial should be communicated to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, and that they should be invited to offer their observations upon it. Their attention should be particularly directed to the statements contained in the Memorial as to the model schools."

The whole matter stood in that position at the beginning of last year. It appeared, as far as he could gather from those documents, that the late Government had then made up their minds to leave the system as it was, or that, at least, there was no intention on their part to propose any considerable change. But on the 19th of June his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) addressed to the Commissioners a communication which he thought must be taken as to a certain extent an answer to the demands of the Roman Catholic Bishops, and which stated the steps Government consented to take in order to comply as far as possible with those demands. His right hon. Friend, in the proposal which he made in that communication, appeared to direct his attention principally to the training of teachers, and to an alteration which he proposed to make by the composition of certain model schools which were intended to be established by him. His right hon. Friend stated—which he believed to be to a great extent the case—that there was a considerable want of trained teachers for the poor schools throughout the country. He said that out of 7,472 teachers, 4,309 were untrained; so that more than one-half of the teachers giving instruction in the National schools of Ireland had not received sufficient training. He therefore proposed, as a further stimulant to private enterprize, to establish model schools under local management. But the model schools thus proposed were of an essentially different character from any before established under the National system. To each was to be connected a domestic establishment, containing boarding-house accommodation for fifteen resident pupils. The day schools in connection with the model schools were to be conducted in the ordinary manner, except as regarded a point to which he should hereafter call attention. It was intended—indeed, this was not denied—that the new model schools should be essentially of a denominational character; that the teachers in each school should, as far as possible, be members of one religious persuasion, and that they should be educated as such. It was also intended that the normal establishment in Dublin, where teachers were trained, should be altered to a considerable extent. Heretofore, in that normal establishment, all the teachers, no matter what the religious denomination to which they belonged, resided together; but it was proposed, in the plan of his right hon. Friend, that there should be a denominational separation; that the Protestant teachers should live in one house, and the Roman Catholic teachers in another house. This brought him to another portion of the proposal, which thoroughly and entirely stamped the whole plan as one of a denominational character. It was proposed that chaplains should be appointed not only to the normal establishment in Dublin, but to the new district model schools throughout the country; and it was quite clear that the duty of those chaplains was not to be restricted to the teachers who came to be trained, because they were to have an allowance of £1 for each teacher, and of 10s. for each pupil. It appeared to him therefore that the proposal was nothing more or less than to establish a new sort of model schools altogether, which should be entirely denominational, and entirely novel as regarded the existing system of National education in Ireland. They were to be founded with a particular object—that of meeting so far as possible the objections taken by the Roman Catholic clergy to the system of mixed education in that country. Well, he found that in consequence of the letter of his right hon. Friend, the Commissioners met several times. They adopted the scheme in the main, and submitted to the Government an Estimate amounting to £19,000, and requested the Government to bring it before Parliament, with the view of getting the funds necessary for giving effect to his right hon. Friend's plan. He had, however, to state that the Board was very much divided in opinion. Of the nineteen Commissioners the opinions of only twelve were known, and of these seven were in favour of the proposition and five were against it. A great deal of discussion on the subject had taken place both in the National Board and also out of doors. There could be no doubt that the proposal had met with a great deal of objection and opposition on the part of a large portion of the population of Ireland. The Presbyterian body, almost to a man, had offered to it the most decided opposition. The Elementary Education Committee of the General Assembly state—

"Their decided conviction that if these changes, made and threatened, are permitted to be carried out the destruction of the present system of united education in Ireland is inevitable."

The Belfast Presbytery expressed itself in a similar manner. The late Bishop of Derry, the only ecclesiastic of the Established Church who was at that time a Member of the Board, expressed himself publicly, and in letters to him, as decidedly opposed to the plan. It appeared, then, that whether the proposed alteration were good or whether it were bad it was likely to have been a fertile source of discussion and disunion among the best supporters of the National system of education in Ireland; and he did not find that it had been received with any particular enthusiasm on the part of the Roman Catholic body. While it was received with great dislike by one party it was viewed with coldness and evident want of favour by the other party. He thought the Committee must feel it would almost impossible that teachers trained on such a system as that which his right hon. Friend proposed should go forth with any friendly feeling towards a mixed system of education. Again, if the proposed plan were adopted, he wanted to know how it would be possible to maintain the model schools. The Commissioners, speaking of the latter, thus descibed them—

"The chief objects of model schools are to promote united education, to exhibit the most approved methods of literary and scientific instruction to the surrounding schools, and to train young persons for the office of teacher."

It was quite clear that if the proposal of his right hon. Friend were adopted those new model schools would be established as rival institutions to the old ones. In fact, among the existing schools conducted on the national system there was a considerable amount of rivalry; but, if those new schools were established, he was afraid we should find them set up in towns as avowed rivals of the old model schools, and that the supporters of the former would do all in their power to withdraw children from the latter. He must express his opinion that such a state of things would be very undesirable. For these reasons they had not thought it right to take on themselves the responsibility of proposing to Parliament the Estimate for carrying this plan into operation. Another Estimate had been submitted to them so lately as the 19th of June by the Commissioners, which had a different object — proposing that they should ask Parliament for a Vote of £1,200 for encouraging the study of the classics and modern languages in the National schools in Ireland. Now, so far as he was concerned, he was, to a certain extent, favourable to the plan; and, in the North of Ireland, he believed that there were many schools where these things might be conveniently learned; but he must remind the Committee that in taking such a step they would be departing a good deal from the principle of primary education, and making it more of an intermediate system. Therefore, without further consideration, they had also declined to adopt that suggestion. They were disinclined to submit to Parliament this year any of those new suggestions which had been made to them. Now, he thought he had said enough to show the Committee, that taking a general view of the state of affairs, it was not at all satisfactory. Great alterations had been made in the rules from time to time. No doubt some of them had been improvements and conduced to the better working of the system; but by these constant changes a spirit of opposition to a great extent was excited, and the result had been that from various quarters every year changes of an important character were constantly being pressed on their notice. These changes when made were always criticized by one party or another—in the most unfriendly manner, and generally in proportion as they most benefited their rivals. There seemed little hope that this system of National education would be accepted by the whole country at large; and he thought it most unfortunate that a subject on which, most of all, there ought to be friendly feeling among the people, should have been the fertile source of dissension, often of party strife and acrimonious discussion. He thought that a very great evil, and on the part of the Government he was unwilling to accept the responsibility of inviting Parliament to make any great change in the system without more accurate information than they at present possessed. Looking back to the whole history of this matter and the great importance of the question, it was the intention of the Government to make one effort to terminate these unfortunate dissensions. They intended to issue a Royal Commission during the recess to inquire into the whole system of primary education in Ireland. Although the system had existed for a great many years, since 1823 there really never had been any positive inquiry into the working of the whole system on the spot. There had been no inquiry since that by the House of Lords in 1854, which terminated its labours without presenting any Report. It was the intention of the Government to endeavour as far as in them lay to constitute the Commission in the fairest possible way. They would endeavour to obtain the services of men who had given great attention to the whole subject of education both in this country and in Ireland, and as far as possible all classes and parties should be fairly represented on the Commission. He could not help thinking that great good might come out of it; and no time would be lost, because the opinions of the Commission would be laid on the table of the House early next Session. They proposed to refer to the consideration of the Commission, matters of the weightiest and most important character. They proposed to refer to them, first, the long-vexed question whether it would be possible, with regard to the safety of the system, to relax the rules under which religious education was given; secondly, the question of the model school system, its expense as compared with its results, its want of success in attracting a large number of scholars, and how far it could be advanced towards a system of intermediate; education; thirdly, the alleged want of trained teachers in the non-vested schools, and how the deficiency could be supplied. This objection—the want of trained teachers—was strongly urged by the right hon. Gentleman, and the question might fairly be settled by inquiry. If it turned out, as he believed it would, that a great many teachers in the National schools were not so proficient in ordinary knowledge as they ought to be, it would be a subject for consideration how they might provide more efficient teachers, and devise measures to draw them in greater numbers to the training schools. There was another question of very great importance which could not be decided satisfactorily without some inquiry. He believed it would be of the greatest advantage to the National system of education in Ireland if some system of payment by results could be introduced. Great objection was taken to that, because it was believed that it would have the effect of diminishing the remuneration now enjoyed by some of the teachers in the schools. He regretted that a great number of those teachers were now inadequately paid; and in considering the adoption of any system of payment by results it should be also considered whether it should not be a supplemental payment added to their present salaries, because he would not like that the whole salary should depend upon the result of the teaching. Another very important point had reference to the constitution of the Board. He admitted that the present Board was composed of very eminent men, although he had the misfortune to differ in politics from every one of them; but nobody could read the minutes of the Board and their proceedings without seeing that their attendance was very irregular. The most important questions were decided very often in the absence of the most distinguished members, and those who had attended a discussion one day were absent when the matter came on for decision the next. It was, therefore, matter for consideration whether some alteration should not be made in the constitution of the Board, perhaps by reducing the number of its Members, so as to secure the attendance of those who were intrusted with the great responsibility of managing this great system, and that they devoted a great portion of their time to the subject. Another point which would be inquired into was the position of the large number of schools unconnected with the National Board. One-third of all the children receiving primary education were in such schools, and it was a matter for serious consideration whether the benefits of inspection at all events could not be extended to them. In considering this subject regard ought to be had to the wishes and opinions of the great majority of the Irish people, and he believed it would not be difficult to make such changes as would attract a great deal of additional support to the National system. In this country there were persons who contended that secular instruction only should be provided by the State; but in Ireland he believed that people of all denominations desired that religious instruction should form a large portion of the education given in these schools, and the time had come when an effort should be made to harmonize this great system with the feelings of both the Protestant and Roman Catholic population. While concurring, however, in the principle that religion should form part of all the education given by the State, he did not desire to see the secular instruction subject to ecclesiastical control. This would be contrary to the spirit of the age, and he believed no portion of the laity would wish to give ecclesiastics of any denomination a control over the secular teaching of the people. In the appointment of the Commission the Government had only one object—to endeavour to harmonize the wishes and feelings of the Irish people with this great system of education; and he believed that by judicious inquiry, and by careful but not sweeping alterations, it was possible to make it what, with all its excellences and usefulness, it had never yet been—namely, a truely national system.

said, he had listened with much interest, but with some disappointment, to the speech of his noble Friend. One of the recommendations made by the Board of National Commissioners, but not adopted by the Government, was the introduction of higher teaching, including a certain amount of instruction in the classics and in modern languages, into some of the National schools. A Memorial, presented to the Commissioners from Ulster, had pointed out that the effect of the establishment of admirable National schools had been to shut up a great many private schools where a classical education used to be imparted, and, as there was no prospect of such schools being again started in face of the rivalry of the State schools, it deserved consideration whether some of the best of the latter might not be allowed to employ teachers capable of giving instruction in the classics and modern languages. Children receiving such instruction would, of course, pay a higher fee; but he would pronounce no opinion as to whether the State should vote the additional salaries of such teachers. The example of Scotland was encouraging. Many of the Scotch parish schools had long imparted a higher education to the children of the upper classes, and this had had a very beneficial effect on the advancement of Scotchmen in their own country, as well as all over the world. He agreed with much that had fallen from his noble Friend as to the ordinary primary schools under the National system. He believed these schools had had a very beneficial effect. The great majority of them were now, however, constituted upon a system differing in some important respects from that sketched out by the founders of the system, for there were 4,771 non-vested schools, while the schools vested in the National Commissioners, or in local Trustees, according to the original design, numbered only about 1,150. He believed non-vested schools were admirably adapted to the circumstances of the country. They were schools in which the patron and manager, who was in most cases a clergyman, had the right of giving religious instruction in his own creed to the children of his own Church, who usually formed the majority, while they were freely open to all comers as far as secular instruction was concerned, the rights of the minority being carefully protected. They were, in fact, denominational schools with a stringent conscience clause, adapted to a country where the difficulty was not the mixture of children belonging to different Protestant sects, but of Protestants and Roman Catholics. He believed they were working with great success, and the National Commissioners had recently introduced an important improvement by laying down a rule that no child should receive religious instruction from a teacher of another creed, unless in the very exceptional case of a parent deliberately requesting the teacher by a written document to give such instruction. That was a change calculated to give increased confidence to large classes in Ireland, and he rejoiced to find that it had been adopted by the Commissioners. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that in May last year a Motion was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly), who called upon the Government to make three important changes in the system of National education. In the first place, the hon. Member called upon them to remove the restrictions imposed on religious instruction in those schools in which at any particular time all the children should be of the same religious denomination. The hon. Member next asked for a better protection for the religion of the minority in mixed schools as a security against proselytism, and this object had been attained by the rule to which he had just referred. In the third place, the hon. Member dwelt very strongly in his speech on the objections raised against the training and model schools. It was his duty, on the part of the Government, to resist the first part of the Motion, in the second part of which, however, he entirely agreed. Then, with respect to the third part, he admitted last year the extremely unsatisfactory condition of the training and model schools, which had not the hold they ought to possess on the Roman Catholic population, and that it was the duty of the Government to consider carefully whether some change could not be made in those schools. That admission was made in May, and he noticed the date particularly because his noble Friend seemed to imply that the changes proposed in his letter to the National Board last year had been put off to an unnecessarily late period. However, that might be, he might remark that from the time when he became Chief Secretary in the previous autumn his attention had been very seriously directed to the training and model schools, and upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford, he had given a pledge to the House which induced the hon. Member to withdraw that Motion. Of course, therefore, it was his duty to take care to fulfil the pledge, and he accordingly before resigning office made a communication to the National Board. The majority of the National Commissioners adopted those proposals and laid before the Government a plan for carrying them into effect. He was still of opinion that a most important distinction ought to be drawn between the condition and prospects of the primary and of the training and model schools. In 1861 there were 319 teachers in training schools, and of these 237 were Roman Catholics, whereas in 1866 the total number of teachers was 285, of whom only 137 were Roman Catholics. If such a decrease were allowed to go on, there was a prospect of the training schools becoming unavailable for the Roman Catholic body in Ireland. Then, again, it was found that of the 7,472 head and assistant teachers, 4,309, or considerably more than one-half, had not received any regular training at all. For the National Schools 700 new teachers were required yearly, of whom only 400 were prepared in the central training school. As to the model schools it was found that in 1856 the Roman Catholic children attending them were in the proportion of 68 per cent, while in 1866 the percentage of Roman Catholics had fallen from 63 to 24 per cent, while in some of the schools—as, for instance, at Deny and Sligo—there was practically no attendance of Roman Catholics at all. This being the state of the case, the late Government thought it their duty to propose some change which would render these schools more generally useful and conciliate the confidence and goodwill of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland. He was aware that an objection was commonly raised that the decrease of the attendance at the schools was due to the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood, but he maintained that this was in reality no answer at all. He protested against the attempts so constantly made in Ireland to separate the Roman Catholics from their ecclesiastical Government. It was necessary to take and act upon the facts as they were, including, of course, the influence of the priesthood among a Roman Catholic people. Well, the first proposal of the late Government, in order to make the existing model schools, and especially the great training establishment in Dublin, more acceptable to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, was that chaplains of different religious denominations should be attached to those schools. Notwithstanding the efforts made to induce clergymen of different denominations to attend the schools to give religious instruction and look after the morals of their children, he knew of only one model school in the whole of Ireland where a Roman Catholic clergman attended for that purpose. The late Government also made the proposal referred to by his noble Friend, with reference to the boarding of teachers, giving teachers in training the option of boarding together in certified boarding-houses instead of within the school walls. Another change proposed was to encourage private enterprize in non-vested model schools in suitable places throughout the country, with a view to give larger scope for local authority, and more freedom as regards the religious character of the schools than could be maintained in the present model schools while under the exclusive control of the National Commissioners. His noble Friend had said that such schools would be totally different from all other schools; they would certainly be different from existing model schools, but not from the majority of ordinary schools, and there was no reason why the non-vested schools should not have their representatives among the model schools. It might be said that such schools, being connected with a particular denomination, would not be sufficiently open to pupils and pupil-teachers; but, admitting that they would not attract members of other denominations as much as members of the one with which the school would be connected, he asked whether the present National schools bore the character of unattractiveness? And were there no National schools connected more closely with one denomination than another? It was notorious that there were numerous schools connected with particular Churches, which, although open to all comers, and never disturbing the religious faith of the scholars, were not likely to be resorted to by children differing in sect from those managing the schools. Thus there were, of course, convent schools giving most valuable teaching to the poor; but he did not speak of those only, nor only of schools under the patronage of Roman Catholic priests. He included those under the management of clergymen of the Established Church and of Presbyterian ministers, some of the latter being closely attached to Presbyterian chapels. Yet if these denominational schools had not been encouraged, there would have been no National system now in existence; at all events, if their number were subtracted from the total given by the noble Lord the result would be very different from his statement. Those in general, then, were the changes the late Government proposed last year in the hope that they would have led to conciliation; they were accepted by the majority of the Commissioners and by many of the best friends of Irish education; it was to be regretted that the present Government had not accepted them also. His noble Friend had said that a great outcry had been raised against them, and that it came almost exclusively from the Presbyterians; but those charges could have done no possible harm to Presbyterian interests, and the objections certainly had the appearance of arising not from the belief that the proposals threatened harm to the Presbyterians, but because they were concessions to the Roman Catholics. But as these questions were again to be inquired into by a Commission he would not further discuss them. He, however, must express the opinion that all the facts were sufficiently in the hands of the Government, and that, if his noble Friend wanted information, he could easily obtain it from the National Commissioners. Indeed the questions to be decided by the Commission seemed to be rather points of policy than fact, and points far more fit for the consideration of a Cabinet than a Comission. But as the labours of the Commission would end before Parliament re-assembled—[Lord NAAS: Hear]—legislation, he presumed, would not be delayed by referring the question as intended. He had understood his noble Friend to shadow forth changes of a denominational kind as the probable result of the Commissioners' labours. But the noble Lord had condemned the proposal of last year because it had some tendency to introduce changes of that kind, so that there appeared to be some inconsistency between the commencement and the end of the noble Lord's speech. It would be of the greatest possible importance to the success and value of the inquiry that the Commissioners by whom it was to be conducted should be properly and carefully chosen. It would be useless, he knew, to offer any opposition to the appointment of the Commission, although he regarded it as an erroneous step on the part of the Government to delegate to such a body duties which they could and ought to perform themselves. He therefore confined himself to the expression of a hope that the inquiry would lead to the real improvement of Irish education.

admitted, that success to a certain extent had attended the operations of the National Board. It would be most unnatural if, after the expenditure of enormous sums of money, some progress were not made and some advantages conferred by that institution. But be could not allow the observation of his noble Friend (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) to pass unnoticed, "that on the whole the national system had worked satifactorily." Strong objections were entertained to that system by the Roman Catholic clergy, and were expressed very determinedly in letters addressed to Sir George Grey by the Roman Catholic Bishops. On the other hand the principle which governed the action of the National Board was conscientiously opposed by the Protestant clergy, and as long as an Established Church was suffered to exist in that country the opinions of its members were surely entitled to some weight. Members on all sides of the House, however they might differ in other respects, agreed in this, that education, to be useful in Ireland, must be founded on religion; it must not be mere secular education divested of religion. Various systems had been tried in Ireland unsuccessfully, and by many it was now supposed that nothing but the denominational system remained. But on that point he shared the opinion expressed by a late distinguished Archbishop of the Established Chuch, that he could not approve of giving to the heads of either religious denomination in the country the total care of the education of the children. An admirable speech was reported in that morning's paper as having been made by Earl Russell at a school in the country, in the course of which he told some anecdotes of great crimes having been committed by children who, upon being examined as to how they had been brought up, proved never to have heard of the Scriptures. His Lordship said it was much to be wished that all children could be brought up without sectarian feeling, but instructed in the Bible and in the preaching of the Apostles. Such teaching had his cordial approval; he wished it were general. There was one system capable of adoption to which he confessed that he was unable to see any objection, in a country, at least, where, differing as to forms of religion, they were yet unanimous in holding that religion should be the foundation of education. That system contemplated that grants should be made for progress in secular education alone, and that the religious teaching of the children should be left to the clergy of the several denominations. He thought also the Board ought to be wholly altered, and should consist of a responsible Board of paid members. Inspections ought to be held and Returns made, and the grants apportioned to the progress of the secular education. The religious teaching might safely be left to the clergy at either side, or to the responsible patrons. It was only through the adoption of some such system as this that great progress could be hoped for. Mere intellectual improvement, without grounding in the principles of morality and the truths of Scripture, he regarded as unprofitable and even dangerous; men so trained might become great scourges to the country. He could not see the necessity for a Royal Commission, and he regretted that the Government had not taken a different course.

, at that hour of the morning (One o'clock), and in the thin state of the House, would not attempt to enter on the religious question; but, having watched the National system in Ireland, and being himself connected with several schools, he believed that the system was a total failure. The sum asked for in the Vote, though large, he, for one, should never grudge for the purposes of education in Ireland. He thought it was incumbent on the House of Commons, however, to see how that sum was disposed of, and what was the quality of the education which was supplied. His noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had begun his speech by giving a very satisfactory account of the working of the present system. He stated that one-sixth of the population of the country were at school on a certain day in May. It nevertheless appeared from the last Census that 59 per cent of the population could neither read nor write. How, under those circumstances, could it be fairly said that the system of education in Ireland was satisfactory in its results? His experience convinced him that the system was far more showy than practical in its consequences. It was a system which it grieved him to be obliged to admit was far in advance of the national prosperity of the country, and which was not in accordance with the habits of an agricultural population. Indeed, he believed that much of the discontent which was prevalent in Ireland, and of the emigration from its shores, was promoted by the sort of education which was supplied to the people. And what was the nature of that education? Hon. Members had heard one right hon. Gentleman who had filled the office of Chief Secretary holding out the prospect that there would be another Vote for the purpose of teaching the population of Ireland the classics and French. An agricultural population classics and French! Again the Committee, if they turned to page 27 of the present Vote, would find that there was a sum of £2,000 over and above the grant made to the teachers of those agricultural labourers set down for the teaching of drawing, singing, and navigation. The effect of all that was that a gross imposition was practised on that House and the public. A stranger from this country visited the model schools in Ireland, and certain questions were put to the pupils, and they sung hymns, and the visitor returned home with the idea that the Irish National system of education was perfect. He should like, however, to ask whether any man who made any progress in those model schools ever remained in the country? The fact was that he went elsewhere. And what sort of men were the teachers? It was true that some of them were not adequately paid; but he had some knowledge of them, and he could state that many of them had been infected by Fenian principles. The system of education in Ireland, he might add, was not in accordance with that which was understood to be primary education. As it at present stood it unfitted those who received it for their duties as agricultural labourers, and drove them away from Ireland. He felt confident that some day or other a stricter scrutiny must be applied to the disposition of the Vote to which the Committee was asked to assent. He would next briefly advert to what he looked upon as a very curious point in connection with the subject. There was an Albert agricultural training department in Ireland for the maintenance of agricultural pupils and teachers, the grant for which was £1,280. He found that there were at that school fifty-six agricultural pupils, but he had never seen any one who had been brought up there become a bailiff or a steward on a gentleman's farm. There was a loss on the school of, he believed, £1,250, and that was the way in which the Albert training department was conducted. Nobody could travel through Ireland and see those model schools without admiring their architecture. £28,500 was spent upon them, but what, he should like to know, was the use of them? He was as favourable to education as any man in that House. He could not, however, understand the expenditure of such large sums in education as was now done among a population which must depend upon the spade. As to the proposal which had been made by his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for the issue of a Commission, he could only say that he had no great faith in the result of their labours. Everybody knew the whole of the facts connected with Irish education as matters stood, and the Commission would simply compile a large blue book just as had been done by the Devon Commission, which had collected together more information with respect to Ireland than perhaps any other body of men. To give satisfaction to both parties in Ireland on the subject of education he believed to be impossible. He had the highest respect for the honesty and ability of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary; but he must entreat him not to insist upon teaching the classics and French, drawing, singing, and navigation; and to legislate upon the question without having recourse to a Commission.

said, the subject was one of great importance, and that he did not feel surprised hon. Members from Ireland were anxious to discuss it at some length. He must at the same time remind them that the 6th of August had arrived, and that there was such a ceremony as the closing of the Session still to be gone through. He hoped, therefore, that if he assented to the proposal for reporting Progress, hon. Gentlemen would exercise their influence with their friends not to obstruct going into Supply another night; it being absolutely necessary to get through the Votes before the Appropriation Bill could be brought in.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had on a former occasion objected to the measure on the ground that it did not sufficiently protect the rights of creditors, and he was bound to say that the Bill, as originally drafted, had gone somewhat beyond the Resolutions of the Committee. Amendments had since then been prepared to obviate that objection. Nothing was further from the intention of the framers of the measure than to diminish the rights or remedies of creditors, and he thanked the hon. and learned Member for his assistance. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets also had clauses to propose, and if the Bill were now read the second time it would be the best course to go into Committee upon it pro formâ to-morrow, in order that it might be reprinted as amended and placed in the hands of Members with a view to its being discussed, if possible, on Thursday.

said, the proposed Amendments would, he believed, carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee, and he had no objection to the course now suggested.