asked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the late increase in the number of Letters and to the Postal Cards, the staff of the Post Office has been adequately added to; and, whether there is any time fixed within which Letters posted in the Metropolitan District ought to be delivered; and, if so, what time?

said, in reply, that owing to the increased work which had to be performed in the Department, a superintendent had been appointed to take on other men either temporarily or permanently as the exigencies of the service required. With regard to the second Question, the hon. Member would find the fullest information upon the point in the Postal Guide.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What will be the charge on the revenues of India of the proposed College for Engineers; what the building will cost; what will be the annual cost of the establishment; and whether it is in contemplation to attach any and what retiring pensions in favour of professors or others employed in the institution?

There will be no charge on the revenues of India on account of the Engineering College; the fees will be slightly in excess of the charges, including interest on the buildings and plant, say on £90,000. There will be 11 professors and instructors on salaries varying from £700 to £300 per annum. Of these, nine will be entitled to pensions under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, and two will not be entitled to pensions. If my hon. Friend would like the figures here they are—Annual sanctioned charge for College, as per regulations of Secretary of State in Council, £18,350; interest on buildings, &c, say £90,000 at 4 per cent, £3,600; total, £21,950. Fees, 150 students at £150, £22,500; difference, £550.

asked the Secretary of State for War, On what basis he has calculated the amount that will be annually required for retiring allowances to officers of the Army, in order to secure a proper now of promotion; and, what will be the probable annual cost of such scheme of retirement?

The first effect of the proposed changes will be not to retard, but probably to accelerate, the flow of promotion, inasmuch as the public purse will be substituted for that of private purchasers; and the employment of Army officers in the auxiliary forces will conduce to the same result. What may be the effect of the future cessation of purchase on the one side, and employment in the Reserve forces on the other, upon the flow of promotion is a question on which opinions differ, and there are no data which have been considered sufficiently ascertained to become the basis of actuarial calculation.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any precedent why officers of the Control Department who have not been promoted by the introduction of the Control Warrant should be called upon to pay the Stamp Duty for a new commission; and, further, if there is any objection to officers who have not been promoted, and who receive no benefits from the Control Warrant, and who are permitted to retain the privileges accorded to them by former Warrants until promoted, being allowed to retain their original commissions as issued to them for their services in their old departments, without having to give them up to be substituted by new commissions in the Control Department?

AS soon as the new commissions of those officers who have not been promoted have been signed and issued the old commissions will be received back, and the 30s. for the stamp returned.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is to be understood, in the case of schools where the next inspection takes place after April 30th, e.g. during the month of May, and where the teachers and managers may have taught and worked during two-thirds of a year under the regulations of the present Revised Code, that they are now to be subject to the new restrictions and regulations of the Re-revised Code; and, whether it would not be more reasonable that each school should come under the new Code after, and not previous to, its next inspection?

replied, that the hon. Gentleman would find in the Minute preceding the Code an answer to the first Question. After the 30th of April the inspection would be under the new Code. For the reason he had given, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. E. Bright), it would be much against the interests of the managers if that course were not adopted.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that appointments to first commissions and retirements by sale have in several instances been delayed by Government authority pending the passing of the Army Regulation Bill now before the House; and, if so, whether such premature forestalment of legislation is not in his opinion calculated to interfere with the efficiency of the Army by producing a strong sense of injustice amongst officers who are thus compelled to remain in the service against their will?

Retirements by sale have not been delayed where officers are desirous of selling according to the established regulations. With regard to first appointments, those who had lodged their money have been allowed to proceed if they desire it. No fresh lodgments will be accepted for the present, as it is intended that future commissions shall be given without purchase.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in case of the Volunteers going into the proposed camps of instruction, their expenses will be paid, such as for travelling and rations; at what time of the year those camps will be held, and where; and, if all administrative battalions will have an opportunity of attending?

In the present year, 1,100 officers and men of the Artillery Volunteers have received 10s. a head for the expenses of their attendance at Shoeburyness, the very satisfactory results of which have been laid on the Table in Colonel Chermside's Reports. A sum of £10,000 is included in the present Estimates for a like purpose as regards both Artillery and Rifle Volunteers going to camps of instruction. Rations are issued when practicable at cost price. £8,500 are also taken for the allowance of 1s. a day to men attending brigade drills when ordered by the officers in command of districts.

, in rising to call attention to the affairs of South Africa, particularly to the country in which diamonds have recently been discovered, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to ascertain to what extent the Confederation of the British Possessions in South Africa, and of the adjacent territories, is practicable,"

said, the countries to which he alluded were the Cape Colony, with an area of 200,000 square miles, and a population, including that of British Caffraria, which was annexed in 1866, of 600,000, 400,000 being Natives; Natal, which was about the size of Scotland, and had an European population of 17,000, with 250,000 Natives; the Orange Free State, covering an area of 50,000 square miles, and having a population of 37,000; and the Transvaal Republic, of 100,000 square miles, and a population of only 30,000. The Cape Colony was under the rule of a Governor, generally a man distinguished in the colonial service of the Crown, his position being unlike that of the other chief colonial Governors, as there was not a free Constitution in the sense of that which existed in Canada or in the Australian Colonies. In addition to his position as representative of the Queen, he was High Commissioner, and held control over all the Native races in the wide district he had described. The people of Natal, with a Lieutenant Governor and a Legislature entirely distinct from that of Cape Colony, complained against the control of the Native tribes inhabiting the tract of country close to their own frontier being placed in the hands of the High Commissioner, on the ground that he lived 700 miles from the northern frontier of the eastern Province, where alone independent Native tribes were to be met with, and who, of course, could not have the same means of information as those possessed by the Lieutenant Governor. A pamphlet had recently been published from the pen of Mr. F. W. Chesson, a very able gentleman, who had paid very great attention to this subject, and thoroughly investigated it in all its bearings, and from this pamphlet he would quote the Resolutions of the Natal Legislative Council, passed in August, 1868, and to be found, in the Papers presented to this House—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the office of High Commissioner, as exercised at present in relation to this Colony, is inimical to the maintenance of the prestige and influence of Her Majesty's Government amongst the Native tribes of South East Africa, and the House is guided to this conclusion by the following considerations:—The High Commissioner, as Governor of the Cape Colony, resides at Cape Town, which is about 700 miles from the northern frontier of the eastern Province, where alone independent Native tribes are to be met with. That Natal is surrounded on three sides by territories chiefly occupied by large and powerful independent tribes, with whom the local authorities cannot deal, irrespective of the consent of the High Commissioner at Cape Town. That, in times of disturbance amongst the surrounding communities, the Government of Natal is deprived of that power of timely and effectual action which it might otherwise exercise with great benefit to the interests of peace and civilization. That ever since the annexation of the Orange River Sovereignty (since abandoned) in 1848, the emigrant farmers who settled over the Vaal River, and formed a government of their own, under the style of the South African Republic, have carried on a system of slavery, under the guise of child-apprenticeship, such children being the result of raids carried on against Native tribes, whose men are slaughtered, but whose children and property are seized, the one being enslaved and sold as 'apprentices,' the other being appropriated."

It was impossible for the High Commissioner, living so far from the scene of those atrocities, to judge properly of the outrages; and it would be better if more authority were vested in the Governor of Natal. A change was wanted in the government of our African Colonies. He would venture to read some Resolutions of the Natal Legislative Council, recommending the annexation of the Transvaal and the Orange Free States, passed in 1868. They said—

"That the interests of the two South African British Colonies—namely, the Cape Colony and Natal, are in many respects so closely united with the Republics situated on their several borders, that a union of these under British rule can scarcely fail to conduce to the material welfare of the whole, both as a means of promoting an interchange of friendly relations amongst them, as well as of providing, by judicious combination, for their adequate security and confidence in time of danger, and establishing and regulating commercial intercourse on a permanent and satisfactory basis to all parties. That the comparative dependence of these Republics on the Cape Colony and Natal, together with the similarity of the religion, laws, and customs of the white inhabitants to those of the same classes inhabiting the two latter Colonies, favours the belief that sooner or later they will be desirous of coming under the dominion of the British Government. That the Council is therefore of opinion that with a view to furthering the objects set forth, it would be highly desirable for Her Majesty's Government favourably to consider any proposal which the authorities of these Republics, being empowered thereto by the inhabitants, may put forward, affecting their annexation to either the Cape Colony or Natal, or embracing suggestions with respect to any other form of allied or separate administration deemed suitable by the majority of the white inhabitants of such States. That a respectful address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor, transmitting to his Excellency a copy of the above Resolutions, and requesting his Excellency to forward the same to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government."

The House was aware that these two Republics were situated to the north of Her Majesty's dominions at the Cape. They had no communication with the outer world excepting through British dominions, or through the Native territories which lay to the north and the west of it. Resolutions in a similar sense to those he had read were passed in the chief towns of South Africa, recommending a Confederation. The independence of the Orange Free State dated from 1854. The British Government of that day, wearied with frontier wars, resolved to get rid of the territory, though the renunciation of it was opposed by many of the leading inhabitants and by colonial statesmen; and in this House was objected to by a distinguished colonial statesman, whom he was glad to see in his place taking an interest in this question—his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley). The result had been almost constantly recurring difficulties ever since. The Government sent out Sir George Clerk, as Commissioner, to enforce their policy, and the result had been wars that desolated the country. It might be said, perhaps, that however excellent a Confederation might be, the people of the Free State would be unwilling to join it, and, of course, no attempt at coercing them could be made. But the truth was that a considerable and respectable party in the Free State were anxious for annexation, and any step taken towards that object would be cordially welcomed by them. In proof of this he would read an extract from The Friend of the Free State, a paper circulating in the Sovereignty, dated July 31, 1868—

"We cannot but believe that it would prove an unspeakable blessing to the whole community were the Free State, as far as the Modder River, united to Natal, and the other half to the Cape Colony. The pretended freedom of the Free State has already proved, and is proving, a very serious obstacle to progress, and to the advance of civilization in South Africa. Does anyone doubt this, we would remind them of the following painful facts:—The proposed electric telegraph has been turned aside, and the idea of its passing through the State abandoned; the bridge over the Orange River thwarted; foreign banks expelled; the influx of capital checked; railways not to be thought of; Christian missionaries driven out of Basutoland; educated and enlightened men and capitalists prevented by our wars and obnoxious laws from settling here."

The other territory to which he desired to refer was the Transvaal Republic. It was erected in 1852, but on the distinct condition that slavery was not to exist in it; but how had that condition been observed? Everyone knew that it had been flagrantly violated; but England had, unfortunately, at the time of recognizing the Republic, bound herself to supply ammunition to the Boers, and not to the Natives, who were, consequently, obliged to obtain it in very small quantities, and by a very circuitous route. The Natives, therefore, had been left entirely at the mercy of the Boers, parties of whom went out on predatory expeditions, and attacked villages, burnt them, murdered the parents, and took possession of their children, whom they sold into slavery. Two years ago, he called attention to the slavery that existed in the Transvaal Republic, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Monsell), who then represented the Colonial Department, said he was unfortunately obliged to admit all he (Mr. Fowler) said. Official Papers had since been published on this subject, and without hesitation he might say they confirmed every statement it was his duty two years ago to lay before the House. The Consul of the Republic had written to Lord Clarendon, after the debate two years ago, complaining of some of the assertions that had been advanced against the Republic; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) was directed by his Lordship, who, during his long and honourable public life, took a deep interest in the suppression of slavery, to ask, in reply, how it happened that there was so many orphan children in the Republic? to which, inquiry the Consul had given no answer. Among the great quantity of evidence that might be produced on the subject, he would select the evidence of a Dutch clergyman, Mr. Huet, residing in the Republic, who stated, in reference to the treatment of the captives by the Boers—

"One will ask whether there are no laws to prevent ill-treatment and to guarantee liberty to the poor captives, at least after some time of servitude? Certainly, with a truly hypocritical philanthropy, certain laws are made; for instance, that in case of transgression the master has to bring his servant to the field-cornet to have him punished; but the master cares little for the law, and the field-cornet just as little, and the servant does not even know the existence of the law. The same is true of the apprenticeship. Till their twenty-second, or in some places till their twenty-fifth year they are apprenticed. All this time they have to serve without payment. The Boers say—'This is right, because we want compensation for the expense and trouble spent in their education.' Expense, and trouble, and education! As soon as the poor creatures are able to walk, they have to look after the cattle, or carry the youngest child of the mistress, who is often as big and twice as heavy as themselves. Till the twenty-second or twenty-fifth year! And all this time without any reward, but perhaps a thoroughly worn-out piece of clothing, invectives, curses, whippings! And when the time of servitude is over, are they then free? Who will give them freedom? Who will make them acquainted with the law? Nobody. It is slavery in the fullest sense of the word—with this exception, that slave States have their laws and overseers, who at least keep the ill-treatment within certain limits; whilst here nobody, I say nobody, cares for their lot, and they are thoroughly given over to the caprice of their cruel masters and often yet more cruel mistresses. When the servant maid becomes marriageable, the master's permission must be obtained for her taking a husband, which permission, it is unnecessary to say, is in most cases refused, and, if granted, the applicant must pay for the girl either with money or with work. After all this let nobody say that slavery or the slave trade is abolished in any part of the Transvaal Republic, as has been stated by some newspapers."

Could we say that Great Britain was entirely guiltless in this matter? This country had played a noble part with regard to slavery; but in the Republic of South Africa the course of the slave trade and slavery was worse than anything we read of as existing when Wilberforce began his great work of slave emancipation. He asked what was to be done in this case, because we did not want a military expedition to put down these things. Was there any hope of the Transvaal Republic voluntarily joining such a Confederation as he proposed? He believed there was. There was evi- dence that the leading inhabitants were thoroughly opposed to the practices he had described, and would take any step to put an end to them. The hon. Gentleman referred, in support of this assertion, to speeches delivered by some of the most respectable inhabitants, and also to the Report of a Commission on the subject. He then observed that recent events had given an importance to the question which it did not possess a few years ago. In these countries gold, and more recently diamonds, had been discovered. The diamond fields were claimed by both the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State; but the result of an investigation which General Hay, the acting Governor of the Cape, had been at great pains to make, showed that they belonged to neither, but to a Native chief called Waterboer. He held in his hand Parliamentary Papers published at the Cape, with which he would not trouble the House, showing General Hay's views. In last December there were 15,000 persons in the diamond fields, who were almost entirely British subjects. The British Government had a duty to discharge towards these men, to protect them, and provide a suitable government for them in the country to which they had gone. That Her Majesty's Government was anxious to do so appeared from the fact that they had sent a magistrate to the district. Sir George Grey, in a very remarkable and able despatch addressed to the present Lord Lytton, had urged the course he ventured to bring under the consideration of the House; and the present Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, in a speech he delivered at the British Association, at Newport, had expressed similar views. He hoped that it might be the good fortune of the distinguished man who now governed Her Majesty's dominions in South Africa to lay the foundations of a Confederation which in future days might tend to promote the glory of the British Crown and the happiness of the people of South Africa. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, it was the duty of this country, and of those who represented it in the Colonial Office, to take care that treaties affecting the lives and liberties of thousands of persons should be literally carried out. If territories were occupied, as those in question were, upon condition that slavery and the slave trade should not exist in them, it was required of us as honourable men, and of the Government as an honourable Government, that this condition should not remain a fiction, but should be made a fact. He had received a large amount of evidence as to the existence of the slave trade in those districts. He had no doubt his hon. Friend in the Colonial Office (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would be as earnest as the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor (Mr. Monsell), than whom he had never known a man more disposed to carry out the real object of his appointment, or more willing to listen to the representations of the various Colonies. In the Colony of Natal there was a Governor at serious issue with his constitutional Assembly. Within 18 months this gentleman twice dissolved the Assembly in order to procure one that was subservient to his will; but in spite of his efforts an Assembly had been returned which would no doubt carry on the reforms upon which the community were bent. This was the more necessary because the Colony was now living beyond its means; and the Governor should be informed that his administration in the Colony was not approved by the Home Government. Even that day a Bill had been sent down from the Lords relating to the West African Settlements to be read a second time. Its object was that any crime, or alleged crime, committed 20 miles from the border of that Colony should be subject to the tribunals of that Colony. In other words, the jurisdiction of the colonial government was to be extended 20 miles beyond the colonial territory—upon a territory we had never claimed, and over a people who had never acknowledged our authority. Why, if such a thing were proposed in civilized life it would be considered utterly monstrous. What Bismarck was the author of such a Bill as that? If we were to have Colonies at all we should show them that we recognized the duty of seeing that all the legislation affecting them was just and wise.

said, it was horrible to think that that remarkably intelligent and acute race, the Basutos, should be treated in so disgraceful a way, and carried into slavery, under the sanction of the British Government, or from the want of proper interference by us. Better give up our Colonies than govern them so.

said, he had made a very thorough study of this question, and had come to the same conclusion regarding it as his hon. Friend. There could be no doubt that there had been an abominable system of slavery which had received encouragement from the Government. He hoped the suggestion contained in the Motion might be carried out, as he was confident it would result in great good. There were a great many, both at home and abroad, who were in favour of federation, and the feeling was growing, especially among the most respectable classes in the Colonies.

considered it of great advantage that business connected with the administration of our Colonies should occasionally come under the notice of the House, because it showed our fellow-subjects at a distance that we regarded them as associated with us in all that concerned the interests of the Empire. He was of opinion that the examples which they had before them of the successful results of federation in British North America and in the United States ought to induce Her Majesty's Government to bestow their best attention on the Motion of the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler). The Colonies of South Africa were important in consequence of their magnitude, and productiveness exhibited in the increased growth of wool, sugar, and other commodities, and also on account of their central position with regard to other parts of the Empire. There could be no doubt as to the advantage of maintaining our Colonies. The strength of the British nation must depend on the number of its population and of the fighting men it could send forth. Surely our colonists would do their duty as British subjects when the occasion arose. On the other hand, we must do our duty to them, and show that we acted with vigour, like Englishmen worthy of being associated with such communities.

said, he had listened with astonishment to the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler), when he proposed federation not only with regard to the Colonies of South Africa, but also to the Transvaal Republics, with which this country had nothing to do. The Orange River Territory and the Transvaal Republic were originally under our control; but the inhabitants revolted, and their territory was now beyond our authority. How, then, could those States be federated with Natal, British Caffraria, and the Cape? [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Only with their own consent.] Many hon. Members must be aware that those Transvaal Republics, instead of wishing to join us, desired to split up into a series of still smaller republics, in order to carry on their own modes of government, and to make predatory inroads into neighbouring States with less inconvenience. The subject was one, he might add, on which it was impossible for any hon. Gentleman to say that he represented the feelings of the colonists, because no sooner was a particular Colony declared to entertain certain views with respect to it than the declaration was disavowed. His hon. Friend opposite was anxious for incorporation, in order that we might get rid of slavery; but he felt satisfied that in the case of a body of men such as those to whom he was referring it would be impossible to do away with slavery unless we were prepared to enter again into a series of South African wars. There was, he might add, no proof that the Colonies in question wished to be joined together.

said, he was much obliged to those of his hon. Friends who had afforded him the opportunity, if he desired it, of excusing himself for a very brief statement, on the ground that he had been but a short period in his present Office. While quite conscious of his own shortcomings, he thought no man could have sat in that House so long as he had done without acquiring some knowledge of colonial affairs. There was a considerable vagueness about the Motion, which might have been more explicit. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) protested against it being supposed that the withdrawal of troops was to be taken as indicating an unfriendly feeling towards the South African or any other Colonies on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It was capable of contention that the consolidation of power at home was in the best interests of the Colonies themselves; that the presence of British troops often encouraged the colonists to act towards the Natives in a manner not conciliatory; that the supremacy at sea of the mother country was of more value to the Colony than the presence of an isolated regiment; and that in the case of communities as well as of individuals, the more self-reliance was encouraged the more stable was their prosperity likely to be. With respect to Natal, he declined to enter into the question as to the differences between the Lieutenant Governor and his Council. It was unfortunately true that differences had existed, and probably, as in most cases of the kind, there might be faults on both sides; but he trusted that all was now in a fair way of being settled. No effort of the Government should be spared to bring about an arrangement that would be generally satisfactory. With respect to the Dutch Republics in South Africa, he agreed with much the hon. Member had said about slavery, civilization, and Christianity going hand in hand in that country. He was afraid it was too true that civilization was sometimes accompanied by fire and sword, and that Christianity was sometimes heralded by rapine and slavery. Such civilization was no matter of boast to Europeans, and such Christianity was sadly at variance with the precepts of its Divine founder. In the Transvaal Republics slavery was no doubt carried on under another name. It was impossible to read the accounts which had been received without arriving at that conclusion. The history of the Republics was brief. The Boers, after the emancipation of the slaves in 1834, left the Cape Colony and went to Natal, and, driven out there, they proceeded to the Orange Territory, and, after many conflicts with the Natives, established themselves as independent republics, until the assumption of British sovereignty by Sir Harry Smith, in 1848. This assumption was at least premature. No country had the right to annex territory unless it was prepared to maintain therein law and order, and to secure life and property. For this we were not prepared, and moreover, as to the wishes of the Boers, Pretorius at once opposed our authority and was only driven across the Vaal after a severe engagement. Then when the Basuto Chief Moshesh attacked us, the Boers refused to join us in defending the country against him. It was in consequence of the people not supporting our authority that in 1851 Lord Grey wrote a despatch, in which he said that British authority had been established for the good of the inhabitants, and that if they refused to support us it was doubtful whether this country would incur the expense of supporting the Sovereignty. In 1854 came the abandonment of the Orange Territory, arranged by Sir George Clerk, as Special Commissioner, and it was said that we abandoned it against the wishes of the inhabitants. Now, it was difficult for any one in this country to express the opinions of the colonists. No doubt there was a protest against the abandonment; but it was equally clear that there would have been a protest the other way. All we could do was to rely upon the able men whom we had instructed to carry out our policy. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Government of the day wished to get rid of the territory; but that was because the people of the State believed they were carrying out a course of policy best adapted to their own interests. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gilpin) was mistaken as to the character of the Bill to which he had referred, which indeed referred not to South Africa but to the West African Settlements, where it had been rendered necessary by the occurrences which had taken place. One of the Natives had plundered a village and murdered several persons. It was true he was arrested; but in the case of one murder he got clear on the technical point that it was committed just outside the British boundary, and had he not committed a second murder just within the boundary he would have escaped scot free. Thereupon this Bill was brought in by the Law Officers of the Crown, and it provided that if a murder was committed within 20 miles of British territory by a person not being a subject of any civilized State, and not being amenable to any established jurisdiction, he might still be tried and convicted. The hon. Member said that we owed protection to British subjects. No doubt that was the case; but he could not assent to the proposition that when, as in the case of the diamond diggers, British subjects of their own free will established themselves in a country in which we had no authority, we were bound or entitled to annex that country in order to afford them due protection. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: With the consent of the chief and people.] That might or might not be; but even then it was doubtful whether we were to go on annexing and annexing. With respect to the claim of Waterboer, it was true there was a dispute between him and the President of the Free State Republic, and it was also true that the President of the Republic, after having been asked to submit the claim to arbitration, and finding that Waterboer would not give up his right, took the usual mode of issuing a proclamation, in which he said that all this property in the diamond fields belonged to the Republic. In consequence of the disagreement between Waterboer and the President of the Republic the arbitration was not entered into, and Waterboer appealed to the Government of this country. It was not true that we had declared that this territory belonged to Waterboer, and it was quite possible that his claim to the whole of it could not be established. What had been done was this — as soon as the proclamation was issued, General Hay, who was administering the government at the Cape until the arrival of Sir Henry Barkly, gave notice to all the British, subjects not to join in anything which would show that Waterboer's claim was not recognized, and announced that this country could not by any means recognize the proclamation annexing this large tract of land. The Resolution of the hon. Member declared—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to ascertain to what extent the Confederation of the British Possessions in South Africa and of the adjacent territories is practicable."

He wished to call the attention of the House to the wording of this Resolution. The confederation of British territory was something which he could well understand. Schemes of confederation had been going on in British North America, and were under discussion in Australia, which, tending as they did to economy of administration and consolidation of power, were arrangements which the Government would always regard with favour. But when they talked of the confederation of British, territory with adjacent territory, they must take care that that was not annexation under another name. There could not be a confederation of adjacent territory without its coming under the sovereignty of England. Were we prepared for that? The abandonment of the Free State settlement was part of a deliberate policy which had been pursued by previous Governments. So far as home interests were concerned, we did not wish to extend the boundaries of our South African territories, and did not intend to expend the money of England and to risk the lives of Englishmen in projects upon which neither the honour nor the interest of England required us to embark. The policy of the Government was not to expend Imperial money and risk the lives of Englishmen in the cause of wild annexation. But having laid down that principle, he did not think it was the policy of any Government to prevent the extension and the development of Colonies by their own aid and for their own interests, under their own management. No doubt it might be a good thing to draw a line across the map of South Africa and say the territory should be settled under British protection; but that could not be done without a clashing of interests, the loss of money, and other things more valuable than money. There might be, and he hoped there would be, a future of power and prosperity for the Cape Colonies; and if he might be allowed to refer to the extension of those Colonies, he would respectfully say that he ventured to doubt whether a Colony which had not yet found itself able to assume the duties and privileges of responsible government was in a fit state to annex other territory to it. He thought that when a European population numbering 200,000 felt itself equal to self-government, it might probably be the case that its resources might be developed by its own exertions and management without Imperial aid. If the Colonies showed a desire to develop their own resources without requiring Imperial aid, it would not be the busi- ness of the Government to throw any obstacles in the way, but rather to afford facilities. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would advance the objects he had in view, especially as any "steps" to be taken must be taken by the colonists themselves, and not by the Home Government. Let it not be supposed that the Government was unfriendly to the Colonies. They were rather desirous to encourage their self-reliance. He had no doubt, after the discussion which had taken place, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and he might rest assured that the affairs of South Africa would continue to receive the careful attention of the Government. The hon. Member should bear in mind that Sir Henry Barkly, who had only recently arrived in the Colony, had all these subjects under his consideration, and there could be no doubt that he would endeavour by arbitration to bring these matters to a satisfactory issue.

observed that the question raised was, supposing these adjacent territories, to which reference had been made, wished to return under the allegiance of Her Majesty, whether the House would be willing to encourage and facilitate such proposal. He considered the proposition well worthy of discussion, and, even although the Motion could not end in any definite proposal, the discussion which had taken place would show to the colonists at the Cape the interest taken in them by Parliament, and that a desire existed to do everything possible to strengthen and consolidate their interests. On the other hand, it would show to the adjacent territories that, if they were anxious to come under allegiance to Her Majesty, the House was willing to promote their wishes. He had always advocated the consolidation of colonial territory and government, and thought it was in the interest of the integrity of the Empire that such consolidation should take place. He had been misrepresented as holding lightly the value of colonial connection with the British Empire. His hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had done him the justice to remind the House that on the question of the abandonment of the Orange Sovereignty he stood alone, in the debate which took place, in protesting against that aban- donment. He considered that any abandonment of territory was a symptom of the decadence of national spirit. He thought, also, that there had been no precedent for abandonment; there was precedent for exchange and cession, but not for abandonment. The result of the subsequent 16 years' experience had convinced him of the correctness of the views which he then entertained; and Sir Philip Wodehouse, who had ably governed in South Africa for 18 years, said in one of his last despatches that the result of that abandonment had been mischievous alike to the interest of this country and of the Cape Colony. But it was a difficult thing to retrace our steps. He had mentioned this for the purpose of defending himself against much misrepresentation as to his readiness to separate any Colony from this country. There was not a Member of the House who did not value our colonial connection, and think it esential to the strength and greatness of this Empire. The only dispute was as to the way in which the connection would be best cemented. He had always maintained that the proper way to cement that connection was by making the Colonies stronger and more self-reliant; and he had always taken colonial soldiers, defending their own territory, to be an addition to the strength of the British Army, while the defence of Colonies by home troops was only keeping up a show of connection which paralyzed the Colonies—a connection of dependence, and not of extended empire. If it were true, as he had heard it rumoured, that America expected a cession, of territory from us, either in the West Indies or in Canada, in settling the disputed claims between the two countries, he was sure it would be found, from the way in which any such proposition would be met by England, that they had been grossly mistaken in their supposition, and that nothing would incense this House more than such a proposal being made to it. The policy of the past Government, and of the present Government, had been identical on these points. The late Government took the first step for gradually withdrawing British troops from South Africa, in order to draw out the self-reliance and the strength of the Colony, and that course had been carried on effectually by the present Government. But now came the question, how far the confederation suggested by the Motion before the House would advance that policy? The late Government took one step towards the extension of British territory in South Africa by admitting within the Queen's allegiance the tribe of the Basutos, which was a mutual advantage, as it removed the isolation of Natal, and gave a distinct intimation that if other places wished to own allegiance to the Queen, the same arrangement might be practicable, but on two conditions—namely, that the proposition tion must come from the territory itself, and that the arrangement should be maintained by the resources of the Colony, and not by the British taxpayer. There were several reasons for bringing the Orange and Transvaal Territories under one Government with the Cape Colony. There was much British capital invested in these South African districts; and if these large territories were brought within the colonial Government they would form a new and extensive field for British enterprize for many years to come. At the same time the result would be a gain to humanity, for the abominable and atrocious system of slavery which prevailed in those districts would at any rate be greatly cheeked; and so also would the constant wars and conflicts which were at present bred by border disputes. For the interests of peace, of humanity, and of commerce, it would be better if this consolidation of government could take place, and the whole South African territory, governed by English rulers, and on the principles of colonial government—now being happily again recognized, would be more useful to us than Algeria had been to France. It would be impossible to govern it from Downing Street; but if, under whatever local distribution of sub-government, it were all brought under the Queen's supreme executive at Cape Town, such an arrangement would be for the best interests of all concerned. He feared, however, that the people of the Transvaal Republic were too much wedded to the Commando system; were too much enamoured of slavery; and had become too much brutalized by it to desire now to join us. He doubted whether the Orange Free State would willingly return. Many unforeseen opportunities, however, might occur. No one could tell what would be the result of the discovery of gold and diamonds in the very heart and centre of this territory, for the influx of capital and speculation from Great Britain and from the rest of the world might bring about most important events. The States in question also had strong motives for uniting themselves with us—for access to the sea, and for a termination of mutual disputes and better government. He thought the hon. Member for Penrhyn had done good service in drawing this unanimous expression of opinion from the House on the subject; and if the opportunity should occur he hoped it would be found for the good of this country, and for the general interest of South Africa, that the suggested consolidation should take place.

concurred thoroughly in the reprobation expressed in reference to the abandonment by this country of the Orange River Territory. It was a fatal precedent if it was to be repeated; but he fancied he heard whisperings in the air that told him it would not be. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had made many unexceptionable protests against a proposal which nobody had ever made. Annexation? It had always been denounced and reprobated by that party in the House who contended for the maintenance and consolidation of our colonial Empire on free and federated principles. What they advocated was facilities for free agreement, and the announcement of a resolve on the part of the parent State to accept territory in the name of the Sovereign only where such agreement should be made. If those neighbouring States thought they did well in coalescing with us, they should be welcomed. But the hon. Gentleman, besides denouncing annexation, had distinctly approved the policy of the Duke of Newcastle, which he, for one, could never look back upon without regret. This was the very antithesis of the policy of annexation as commonly understood. Those who thought that discussions of colonial matters in the House of Commons were ineffectual might usefully contrast the tone of the Under Secretary that evening with the tone of his predecessor 12 months ago, and he made that observation not by way of taunt, but of encouragement. Those who were active in this matter last year received exceedingly little favour from Her Majesty's Government; but, if it was then desirable on general grounds that distant and outlying Colonies should be recognized and knit closer together as part and parcel of the Empire, how immeasurably had the importance of such a policy increased, through the events which had since occurred in Europe! To maintain, he would not say the pre-eminence, but the equality of this country, it was necessary to improve on our past colonial policy, and avoiding, as far as might be, conflicts upon land, to assume, as we were able to do, the place of the great ocean power of the world. This was not, and never ought to be, degraded into a question of party; it was a question of nationhood, of race, of language, of the spirit of a people, and must not be toned down by official answers or perfunctory criticisms upon the terms of a Motion, as to the best possible, or the next best possible, form of wording. Very possibly the wording of this Motion might be improved; but the hon. Member who brought it forward had done well, and wherever the English language was spoken, and the telegraphic wire could reach, feelings of gladness would be awakened when it was discovered that the English Parliament had not confined its attention merely to matters of local concern, but had extended its care to the best and most practical modes of cementing the power and amalgamating the forces of distant and outlying British possessions. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary had said that before other States were consolidated with British territory, it should be shown that they were able to rule themselves. The argument, he presumed, referred to Cape Town, and a portion to Natal. The contention was that States should become adults before they had any business to think of confederation. In reply, he would point to that marvellous aggregation of commonwealths at the other side of the Atlantic—bone of our bone, worshipping in our language, and whose Courts every day quoted the decisions of our Judges. What was their condition at the time they broke from the yoke of a lunatic king? ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; that was the best excuse that could be given for the murderous war by which it was sought to retain the Colonies—a war which brought into play the scalp- ing knife of the Red Indian—a war which every statesman looked back upon with regret, and which the people of this country, above everything else in their history, desired to be able to forget. In 1775, of the 13 States that defied the power of this country and asserted their independence, there were eight which had a collective area of 341,000 square miles, while the joint population of eight of those States numbered 816,000. The four States, which it was now proposed to combine in South Africa, had an area of 520,000 square miles, with a population of 911,000. In the physical element of importance, therefore, the South African communities were not deficient. Socially, they were every year improving in agriculture and trade; husbandry and handicraft were peaceably pursued both by colonists and Natives throughout the greater portion of the South African regions; and, although compulsory labour continued to exist in the border country, there were many signs that the Dutch were getting heartily sick of the system of "commands and apprenticeship," and were willing to cast both aside if they had the advantages of British connection. And now the discovery of gold and diamonds has imparted a new impulse to emigration, and offered a new stimulus to enterprize. Yet some hon. Members had talked of these Colonies in this debate as places semi-barbarous, and that we had better be rid of them. The noble Lord the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury) had talked of the Transvaal Republics. There happened to be no such places. There was, indeed, a Transvaal Republic, the worst and weakest of the whole group; but it was immaterial whether it came into the present scheme or not. He was amused by the coquetterie of ignorance practised by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, who had shown that he was not only well-informed, but ready to be further informed, on all these matters. The States of Natal, of the Orange Free State, and Cape Colony could, he believed, be eon-federated without a loud word or a deed of violence. In 1858 they had the offer of the Volksraad of the Orange Free State, who communicated officially to Sir George Grey, the then Governor, their desire to be included in a confederacy. It had been said that dominion over the Orange Free State, having once been wrongfully assumed, its people had resented our control, and that now we were well rid of them. But it did not follow, because the proceedings of 1848 have been untenable, that the policy of 1854 was therefore wise. Nor did the recollection of either render it impossible that three neighbouring communities might not come to see they had a common interest in forming one federalty. The memorable despatch of Sir George Grey, which had been made the pretext of his recall, remained unanswered, and incapable of answer, as a statement of our true policy in Southern Africa. If ever the real history of the transaction were challenged, his friends would not be slow to join issue as to the facts, and to vindicate the character and consistency of that remarkable man. He (Mr. W. M. Torrens) could not but regret, on public grounds, that Sir George Grey was no longer in the service of the State, whose interests he had served so well. Since that time, however, nothing more had been done in the matter. England had a laudable ambition that these territories should be permanently occupied by our race, as we had founded the greatest Colonies of the modern world. He did not, however, wish the old country to interfere in the internal affairs of the Colonies, except to insist that the institution of slavery should not be tolerated. The Colonies, he believed, would be greatly gratified by this Resolution being passed, and he was unable to perceive what possible harm it could do. He would now refer to a letter he had recently received from a gentleman long resident in Natal, who described the feeling there of vexation at the coldness and indifference shown by the Colonial Office in past times, and expressed his pleasure at seeing the commencement of a new career for the Colonies. The writer added—

"South Africa at present offers a noble field for the aggressive ambition of a Christian and colonizing nation—by aggressive I mean as regards the inroads of a beneficent civilization, rather than the encroachments of territorial greed, or political aggrandizement. With scarcely an exception, all the independent tribes between British frontiers and the Zambesi are seeking British protection, and are craving the good offices of our Secretary for Native Affairs, Mr. Thepstone, as a means of enabling them to live at peace with their neighbours."

If the House of Commons were selfish, isolated, and cold, the people of this country certainly were not so. They were not indifferent to the great question whether we should cement the Empire and maintain its place among the nations by a fusion of race, language, commerce, and arts, and thus keep for the Queen a heritage better worth bequeathing to her children, or whether we should leave the Empire worse than when we found it.

said, he had been astonished to hear the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) say that there was no authority for representing that the inhabitants of the countries under consideration had a desire to join the Cape Colonies. The noble Lord seemed to be unaware that a former Secretary of State, Sir Edward Lytton, wrote a despatch in 1858 to the Governor of the Cape, Sir George Grey, asking his opinion as to whether a federation of these States was desirable or not. Sir George Grey not only replied by recommending federation, but stated that the large majority of the inhabitants of the Transvaal Republic, had not been consulted on the subject of the Convention by which we got rid of the management of the territory of that Republic. The same thing was true as regards the Orange State, the abandonment of which was carried out in opposition to the wishes of all the wealthy and influential inhabitants of that country. The statement of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was unsatisfactory, because he had omitted one very important point which ought to be made to the House—namely, that so long as these Republics remained separate and independent the horrible and inhuman traffic in slavery would never be put down. That was a fact to which the House should direct its attention. In 1834 the Act of Emancipation was passed in the Cape Colony. Well, in 1835, these Boers left, because they were determined not to give up their slaves, passing into the Orange River Territory, and next into the Transvaal, and ever since had been engaged in war with the Natives. We might be sure that unless we in some manner attracted the Boers to the British Government, we should never put an end to the slave traffic. We ought, therefore, to encourage federation, in the hope that we should win back our former fellow-subjects.

said, after the debate which had taken place, he was willing to withdraw his Resolution.

, in rising to call attention to the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Ambassador quitted Paris, September 17, with reference to the statement on this subject made by the Prime Minister, said: Sir, in undertaking to deal with the question of which I have given Notice, I shall appeal with confidence to the impartial judgment of the House. I wish to be thoroughly impartial in what I have to state on this question. I have no personal feeling in the matter; and it is entirely on public grounds, and on account of the interest a great many people take in it, that I have ventured to bring the subject under the notice of the House, with the intention of asking the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the production of further Papers which will bear upon the subject. Now, I think I shall be able to show that in quitting Paris on the 17th of September, with only three other Representatives of foreign Powers, and leaving in Paris 18 Representatives of different States and Peoples until the middle of January, and in closing the British Consulate in that place, great injury was inflicted by the Ambassador upon British interests. The other day I used two expressions which I cannot but reiterate now, because I feel they are justly applicable to the circumstances under which the British Ambassador left Paris. I said that I considered his flight to be unmanly and to be ungenerous; and I said it on these grounds—I believe it was unmanly in him, on the 17th of September, when the instructions of the Foreign Secretary were that he should remain, to leave Paris and to neglect the interests and concerns of thousands of British subjects, who were in Paris at the time when the investment commenced. And I consider that it was ungenerous on his part to take away the whole corps of his Embassy, leaving in Paris only one inferior member of the Embassy—as the Prime Minister called him the other night—at the very time when, under Lord Granville's advice, the Government in London was pressing upon M. Jules Favre a negotiation with Count Bismarck, which, aided by the good offices of our Ambassador, might have resulted in peace and in the sparing of thousands and tens of thousands of people who have suffered in this war since the date when that negotiation was abruptly terminated. Before alluding further to the course taken by the British Ambassador, I wish to say one word about Lord Granville. As I said the other night, I have no desire to say intentionally any unkind word about my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. On the contrary, in common with a great many people, I have a strong personal regard for the noble Lord; but, like all other public men, his public acts must naturally be liable to be canvassed in this House. It so happens, however, that as regards his acts up to the 17th of September, they require no apology whatever. Lord Granville's instructions were clear and explicit, for he kept repeating to the British Ambassador this injunction — "Remain at your post, in Paris, and take care of the interests of British subjects;" and in doing this I think he adopted a course and displayed a spirit which would have been adopted and displayed by his predecessor under the Administration of Lord Palmerston. I wish to draw the attention of the House to several inaccuracies and misstatements which have been made on the subject of the British Consulate, and with regard to the British Ambassador. I know, of my own knowledge, that British merchants and poor people in Paris, in consequence of the neglect to which their affairs have been subjected, owing to the entire absence of any Representative of the British nation in that city, not only lost remittances and were put to great inconvenience and loss, owing to documents requiring the Consular visa and seal failing to obtain such official legalization; but failed to obtain the true value for such remittances which they received, and were otherwise unable to obtain that protection to which, under the Act which governs Consulates, they were entitled. I shall be able to show, therefore, that, in consequence of the entire closing of our Consulate and Embassy, great injury occurred; but, before I do so, let me refer to what has been said on recent occasions by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. It will be in the recollection of the House that this question has been brought before it two or three times. On the 13th of February the Under Secretary, in answer to a Question from an hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmid), said that the British Ambassador left Paris under the urgent advice of M. Jules Favre. Now, I regret to say that is not the case. The words are clear and distinct, and in Lord Lyons's despatch to Lord Granville on the 12th of September, they are repeated—"M. Jules Favre particularly begged me to remain." And when M. Jules Favre wrote to the Austrian Ambassador on the subject of leaving, he told Lord Lyons that no reference was made to him, and he still hoped our Ambassador would remain. The other day, when I asked a Question of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, I said—"Surely it must be advisable for the British Ambassador to remain to take care of the interests of British subjects." But the right hon. Gentleman said, in reply—

"The right hon. Baronet seems to think that the primary duty of the Ambassador in Paris is to take care of British subjects in Paris; but there cannot be a greater mistake."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 450.]

I never said anything about the "primary" duty of an Ambassador; but I maintain that it is the duty of such a functionary to take care of the interests of his fellow-countrymen under the circumstances in which they were placed, and the orders of Lord Granville, in this respect, were clear and distinct, and those given by Lord Palmerston's Government under similar circumstances were equally so. Therefore I repeat, I exculpate Lord Granville altogether. But when I said, speaking on the 17th of February—"There were 1,500 or 2,000 British subjects left in Paris, with nobody to take care of them," the right hon. Gentleman replied—"I can only say that, as regards the numbers mentioned by the right hon. Baronet, his information is entirely at variance with ours." After such a statement, it was with much satisfaction I saw in The Times a state- ment confirmatory of what I had said. In a letter, dated February 17, which appeared in The Times of February 20, a correspondent says—

"At present 1,500 British subjects are being kept from starvation by the Committee for the distribution of charity to the distressed English in Paris."

Therefore, my statement was not so far wrong. Yet the right hon. Gentleman twice contradicted me. The correspondent I have quoted also says—

"68,000f. have been expended by the Committee for the relief of British subjects in Paris, from August 1 to December 31; 23,000f. of which amount has been contributed alone by Mr. Richard Wallace, who since the new year has placed 10,000f. a month, in addition, at the disposal of the society."

It is impossible for any Englishman to speak in higher terms than I would of the philanthropy and conduct of Mr. Wallace during the whole time of the siege — indeed, his conduct has been almost worthy of the thanks of this House. I now come to the discussion of the particular point I have raised. The Prime Minister said to me the other day that Lord Lyons left Paris, acting under the direct injunctions of the Government. Now, I will show that Lord Lyons left on the 17th of September, and that in his last despatch, which is dated the 16th of September, not a single word occurs of the probability of his leaving Paris. And, again, the last depatch from Earl Granville at the Foreign Office, to Lord Lyons, before the 17th of September, was written on the 16th, and in that there is not a single word said of his leaving Paris. Therefore, when the Prime Minister says Lord Lyons left Paris under the direct injunctions of the Government, I can only say that those injunctions do not appear in the Blue Book; and it is a well-acknowledged principle that no Minister has a right to quote documents, or make assertions from official Papers, that have not been laid on the Table of the House. In this Blue Book there are no such direct injunctions from the Government to Lord Lyons. But the right hon. Gentleman says Lord Lyons acted in accordance with certain rules and regulations and considerations which had been supplied to him. I know of no rules and regulations and considerations applying to diplomatists under circumstances like these. I myself have been placed in circumstances almost pre- cisely similar to those under which Lord Lyons left Paris. During the Sunderbund War in Switzerland in 1847, when 180,000 men were engaged in civil war, I was at the head of our Mission in that country, and the French Ambassador came to me and tried to induce me to leave Berne, the seat of the Government. All the other missions had left. I had no telegraph by which to communicate with Lord Palmerston; but, without any rules or regulations, my own common sense told me that I ought to remain at my post, and I did remain, almost the only Representative of a foreign Power at Berne, when the French Ambassador, and other Missions, had left for other places. But I was amply rewarded; for I was complimented by the Swiss Government, and by Lord Palmerston and his Government, far more doubtless than I deserved. I want now to show exactly how matters stood with reference to Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador in Paris. Here is a despatch, dated September 5, containing Lord Granville's instructions to the British Ambassador. He says—

"Her Majesty's Government are in possession of your Excellency's telegraphic communications.…. And I have to instruct you to remain at your post as long as any of the Corps diplomatique are able to do so, with a view to protect, as efficiently as possible, the interests and the property of Her Majesty's subjects residing in France."—[No. 71.]

Nothing could be stronger than that. Lord Granville again writes on the 8th of September. He says—

"Her Majesty's Government would wish you to concert as much as possible with your Colleagues; but to remain in Paris as long as possible with the Government, except in case of immediate bombardment."—[No. 86.]

Now, the bombardment did not occur till about the middle of January, and I am now speaking of the 8th of September. I say, therefore, the orders of Lord Granville were clear and decisive that Lord Lyons should remain in Paris. There seems, however, to have been a person who had great influence over Lord Lyons. The most intimate relations existed between Prince Metternich and his family, and the Imperial Court of France, and therefore it was quite natural that he and his family should wish to leave Paris when things had arrived at the point they had now reached. On the 7th of September Lord Lyons wrote to Lord Granville—

"I am informed by Prince Metternich, the Austrian Ambassador, that he has received a telegram from Count Beust, directing him to point out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to chiefs of Missions at Paris, the great inconvenience, and indeed impropriety, of allowing the diplomatic body to be shut up in Paris during a siege, and thus deprived of the means of communicating with their respective Governments. Prince Metternich tells me that he has spoken in consequence to M. Jules Favre, and represented to him that it is incumbent on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give notice to the diplomatic body in time to enable them to leave Paris without undue haste or inconvenience. He adds that M. Jules Favre appears to take the same view. The Nuncio and the Spanish and Turkish Ambassadors, as well as other chiefs of Missions, have also come to-day to speak to me on the subject. I have said to all that, in principle, Count Beust's view appears to me just and reasonable; but that, for my own part, I do not desire to hasten my departure from Paris without very good cause. I shall, I have said, be disposed to act in concert with my Colleagues in the matter, and shall feel no difficulty about leaving Paris if I am requested or advised to do so by the French Government; but I shall be content to leave the matter as it stands without making any special representation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs."—[No. 84.]

He kept repeating that his desire was to remain in Paris; everybody was under the impression that these were the instructions he received, and it was hoped that he would carry it out. Now comes a letter, dated September 12, from Lord Lyons to Lord Granville. I find from this despatch in the Blue Book that there must be despatches omitted which would clear up a great deal, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us these Papers to set things in their proper light. Here is the letter from Lord Lyons—

"I have also the honour to enclose a copy of a note in which I have thanked M. Jules Favre for the offer of facilities; but have informed him that I do not, at present, intend to leave Paris. M. Jules Favre came to see me this morning, and spoke to me of the intention he had at one time entertained of going himself to Tours and establishing the Foreign Department there. He said that he had now abandoned this intention, because he had reason to believe that he could be of more use, with regard to the internal as well as the external affairs of France, by remaining with his Colleagues at Paris. I told M. Jules Favre that I had, of course, heard of the plan of going to Tours; but that I had purposely abstained from speaking to him on the subject. I would confess that I was, personally, disinclined to leave Paris; but nevertheless I had been willing to remain entirely passive, and await a communication on the subject from him. I would, however, now, as he had introduced the subject, ask him whether it was in truth the wish of the Government that the diplomatic body should retire from Paris. He answered that, on the contrary, the Government would much prefer our remaining here for the present. If the place were actually besieged or bombarded, the case might, he said, be different; but due notice would, of course, be given by the enemy before proceeding to any such extremities. I observed to M. Jules Favre that I should probably see many of my Colleagues in the course of the day, and I inquired whether be authorized me to say to them that, so far from wishing us to go at this moment, the Government, on the contrary, would be glad that we should stay. He replied that I might not only say this, but that I might add that he particularly begged us to remain."—[No. 112.]

The answer, therefore, of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State given to me and before referred to, on this particular point, was quite a mistake—the noble Lord not having been long enough in office probably to master all these matters. Here, also, is a letter from Lord Lyons to M. Jules Favre, dated Paris, September 11, 1870—

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note dated to-day, by which your Excellency is so good as to offer facilities for quitting Paris to any members of the diplomatic body who may desire to withdraw to Tours. I beg leave to express to your Excellency my thanks for this considerate offer. I am disinclined to quit Paris at this moment, and, as I gather from the conversation which I was so fortunate as to have with your Excellency this morning, that the Government has no desire that I should do so, but, on the contrary, would rather I should remain, I have no hesitation in informing you that I do not at present propose to move."—[Inclosure 2 in No. 112.]

In his despatch of the 12th of September, Lord Lyons says—"I have desired Mr. Atlee and Mr. Lascelles to leave Paris." Now recollect that Mr. Atlee was the British Consul. He was appointed to remain in Paris, and he should have remained; and, when he left, the Consular seal was no longer available to British merchants, nor his influence for poor persons who were placed under his protection. No one was appointed in his place. The excuse made for the Consul in the House of Lords was that he was a married man, and he left Paris under the orders of Lord Lyons; but Paris was the place where he was appointed to remain, and I cannot understand what authority Lord Lyons had for desiring him to leave Paris, without placing some one in his stead. It was at the back of the door of the British Consulate, which is at the Embassy House, that the notice was posted that, if British subjects remained, they would remain at their own peril, and the Consul had left Paris. I have been told by a number of Englishmen that they had not the slightest idea of the fact. Lord Lyons had the notice put in Galignani; but these people do not read Galignani, or the French papers, and were entirely ignorant of it. I now come to the letter of the 19th September. The British Ambassador left, or rather fled, on the 17th September. He wrote from Tours on the 19th. And here Prince Metternich again is evidently the person who induced him to leave Paris. Lord Lyons wrote—

"Prince Metternich, the Austrian Ambassador, came to me at Paris on the 17th inst., and told me that the Comte de Chaudordy, the head of the Cabinet of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had brought him a message from M. Jules Favre which made him think that it would be desirable that the Representatives of the principal European Powers should leave Paris at once, in order not to be cut off from communication with their Governments.……. I went accordingly to M. Jules Favre the first thing in the morning, and related to him what had passed between Prince Metternich and myself. I said that, for my own part, I thought that the Representatives of the principal European Powers might very well stay some time longer in Paris. …. M. Jules Favre answered that his message to Prince Metternich was specially intended for the Prince himself."—[No. 147.]

M. Jules Favre was to be the following morning at the head quarters of the Prussian Army, and at the very moment Lord Lyons left Paris negotiations for peace—at all events for an armistice—were going on between M. Jules Favre and Count Bismarck. The British Minister actually sent one of his attachés, Mr. Malet, to the Prussian outposts to facilitate communications between M. Jules Favre and Count Bismarck; and it might have been of immense service if the British Minister had remained in Paris to see the issue of these negotiations. Under the advice of the British Ambassador, these negotiations might have resulted in peace, and the war might have terminated on the 17th of September. But, in the very midst of these negotiations, the British Ambassador, who had sent Mr. Malet to the Prussian outposts, suddenly left Paris. There is no mention in the Blue Book of any telegraphic despatch sent by the British Ambassador from Paris to Lord Granville. Had such a despatch been received by Lord Granville, he might have telegraphed to Paris, desiring the British Ambassador to stick to his post. But Lord Lyons wrote the long letter of the 19th of September, in which he said—

"I said that I still disliked the idea of leaving Paris just yet; but that of course I should not hesitate to proceed to any place in which I could have a better prospect of being useful, and that after what he had said, if I found that my principal Colleagues thought it advisable that we should go off to Tours in the evening, I would no longer be an obstacle to their departure. The result has been, as your Lordship is already aware, that the Austrian Ambassador, Prince Metternich; the Ottoman Ambassador, Djemil Pacha; the Italian Minister, Chevalier Nigra; the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, M. Okouneff, and I, left Paris the night before last, and arrived here yesterday."—[No. 147.]

Lord Lyons told everybody that he wished to remain, and that nothing should induce him to leave Paris. He seems to have acted like a coy female—like a man, or rather like a woman, who did not exactly know her own mind. He said that he would go, and he would not go. Like Julia in Don Juan—

"A little still she strove, and much repented,

And whispering 'I will ne'er consent,' consented."

Lord Lyons at last "consented," because the Austrian Ambassador wanted him to leave Paris. He had already sent away Mr. Atlee and Mr. Lascelles. Whom did he leave? He said, "I will leave Colonel Claremont." Well, does the House know who Colonel Claremont is? He is what is called a military attaché—one of those appointments to which I, and, I believe, many other hon. Members, most strongly object. He has, I think, been for 16 years military attaché in Paris, and in the receipt of a salary of between £1,200 and £1,500 a-year—the Foreign Office paying a portion of the salary, and the War Office the rest. He has been 16 years military attaché, doing nothing; and the very moment when his services might have been called upon he leaves Paris. I do not know whether he is in receipt of his salary now; but I believe that for many weeks past he has been in Norfolk. Well, when the Vote comes on for maintaining these military and naval attachés, I shall entreat the House to support me in opposing it. These gentlemen are absolutely useless; the moment their services are required they leave their posts, and are never heard of afterwards. The British Government sent five or six officers to Versailles and Tours, and to General Chanzy's Army, but never Colonel Claremont; and the moment when he might have been expected to remain in Paris, taking an interest in the siege and attending to his duty, he entirely disappears. These military and naval attachés are, I repeat, the greatest farce in the world. Here is the conclusion of the celebrated despatch from our Ambassador, dated Tours, September 19. Lord Granville had told him not to leave Paris except in case of an immediate bombardment. Now, the bombardment did not occur till about the 15th of January, and Lord Lyons says he told Mr. Wodehouse to remain in Paris, but that he was to quit it if it was threatened with immediate bombardment, or with any other immediate danger. Why, "immediate bombardment" seems to have haunted Lord Lyons! He is told to stay until immediate bombardment is threatened; he goes away, and then he tells the attaché also that he must leave in case of the danger of immediate bombardment. I must say that the conduct of the British Ambassador appears to me most extraordinary, and to involve a dereliction of duty not only on his own part, but in the person of every member of the Embassy, such as almost to require the censure of this House. Sir, I hold in my hand a letter which I have received from a very respectable gentleman, for the accuracy of whose statement I can vouch. It is dated "Faubourg St. Honore, Paris, March 1, 1871," and here is an extract from it. The writer says—

"Allow me to thank you personally for having brought under the notice of the House of Commons the extraordinary state of abandonment of British subjects in Paris during the late siege by the German Armies. I am one of a considerable number of English residents here, who had serious reasons for incurring the risks of danger and privations during such a critical period, engaged as I am in a branch of trade which I could not absent myself from in such circumstances without exposing myself to great loss in various ways."

The writer then goes on to allude to the notice posted on the inner door of the British Consulate at the Embassy, and states that, one by one, all officially connected with the Embassy and Consulate by degrees deserted their post. He details the difficulties which arose in consequence of the informalities of the Consular certificates being without stamp, as regards remittances, and concludes—

"The goood offices of Mr. Washburne, the American Minister, were required for the English who left in the course of the siege, as the passes delivered by Colonel Claremont were issued by the American Legation, and signed by the American Minister."

Surely it was too hard that British subjects in Paris should have been obliged to look for protection to the American Minister. And, in referring to Mr. Washburne, I must say it is impossible to speak too highly of his conduct. Not only has he obtained the warm thanks of the German subjects in Paris who were under his care, but also of many British subjects in Paris to whom he rendered good service. I have received another letter from an English gentleman who had resided in Paris for many years, and who says—

"In my own name, and that of many other English residents in Paris, I beg to offer you my most sincere thanks for having brought before Parliament the disgraceful manner in which we, British subjects, were abandoned during the siege of Paris."

He goes on to say—

"On the 17th our Ambassador fled, and so hasty was his flight that he did not take the precaution of placing his unfortunate countrymen under the protection of some friendly Minister who remained in Paris."

He continues—

"Every other country had either their Minister or Consul General. England alone had no one to represent her. Mr. Washburne generously extended his protection to many English who were in want of it."

And he states that hundreds of English ran great risk of perishing from want. I have many other letters of a similar character, all referring to the kindness of the American Minister, and showing how the interests of Englishmen were neglected by their own Legation. What is still more remarkable, I hold in my hand the copy of a letter published in The Times of September 15, 1870, signed "Edward Blount" (who was appointed British Consul after a delay of months), and written when it was supposed that everybody would be obliged to leave Paris. It is to this effect—

said, that it appeared to him there were two important points in this question for the consideration of the House. First, whether Her Majesty's Government were right in recommending Her Majesty's Ambassador to leave Paris when the siege began; and, secondly, whether Lord Lyons was right in ordering the British Consul to leave that city at the same period. Upon the former of those questions he entirely disagreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), while he entirely agreed with him respecting the latter. The right hon. Baronet had stated to the House that—as he chose to call it—the flight of the British Ambassador from Paris was most unmanly — that he ought to have stopped in Paris in order to take care of the interest of the British subjects inhabiting that city. The right hon. Baronet showed by that observation that he did not accurately understand what was the duty of the British Ambassador at Paris. In his opinion, there were two clear duties which every Ambassador who represents this country ought to discharge. His first and primary duty—to adopt the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—was to look after the interests of this country, with regard to all the affairs which might connect us in any way with foreign nations; and his second, to descend to individual cases and to look after individual rights; but it was a well-known theory of political economy that the rights of individuals come after the rights of States. The right hon. Baronet had ventured to give a Swiss precedent, and had told the House that when he was in Switzerland he did not leave his post, though he had no instructions on the subject. There really was no precedent in that case at all, as it did not involve our relations with one of the greatest nations in Europe. It did not involve the dragging of ourselves into one of the most perilous wars in history. On the contrary, the conduct of the Government in the present case appeared to be clear and intelligible. They told Lord Lyons that he was to remain in Paris, and to look after the interests of British subjects while he there remained; but it was perfectly obvious that that was not to be the primary object of his remaining there. The right hon. Baronet had himself quoted from despatches which showed plainly that Lord Lyons, on the 12th of September, did not think of leaving Paris simply because M. Jules Favre had given up the idea of leaving that city. When the Ministers representing Russia, Austria, and Turkey left Paris it would have been of the gravest importance to this country had its Ambassador been locked up in Paris for an indefinite period. Upon this point the right hon. Baronet had completely refuted himself, because he had gone on to show how important it was to obtain, as Lord Lyons did, a safe conduct for Monsieur Thiers, to enable him to negotiate with Count Bismarck—a service which Lord Lyons would have been unable to render had he been shut up in Paris. The reason why Lord Lyons changed his opinion between the 12th and 19th of September on the subject of his remaining in Paris was, because on the 17th of that month it had become perfectly obvious that the city was to be closely besieged; that there would be no communication between those within its walls and the outer world; and that, consequently, the British Ambassador would not be able to maintain that correspondence with Her Majesty's Government which was necessary for the interests not only of this country, but also of France and of Europe. It therefore appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had not made out his case as far as regarded his charge against Lord Lyons. But as far as Lord Lyons was concerned, under any aspect of affairs—under any view of the case, the right hon. Baronet had hardly a right to say that the flight of the noble Lord from Paris was unmanly. It was not upon such a consideration that Lord Lyons had quitted that city. The House would rest assured that even in the event of Lord Lyons having been mistaken in the course he had pursued, the noble Lord had acted under a strong sense of duty, and that he had left Paris in the belief that he could serve his country best by so doing. There was, however, the other charge, which he regarded as the much more serious of the two, and as the one which more closely affected British interests. In his view there was a great difference between the position of an Ambassador and that of a Consul. While the primary duty of an Ambassador was to look after the interests of his country, the primary duty of a Consul was to look after the interests of indi- viduals; and accordingly, if there was a state of danger in any particular place, there was all the more reason for the presence of a British Consul. He had travelled in various countries, and had found a reference to a British Consul of the very greatest importance. Lord Lyons appeared to him to have been guilty of a mistake in permitting the British Consul to leave Paris simply on the ground that he was a married man. Without desiring that the British Consul in that city should have been more rash in exposing himself to danger than other Consuls in similar circumstances, he thought that that gentleman should not have consulted his own interests before those of the persons whom he was sent to look after; and, therefore, even if he did run some risk by remaining in Paris, he ought to have remained in order to succour British subjects who might be in distress. Since he (Mr. Goldsmid) had asked the Question which he had put to the Government some time ago, he had received several letters from Paris, in which he was informed by the writers that the sufferings and distress among the poor English during the siege knew no bounds, and they corroborated what the right hon. Baronet had said, that they had gone in crowds to the British Consulate, and endeavoured to obtain assistance, but they found nobody but a porter at the Consulate, who told them that everybody else had left. That, most certainly, was not a satisfactory state of things. As the right hon. Baronet had said—and said well—though these poor people were succoured by the noble charity of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Blount, and the brother of the Member for Nottingham, who did that work during the whole of the siege, still it was a work which should not have been thrown on private hands. He believed it to be a fact that, at a subsequent period, Lord Lyons had discovered that he had made a mistake in removing the British Consul from Paris, and had endeavoured to get him back into Paris; but that the endeavour totally failed. If this was true, it went strongly to show that his view of the case was the correct one; but, under any aspect of it, the House ought to have some better reason for the absence of the Consul than that he was ordered to leave because he was a married man. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether there was any other ground on which the English Consul had been removed, and had thereby left the interests of the poor English totally unprotected? The answer that had been formerly given in regard to the poor English in Paris—that if they were unprotected it was their own fault, because a notice was put up at the door of the Consulate that they were to leave at a certain time, was, in his opinion, hardly an answer at all; because a great number of the very poor English in Paris had a great deal more to do in order to earn their daily livelihood than to go looking about for notices which might or might not be attached to the door of the Consulate. It was a very serious matter that these poor people had been without the means of protection which they ought to have had. There was another point on which he had a word to say—that Paris was one of the few places where a Consul also occupied the position of an attaché. Now, was this a desirable mixture in Paris? He thought the duties of a Consul and those of an attaché ought to be so entirely distinct; and that, in Paris especially, the duties of Consul were of such importance that the two offices ought to be confided to different persons, and that the Consul ought to have nothing else to do. His principal reason for saying this was that, according to his information, on many occasions long before the siege of Paris, British subjects made application at the Consulate for the performance of the various duties which Her Majesty's Consuls usually attended to, and only found a clerk, who, from want of knowledge, was not able, or from superciliousness, was not willing to comply with the requests made to him. This was a matter of much importance to English interests; and he hoped it would in future receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. For the reasons he had given he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet as to the departure of Lord Lyons, but thought it was the right and proper course to take under the circumstances; but, on the other hand, he joined with the right hon. Baronet in deeply regretting that, during the long and terrible siege of Paris, there was no Consul in that city to look after the interests of British subjects.

said, his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Robert Peel) had referred with laudable pride to his own conduct in 1847, and he had a perfect right to do so, for he (Mr. B. Cochrane) perfectly remembered the generosity and the courage with which the right hon. Baronet acted at that time. The right hon. Baronet also referred to the gratification with which he received the approval of his conduct by the Government, than which nothing could certainly be more encouraging to an official who had been placed in difficult and painful circumstances. But even before the approbation of the Government of the day was the approbation of Parliament; and therefore he regretted that his right hon. Friend, who was always so generous in his character and in his emotions, had not considered the matter a little more before he had made this attack upon the Ambassador at Paris, who throughout his career had won the respect and affection of everyone who knew him, and the confidence of both sides of the House, and who had on the present occasion justified by his conduct the approval which Parliament had in time past bestowed upon him, and would bestow again. Now, his right hon. Friend was the last man to put a thing unfairly; but yet there was something like a suppressio veri in his manner of putting his case before the House. His right hon. Friend said that Lord Lyons acted in direct opposition to his instructions, and that he did so from unmanly—in fact, from cowardly motives. Before proceeding to examine the evidence on this point he must say, with regard to the policy pursued by Lord Granville, that so far as Lord Lyons and the British subjects in Paris were concerned, the policy was a generous one. The first despatch to which he would refer was one from Lord Granville to Lord Lyons, in which he wrote—

"I have to instruct your Lordship to remain at your post as long as any of the Corps diplomatique are able to do so. … In the event of Her Majesty the Empress deciding to retire from Paris, with a view to maintaining the Imperial Government with even a mere shadow of power, you will under no circumstances follow Her Majesty."—[No. 71.]

This showed clearly that at the time the despatch was written Paris was neither invested nor besieged. Coming to the despatches themselves, he must say that in the comments upon them but scant justice had been done to Lord Lyons. In one of the despatches the noble Lord said he had heard of a plan to remove the Government to Tours, but he purposely abstained from speaking to M. Jules Favre on the subject, as he was personally disinclined to leave Paris; and in another despatch, dated the 19th, he repeated that two days earlier he had expressed the same disinclination to Prince Metternich the Austrian Ambassador, adding that, nevertheless, he should leave the city if it appeared he could be more useful elsewhere. After reporting a part of the conversation between himself and Jules Favre, the despatch of Lord Lyons proceeded as follows (and this passage the right hon. Baronet did not read to the House):—

"In the meantime he" (Jules Favre) "would advise me to take advantage of the train he had ordered for Tours, as by doing so I should, perhaps, learn the result of his mission sooner than if I remained in Paris, and, at all events, he was far from thinking it desirable that the Representatives of the principal European Powers should run the risk of being shut up in Paris and deprived of free communication with their Governments."—[No. 147.]

[Mr. G. B. GREGORY: Read the next paragraph.] The next paragraph was as follows:—

"I said that I still disliked the idea of leaving Paris just yet, but that of course I should not hesitate to proceed to any place in which I could have a better prospect of being useful, and that after what he had said if I found that my principal Colleagues thought it advisable that we should go off to Tours in the evening, I would no longer be an obstacle to their departure."—[Ibid.]

He understood his right hon. Friend to say that the other Ambassadors remained in Paris; but Lord Lyons, in a despatch which he wrote to Lord Granville on the 19th of December from Tours, said—

"The Austrian Ambassador, Prince Metternich; the Ottoman Ambassador, Djemil Pacha; the Italian Minister, Chevalier Nigra; the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, M. Okouneff, and I, left Paris the night before last, and arrived here yesterday."—[Ibid.]

He (Mr. B. Cochrane) thought he could clearly prove to his right hon. Friend that M. Jules Favre, instead of protesting against Lord Lyons leaving Paris, urged him in the strongest manner to leave Paris, and Lord Lyons gave up his own convictions in order to perform his duty towards the Government and the country. He thought this was a question on which he ought not to trouble the House at any length. The question lay in a nutshell, and he could only repeat that his right hon. Friend marred the powerful speech which he made by his attack upon Lord Lyons. Nothing could be more distressing to any man who attempted to do his duty in most arduous and difficult times than to find himself subjected to this description of attack. Every Ambassador must act on his own judgment and discretion in these matters. Lord Lyons acted with that great discretion which he always showed. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) was very pleased that his right hon. Friend had brought forward this question again, because he thought Lord Lyons in a recent despatch showed that he felt very deeply the attack made upon him some days ago in the House, and he (Mr. B. Cochrane) believed the unanimous feeling of the House would be that Lord Lyons had deserved well of his country.

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) stated in the outset of his observations that it would be his duty to ask the Government to produce further Papers bearing upon the subject of Lord Lyon's departure from Paris. These Papers have already been laid on the Table, though I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman has seen them. I had hoped they would have been circulated to-day; but, whether they have been so or not, I shall observe the invariable rule adopted in this House of not alluding to Papers which Members may not have yet seen. But this I will venture to say—that, if the right hon. Gentleman reads those Papers with the same care and attention he has devoted to other Papers in the Blue Book, he will become convinced that the conduct of Lord Lyons was neither "unmanly nor ungenerous;" but, on the contrary, it was dictated by everything that was kind, generous, and humane. I may be well content to leave the defence of that noble Lord not only to the approbation of Her Majesty's Government, as expressed in the Blue Book, but to those speeches which we have heard this evening from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) and the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), and which go directly to contradict what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has said with respect to the conduct of Lord Lyons; and I feel sure that every hon. Member, on whatever side of the House he may sit, who has studied the career of the noble Lord for upwards of 32 years, will feel that to apply the epithets "unmanly and ungenerous" would be altogether a great mistake, to use the mildest Parliamentary expression. It will be my duty to bring back to the consideration of the House the position in which the English Embassy was placed after the departure of Lord Lyons on the 17th of September. If it be urged against the noble Lord that he did wrong to allow Mr. Atlee and others to quit the Embassy, I think he might fairly claim for himself, in his high position, the right to select the subordinate he thought best fit for a particular duty; and by his selection of Mr. Wodehouse to remain in Paris, I believe British interests did not suffer. Mr. Wodehouse remained in Paris from September 17th up to November 8th; but during the month of October Lord Lyons, naturally solicitous for the interests of the British residents remaining in Paris, and of the remaining portion of the diplomatic staff, obtained from the Prussian authorities a safe conduct; and the British residents received due notice to leave the city, under the safe convoy of Mr. Wodehouse. That was done, and I believe he used every means in his power, and gave every information at his disposal, to enable those residents to quit. Accordingly, from 80 to 90 of them left Paris on the 8th of November, under the safe convoy of Mr. Wodehouse; but, unfortunately, it came to the knowledge of Lord Lyons that there were still a certain number of British residents who, whether from their inability to obtain the information as to the safe convoy that was circulated in the widest possible manner, or whether they had a dislike to leave their homes in the city, still remained there. Every exertion was used to induce them to quit; our military attaché was willing to accompany them—our naval attaché was also willing to go with them, but was unable, through illness, to leave the city—but when Colonel Claremont finally quitted Paris, these remaining British residents, from unwillingness or inability, did not accompany him. Now, when I hear grave reflections made on the character of Colonel Claremont, and when it is stated that, when the Estimates are brought forward, the House will be asked to refuse the Vote for Colonel Claremont's services, I hope I may then be in a position to prove that during the 14 years Colonel Claremont has occupied the position of military attaché to the Embassy of Paris, he has done his duty as a soldier and as a gentleman. It is not to be denied that a certain number of British residents yet remained in the city, and that from the 8th of December until the middle of January no actually accredited person represented the British Embassy; but by means of the British Charitable Fund, a gentleman, Mr. Blount by name, was enabled to convey that assistance to those residents which, from strategical motives, it was impossible could be conveyed by an accredited official representative. Mr. Blount acted with such humanity, generosity, and delicacy of feeling that he won the approbation of this House and the country. It was impossible, from the 8th of December to the middle of January, for the gentlemen of the Embassy, who had been desired by Lord Lyons on no account to quit France, to obtain a permit to pass through the Prussian lines into Paris; and consequently during that time, those gentlemen were absent from the city. But on the 20th of January a commission was sent to Mr. Blount to act as British Consul, and from that time up to a very few days ago that gentleman has acted in defence of British interests in a way which will, I am sure, obtain the approbation of everyone not only in this House, but in the country. And while on this subject I am anxious to correct what was doubtless an unintentional mistake on the part of the right hon. Baronet when he said that Mr. Blount was superseded, or likely to be removed from those duties. Now, if my memory serves me correctly, it was at Mr. Blount's own request that that commission was cancelled. It was cancelled because he felt that the period during which he had to perform the services he rendered with so much zeal and ability had expired, and he was anxious to receive relief in regard to the duties he had undertaken. He was accordingly relieved at his own request, and the thanks of Her Majesty's Government had been conveyed to him for what he had done. It is to be regretted that during a certain portion of the time to which I have referred there was actually no Representative of the British Embassy in Paris; but I believe it was unfortunately through the stress of circumstances, and strategical reasons, that anyone was prevented from passing through the Prussian lines into Paris; and I venture to say, believing the House will agree with me, that the fact of Lord Lyons having quitted Paris at the time and under the circumstances he did will not detract from the high appreciation of his public services which has been entertained both by this House and by the country, whom the noble Lord has served so long and so faithfully.

said, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had called the conduct of Lord Lyons "unmanly and ungenerous." Now it struck him that if there was anything unmanly or ungenerous it was that a Member of the House of Commons should get up and attack one who had no means of defending himself in that House. Lord Lyons, as the noble Viscount had stated, had served for many years in various parts of the world, and had always been looked up to with the greatest respect for the high qualities which he possessed. No blame whatever was to be attached to Lord Lyons for leaving Paris under the circumstances. He had clear instructions for what he had done; but, at all events, some discretion must be left to persons in his position, and Lord Lyons had acted with the greatest circumspection. If he had remained in Paris the right hon. Baronet would probably have accused the Government of want of foresight for having left him there, when he might have been of much more use elsewhere. At the time Lord Lyons received his instructions, it was the general opinion that the bombardment of Paris was going to begin; Lord Lyons was accredited to the Emperor, and was bound to remain with the Government of France, whatever that Government might be. When Lord Lyons removed from Paris, and authorized Mr. Atlee to leave Paris also, he ought to have received instructions from the Foreign Office to appoint some one in Mr. Atlee's place to look after the interests of British subjects. The noble Lord stated that Mr. Blount was not appointed to act as British Consul until January 20; whereas Lord Lyons ought to have given him some sort of official position before he left, so that distressed British subjects might have applied to him for relief. British Consuls abroad had authority to advance money to distressed British subjects, and out of the 2,000 in Paris some would no doubt have gladly availed themselves of the assistance of their Consul to return to their native country. Any such outlay, if asked for by the Government, would gladly have been voted by that House. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the United States Minister had remained in Paris, and had been most useful to British subjects. No doubt if the United States Minister received instructions from his Government to remain in Paris during the siege, he was bound to do so, and not to go away. But when we saw the Representatives of great countries—Italy, Austria, Turkey, and Russia—leaving Paris; all under the same circumstances, and all of one mind, he thought it was quite enough to convince Lord Lyons that the time was come for him to leave Paris too. It was stated that 17 Representatives of foreign Powers had remained; but he doubted whether there was among them the Minister of any country that took a great part in the affairs of Europe, and the British Ambassador was therefore quite right to associate himself with those who accompanied the Delegate Government. It was remarkable that the right hon. Baronet who had brought the accusation against Lord Lyons had himself served, and with credit, in the diplomatic circle, and consequently must have been aware that a man in the position of the Ambassador in Paris must take upon himself a great deal of responsibility, and that if he could not at any moment ask for instructions he must act on his own discretion. He trusted that the House would not hear any more hard words thrown at one who occupied so high a position in the public service as Lord Lyons. His personal acquaintance with that nobleman was very slight; but he was well acquainted with his public career, and no man was more deserving of the high opinion of his fellow-countrymen.

said, he did not wish to join the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) in any harsh language directed towards Lord Lyons, or against his having left Paris. Upon this point, he thought there could hardly be a question that Lord Lyons discharged his duty, and that the Government were pleased that he accompanied the French Government to Tours. But there was an important question which had been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, and by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), and which the Under Secretary of State had in no way met. His Lordship said that Lord Lyons had the power of selection. No doubt he had. Lord Lyons had the right of selection; and he had abundant opportunities of selection. At the time of the breaking out of the war there were in Paris, in addition to our Ambassador, a secretary of the Embassy with a salary of £1,000 a-year; three second secretaries with salaries ranging from £400 to £250; a military attaché, Colonel Claremont, receiving £500 a-year from the Foreign Office, a naval attaché similarly paid, a third secretary, and an unpaid attaché. Mr. Atlee was not only our Consul but registrar and librarian to the Embassy, and, in addition to a salary of £570, he received £200 a-year for office expenses and house rent. The total charge of the British Embassy at Paris, leaving out the expense of keeping up the official residence, and only reckoning the salaries, was £14,000 a-year; and yet it was impossible for the British Embassy, with its numerous subordinates, to find a single man to leave in charge at the Embassy under circumstances entailing great difficulty and distress among some 2,000 British subjects. Mr. Atlee the Consul, and Mr. Lascelles were sent out even before Lord Lyons left, upon the ground that they had very little or nothing to do, and that he could, therefore, spare their services. And his noble Friend (Viscount Enfield) thought it a justification of what Lord Lyons had done that they were only sent to Versailles. When, however, he wanted to send Mr. Atlee back into Paris, he found he could not do so, and that he had put him outside the possibility of being of any service. If it had been thought right to allow Mr. Atlee to leave Paris, some other official should have been left to take care of British interests, and as this had not been done the House had a right to call in question Lord Lyons' judgment and discretion in allowing the Consul to quit Paris at so very early a period. Let hon. Members consider what Mr. Atlee had to do. He was not only an attaché and a Consul, but a librarian. The librarian had to take charge of the archives of the Embassy. What were those archives? The Foreign Office would tell them that they were manuscripts of great value. Probably, they would go back to a remote period—to possibly a century. The rule at the Foreign Office had been to send copies of important despatches to Paris, and to allow the Embassy there to take copies of such despatches from our Ambassadors on the Continent as used to pass through Paris, in order that our Ambassador in that capital might be well informed in all matters of diplomacy. But our Foreign Office was like the Bourbons: it learnt nothing and forgot nothing, and the old system, which might have been necessary before the days of telegraphs, railways, and steamboats, was still kept up. All these archives were left at the Embassy during the siege. They were at the mercy of the bombardment, and the librarian, whose special duty it was to take care of them, was not there to protect them, if necessary, with sandbags. Perhaps, if all these despatches had been destroyed, it would be no serious loss either to England or Europe; but at least, as Consul, Mr. Atlee was bound to be at his post to look after the interests of British subjects, when other countries were represented during the siege by their proper Representatives. The noble Lord had, in fact, admitted this part of the case; but he argued that Lord Lyons had a right to select Mr. Wodehouse to remain in the place of Mr. Atlee, and if he had remained to the end of the siege, and discharged the duties of Consul throughout, there would have been nothing to complain of. But Mr. Wodehouse's departure was only a question of time. The very first note of danger carried away Mr. Atlee and Mr. Lascelles, and by the end of September Lord Lyons not only took his departure, but carried away with him almost the whole personnel of the Embassy. Mr. Wodehouse, in November, also left, and when he did so, he left behind him in Paris from 1,500 to 2,000 British residents not gentlemen of property and with the means of leaving Paris, but people who were chained there by the circumstances of their lives. Hundreds of them could not leave. While Mr. Wodehouse took with him 80 or 90 British residents, and conveyed them through the Prussian lines, he left from 1,500 to 2,000 behind, disregarded and ignored by the whole of the British Embassy. He had received a letter from a British tradesman in Paris, stating that he had sustained a large amount of inconvenience in Paris by the fact that, from the middle of November till the middle of January, there was absolutely no British Representative in Paris. The presence of Mr. Blount only dated from the end of the siege, on the occasion of the armistice. In The Daily News, whose correspondence on the war had been remarkably accurate, a letter had appeared from their correspondent in Paris, who had some business to transact at the Embassy, and he said that when he went there a porter, mopping the stairs, was the only visible Representative of the British Government. This porter showed him into a room, and presently a little man in slippers came in, and told him he had been summoned from some cleaning operations upstairs, and produced a seal and spat on it, and, with gentle persuasion, succeeded in affixing the seal to his credentials, and then gave the document to him to get signed by Mr. Blount; that he then went to Mr. Blount, who was very kind for a Consul, but said he was totally ignorant of his new duties, and then signed the document. It was incomprehensible that such a state of things should occur, and, not being satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, he hoped when the Estimates came to be discussed that it would be found possible to save the pockets of the taxpayers in the matter of the Paris Embassy without damage to the State.

said, he thought it of the utmost importance that Lord Lyons should be at the seat of Government in France; and, having been at Bordeaux on a mission of charity, he could testify to the zeal and devotion of the noble Lord in the discharge of his duties there. It would not have been possible to give full effect to the benevolence of the English people had it not been for the personal interest taken by Lord Lyons in this effort, as he said, to sweeten the relations between the two countries, and had it not been also for the authority he exerted.

Two points have been raised in the course of this debate, and in both the conduct of Lord Lyons has been impugned. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) will not think me too critical if I say that he has mixed up, in a manner not the most expedient with a view to perfect justice in the case before us, two distinct characters—one, that of a judge upon the Papers before the House, and the other that of a diplomatic reformer and economist—a career in which I heartily wish him success. If my hon. Friend objects, as we know he does, to the diplomatic establishments which he seeks to prove unnecessary—and we shall be very glad if he can prove them to be unnecessary—he ought not to fortify his case against them by any biassed judgment upon questions affecting the conduct of the members of those establishments upon a particular occasion. Now, Sir, we do not deny that there has been suffering, which was less adequately relieved than it would have been if a British Representative had been in Paris all through the period of the siege. The question is—how that came about, and whether blame is justly attributable to Lord Lyons. We contend that blame is not justly attributable to Lord Lyons. My hon. Friend, unintentionally of course, did not state with perfect accuracy the time during which there was no British Representative in Paris. I understood him to say that period began in the middle of November and continued till the 18th of January. When Lord Lyons left Paris he exercised his individual judgment as to the person he had better leave behind to take care of British interests; and in a despatch written at the time, and circulated to-day, he advisedly determined—and I see no reason to doubt that his decision was a good one—that it would be better to leave Mr. Wodehouse, on account of his being able to discharge diplomatic functions as well as Consular duties, than to leave Mr. Atlee to perform the latter duties alone, Mr. Wodehouse being perfectly well able to take care of the interests of British subjects. Mr. Wodehouse continued in Paris till a certain day in November, and when he left a certain number of British subjects went with him. I am bound to say, in passing, that we do not subscribe to the estimate given of the number of British subjects who remained behind. We have no means of giving accurate information upon that subject; but we believe the number to be very greatly less than was stated upon hypothesis by an hon. Gentleman opposite, and very considerably less than was stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel). But these functions for caring for British subjects were passed on by Mr. Wodehouse to Colonel Claremont, who remained in Paris until December 12. That, therefore, was the period from which, the unfortunate interval commenced. It has been already stated by my noble Friend (Viscount Enfield) that the mind of Lord Lyons was directed to this subject; and it was not the fault of any British authority that no person was sent into Paris, after Colonel Claremont left it, for the purpose of looking after those destitute persons. Efforts were made to send in a Consul; but the rules then enforced by the besieging army made this impossible, no one being allowed to cross the lines. That, I believe, is the simple state of the case; and, under these circumstances, although we may lament what happened, I cannot think that blame attaches to Lord Lyons for what it was impossible he could foresee, and what, through military exigencies, it became beyond his power to prevent. That is one question, and with respect to the other, I appeal to the candour of my right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) whether, during the whole of the debate, the opinion of the House has not been against him with regard to the departure of Lord Lyons from Paris. It is impossible to fix the blame upon him for two reasons. In the first place, although we did not at a given moment telegraph to Lord Lyons and say—"Now the time is come at which you must leave Paris," we did provide him with directions as to the circumstances under which he was to leave, and upon those directions we consider he acted. If, therefore, anybody is to blame in the matter it is the Government, who have made themselves responsible for his conduct. But I think my right hon. Friend, in his treatment of this case, has given undue importance to those duties which are inferior, and has forgotten, or placed out of view, those duties which are paramount. We felt it to be of paramount importance that Lord Lyons should continue in a position in which he could communicate with the French Government and also with us. That condition it was impossible to fulfil unless he quitted Paris, and, in our opinion, he exercised a perfectly sound judgment, as well as acted within the spirit of his instructions, in the choice he made. I am very glad that Lord Lyons, when he becomes acquainted—as doubtless he will—with the tenour of this debate, will find that the course of the discussion has abounded with testimony as to his merits and high character, which the slightest disposition has not been shown to disparage, while, as to the particular case of his having quitted Paris, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth will be of opinion that he has opposed to his view the unanimous sentiment of the House.

rose to call the attention of the House to the recent establishment, under the orders of the Secretary of State for India, of a College, to the students of which are to be transferred the opportunities until lately afforded to young men possessing the attainments required (wherever they might have been educated) of entering the service of the Government of India as Civil Engineers; and to move the following Resolution:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, young men qualified by character and attainments for admission into the service of the Government of India as Civil Engineers, ought not to be excluded from such service by reason of their not having been educated at a Government College,"

The hon. Baronet said that the question raised by this Resolution had been mentioned by him during last week's debate on Indian Finance, but that it had been impossible, amidst the multiplicity of topics which that debate involved, that either he or his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India should discuss this particular subject in a manner worthy of its importance; and that he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) therefore, now asked permission to bring it distinctly under the notice of the House. It was important not only because it affected the competency of the persons to whom was to be entrusted an expenditure amounting, as appeared from the recent Financial Statement, to £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a-year, but also because the arrangement proposed by the Government was a departure from the entire course of the policy for some years past adopted by them, and approved by the House and the country. It would be remembered that, when the rule of India was transferred, from the East India Company to the Crown, the whole Civil Service of that country had been thrown open to public competition Haileybury College, where formerly young men nominated for appointments in that service received their education, was closed. The Under Secretary of State said that this step was taken not because Haileybury was useless, but because pupils had been admitted to it by nomination only. If, however, this was the reason, why was not admission to Haileybury thrown open to public competition, instead of the institution being abolished? Again, this principle of open competition, which had now for some years been tried with reference to the Civil Service of India, had so commended itself to the general opinion that, when last year the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) brought forward a Motion for the extension of the same principle to the Civil Service at home, the Prime Minister announced the intention of the Government to make arrangements for at once applying it to nominations in several Departments; and these arrangements were shortly afterwards carried into effect. When the Civil Service of India had thus for years been thrown open to the ablest candidates, wherever educated, when the same principle was being extended by the present Ministry to large branches of the Home Service, how were we to explain the fact that this same Ministry was almost at the same moment announcing that through one door alone should admission be obtained to one particular department of the Indian Civil Service? The only possible reason for so wide a departure from the whole course of recent policy would be that the Government could not get the want that had suddenly arisen for civil engineers, to be employed by them in India, supplied by any other means. And, accordingly, the Under Secretary of State had informed the House that he would show conclusively that the attempts of the Government to obtain the men they required by open competition had failed. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) did not dispute this; but he said that they failed not through the absence of a special place of education, but because the terms offered had been too low to attract young men of first-rate ability and attainments. Hon. Members might say—"On such a point as the proper rate of remuneration we must necessarily trust the opinion of the Go- vernment, not yours." But on this point it was the opinion of the Government that he asked them to trust. The Secretary of State had shown that he thought his previous offer too low by largely increasing it. The rules of 1869 (p. 1–4) offered £20 a-month, or £240 a-year, and left the time when that salary might be increased wholly uncertain. The prospectus of 1870 offered £420 a-year from the time of admission to the service. Thus the new offer was to the old in the proportion of 7 to 4; or, if one supposed the outfit, which in each case the young engineer would have to pay for himself, to cost £60, the net receipt for the first year was now doubled, being £360 instead of £180. Why did not the Government try this liberal increase of remuneration in the first instance, instead of rushing at once to the foundation of a College? Why were all to be excluded from the Government service, however great their qualifications, who could not afford to pay for their collegiate training £150 a-year? He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) did not know whether hon. Members had had occasion to make themselves acquainted with advertisements of eligible private academies. It appeared to him that the prospectus of the new College bore too close a resemblance to this branch of light literature. The provision in Paragraph 25 that each student would be required to furnish his own linen, &c., for use in his room, reminded one irresistibly of the usual declaration that every pupil must bring six towels; and, though the accompanying silver spoon and fork were not to be found in the present edition, he had little doubt that they would appear in the next. But it was more important that the making of education in this College a necessary preliminary to the admission of young Englishmen to the Civil Engineering Service of India amounted to an announcement that the noble Principal had, by an arrangement with his partners in Downing Street, secured exclusive privileges and patronage for the pupils enjoying the benefit of his care. By not trying, in the first instance, the experiment of raising their rate of remuneration, the Government had lost the most convenient opportunity of ascertaining the necessity for establishing a College. But it was still possible to avoid objectionable exclu- siveness by allowing young men educated elsewhere to compete with the Government Collegians. The Under Secretary of State had intimated in last week's debate disinclination to consent to this, and an opinion that if it were done the money expended on the College would have been thrown away. But he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had reason to hope that further consideration might have modified this view. The truth was that such an arrangement would afford the best chance of preventing money from being thrown away. It must have one of the three following results:—1. Men from without might in the competitive examinations show themselves, in a large majority of instances, superior to the Collegians. In this case the Government would themselves admit the expediency of closing the College, and avoiding further useless expenditure. 2. The Collegians might habitually show themselves superior to the men from without. In this case the Government would have established the wisdom of their scheme. Or 3. As appeared to him (Sir Francis Goldsmid) most probable, success would be pretty equally divided between the two classes, and an honourable emulation would be kept up which would have a most wholesome effect on the professors and students of the College. The Under Secretary of State had spoken of the value of esprit de corps. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) thought that its value depended on the meaning you attached to the phrase. If by esprit de corps you meant pride founded on the consciousness of real superiority of the body to which you belonged, it might be beneficial. But if you meant a vain belief in fancied superiority, it was worse than useless, and might be more fitly designated esprit de clique. Which kind of feeling should prevail at the Cooper's Hill College appeared to him to depend on its students being, or not being, protected by a monopoly. If he might be permitted to use two old rhymes to express the feeling which seemed to him likely to be engendered in the Collegians by such injurious protection, he would say—

"No man can Roman lore acquire, or Attic,

Or science physical, or mathematic;

Or Indian tongues, or engineering skill,

Save in the magic bow'rs of Cooper's Hill."

Let the Government guard their new institution against the growth of such enfeebling fancies, and subject it to invigorating rivalry with other institutions, in examinations conducted by independent examiners. If he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had rightly apprehended some private communications, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State thought that this was already authorized by the 18th paragraph of the prospectus. Supposing, however, that to be the meaning, it was very obscurely expressed; and he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) trusted that, by consenting to issue supplemental regulations making that meaning clear, the Government would render it unnecessary to press his Motion to a Division. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, observed, that the question before them had a double aspect—one more immediately affecting England, and another more immediately affecting India. He could not see why the Government of India, which had a large Civil Service formerly, but not now, educated in a College of its own, should be now establishing a College to educate its civil engineers. He asked upon what principle were those enormous outlays and great changes to be made? This was the creation of a service of 1,000 engineers, many with high salaries. Why was all this to be done without any communications to the British Parliament or to the people of India? It was all done by the India Office at home, and they heard nothing whatever about it until the whole thing was completed. He was told on inquiry that it cost £90,000; but looking into the Indian Finance Accounts he could not find any such sum. He was further told that it was a speculation of the East India Council. He objected to the Government undertaking educational institutions without consulting Parliament. He concurred in the proposal made by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) the other day, that those important documents which from time to time were furnished by the Government of India should be presented to the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament for the inspection of Members interested in Indian affairs. It was proposed to distribute through the country 1,000 civil engineers, the cost of whom entailed upon the country a burden of nearly £1,000,000 a-year? To obviate the expense attending the education of engineers this College was established; but there was no provision to encourage the Natives of India to enter this particular branch of the service. It had, in fact, been made entirely an English question and no other, and the result would be that all the public works in India would be exclusively executed by the English Government and English agents. No doubt there was in India an objection to have public works carried out by men unconnected with the Government; but were they to lay down the rule that in future it should only be done by one class of Englishmen and those connected with the Government? It was a case that called for the serious consideration of the Government, and one not to be settled by the mere ipse dixit of the Secretary of State for India in Council.

Sir, I am glad that my hon. Friend (Sir Francis Goldsmid) has given me an opportunity of telling the House our story with regard the Civil Engineering College; for, so far from believing that we deserve the smallest blame in the matter, I think we have done a thing absolutely necessary for India, and very advantageous to England. The state of the case is this—We have, as everyone knows, an immense number of public works to do in India. In the Actual Accounts of last year the sum paid, under the two heads of Public Works Ordinary and Public Works Extraordinary, amounted to close on £8,000,000. All these public woks are carried into effect, and superintended by what is known as the Public Works Department. That department is a creation of quite modern times; for, as long as we were conquering our Indian estate, we had no time, and very little money, to improve it. The year 1842 may be taken as the commencement of the endeavour systematically to improve our Indian estate. Well, when we began to improve it, we used at first the instruments which were ready to our hand—our own officers, engineers, and others; and, up to the year 1854, public works were managed in the military department. In that year they were put upon a new footing, and civil engineers, who had, since 1845, been filtering into our service, were for the first time introduced in some numbers, selected on the nomination of leading civil engineers at home. Many and various inconveniences having, however, arisen from getting men out from England who were already of mature years, it was resolved, in 1859, to recruit the service from the bottom, by admitting young men into it by open competitive examination. These young men having been caught by open competitive examination, were then sent out to a College in India and further trained there. This plan was tried for a year or two, but it did not succeed; partly, because these young men caught by open competitive examination were not sufficiently advanced to be able to profit by the instruction which they got at this Indian College; partly, because there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of tutors for this Indian College at any moderate expense; and partly, because the Government in India had so much urgent work to do that it preferred to have half-trained engineers rather than no engineers at all, and so took the students and put them to active work while still only partially qualified. When the original plan of training these young men at a College in India was found too difficult to carry out, the wise thing would, undoubtedly, have been for the Indian authorities immediately to have started in this country the sort of College that they wanted; a College which could, of course, be maintained here much cheaper than in India, because skilled European labour is at least three times as costly in the tropics as it is in Surrey. Unhappily, they did not determine upon taking that wise step. They shared the views which are held by my hon. Friend. They believed that they would get the article they wanted merely by going into the market, stating their conditions, and offering good pay. They did so; and, after some 10 years' experience, it became only too clear that their belief was ill-founded, and that the plan had turned out a hopeless failure. A hopeless failure it, indeed, has been. In 1868 the Indian authorities offered 40 appointments to competitive examination. And how many competed? Fifty-nine. Well, of course, 40 of these passed a brilliant examination and got appointments. Not a bit of it. Only 22 passed the minimum qualifying test; and these were appointed. Again, the same year, the Indian authorities offered 40 more appointments, and the result was that 43 competitors appeared, and 20 of them succeeded in passing the minimum qualifying test. In 1869 things were little better; and in 1870, out of 70 competitors for 40 appointments, only 13 passed the minimum qualifying test. Meantime the Government had entered upon a new policy. They had determined very much to enlarge their Public Works Department, and to increase very much the number and importance of their public works. What were they to do for men to manage them? Their original plan of open competition in England, and College training in India, had not succeeded. Their plan, or no plan, of open competition in England, and happy-go-lucky training in India, had hopelessly failed; and, what was more, the experience of 11 years had taught them that our scientific training in England, like so much of the rest of our training, was in a chaotic, and, indeed, contemptible state. They had learned that an engineer is trained in England as a barrister is trained, by what some people are pleased to call "the practical system"—that is, by rule of thumb; a system under which, no doubt, some great engineers have been produced, just as some great lawyers have been produced; but a system the most absurd and wasteful which it ever entered into the human mind to conceive, and just about the time that a movement, headed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), but the way for which had been prepared by a great many other people, for giving a systematic training to our lawyers and creating a legal University, began to show that it was growing strong and was going to win, the Indian authorities came to the conclusion that they, too, must move with the times—must recognize ttha, although in civil engineering, as in everything else, extraordinary talent will force its way to the front, however ridiculous are your systems of education, yet that, if you want to utilize ordinary talent—that much commoner article—you must provide for it systematic training. So they set to work and devised this College, availing themselves of all the best educational advice and experience which they could get hold of. I need not say that the result was that I know not how many institutions throughout the country which had been contributing one man or two men—or, in some cases, only the fraction of a man—per annum to the list of successful candidates for our Public Works Department, immediately took alarm. They cared no-nothing—why should they?—for Indian exigencies. They were not responsible, but we were; and we determined to go on our own way, quietly answering as they arose the accusations which the craftsmen of Ephesus brought against us. First, we were told that we were injuring the great and sacred cause of competitive examination—that best of expedients for the distribution of patronage in this bad world; which, however, threatens ere long to become a British fetish. We replied that we never dreamt of anything of the kind; that the examination for entering our College was to be absolutely open and purely competitive. Then we were told that we were narrowing the field of selection. We replied by showing that we were immensely widening it by sweeping away a number of restrictions with which, while the previous plan, or no plan, existed, we had been obliged to fence round our examinations. Then we were told that it was hard that the amount of time spent in special engineering studies at other institutions should be lost to the successful candidates at the examinations. The Government replied that such was not their intention; that all the special training at other institutions would be allowed its full value in cur- tailing the time to be passed at the new institution. They pointed to the following clause in the prospectus:—

"Although students will ordinarily be required to go through a three years' course, that condition may be dispensed with in the case of those who, on admission, shall satisfy the College authorities that they possess already a competent knowledge of the subjects taught at the College. Such students will be permitted to enter at once on the second year's course of instruction, and to qualify for the public service in two instead of three years. Similarly, the third year's course of practical engineering may be dispensed with in the case of those who can show that they have already gone through an equivalent course. Students consequently who may be found entitled to both of these dispensations will become eligible for appointment to the public service after a single year's residence at the College, and this period may be still further reduced in special cases to a time sufficient to enable the student to go through the various exercises which form a part of the College final examination."

Under this clause hon. Members will observe that any youth, trained at any institution, who gives proof, by passing these examinations—first, of having received a sufficiently good general education to render him a proper person to be admitted into a great and responsible public service; who gives proof, secondly, of a sufficient knowledge of the special subject of engineering for Indian purposes, may go out to India after remaining only just so long at the College as to pass our final examination in engineering. I say just so long, for we have come to the determination not to admit anyone into our Public Works Department who does not pass an examination of sufficient length to enable us to test him as well with regard to his power of doing things as with regard to his mere knowledge. In short, we have determined to adopt the method of examination in engineering which is followed in Germany, instead of the perfunctory examination which we have hitherto had. It will be seen, then, that students coming from outside will be really in the same position asour own students; so that I think I may say that never did a Government do a more liberal thing, than just when it has started with infinite trouble a College of its own, to enable students coming from other Colleges to compete against it, provided they show that they have had sufficient general education to make them desirable public servants. But so important is it for us in India to get good engineers, and to get them quickly, that we are quite willing—and, indeed, anxious—to open this door into the service. Then we were told that we were asking too much money—that the Engineering College would be merely a College for the rich. We replied that we asked £150 a-year for three years, in return for which we gave to those young men who passed through the College £420 in their very first year of service; whereas a youth who wished to become an engineer in this country had to pay a premium of from £300 to £500 a-year to the engineer with whom he served his apprenticeship, to say nothing of the fees which he tad to pay at any of the existing institutions where there were engineering classes. And when all is done, instead of getting £420 his very first year, a good position, and admirable prospects, in five cases out of six he gets for some time nothing at all to do, and ends very often by being simply an idler in the market-place waiting for some one to hire him. To quote the words of a man most bitterly opposed to our Engineering College—

"An apprenticeship to an engineer has hitherto been pretty nearly synonymous with three things—firstly, the payment of a premium, which varies from £200 to £500, or even more, according to the position of the gentleman who condescends to accept the position of tutor in the case; secondly, a period of from three to five years, spent, even under the most favourable circumstances, in work which is mainly of a mechanical character, and in not a few cases, in almost utter idleness; thirdly, as must follow from the two preceding premises, an almost complete ignoring of anything like systematic instruction on the part of the presumptive tutor, especially in those branches of scientific knowledge, such as mathematics and physics, on which the science of engineering itself rests, and which occupy a leading position in the Public Works examination. Of course, there are exceptional cases, to which these observations do not apply—cases in which the master really teaches, and the apprentice really learns something more than it is for the master's interest that he should learn—namely, the routine duties of the office, or factory, in which he happens to be placed. I am describing what is the rule, and what everybody who knows anything about engineering apprenticeship will admit to be so. It is not in the nature of things that a professional man, engaged in active practice, can find time for the kind of tuition which most lads of from 16 to 19 require, even if he be honestly desirous and capable of doing so, and it is simply absurd, to expect it."

Then we were told that we were adopting a retrograde policy, and founding a new Haileybury. We might have replied, if it had been legitimate for the Secretary of State in Council to quote Fuller, that Haileybury was like God's ravens in the wilderness—not so black as it had been painted; but we did reply, that most of the defects of Haileybury, such as they were, and they were many, were of a kind which could not possibly exist in a College based not on pure nomination, but on pure competition, and in many other ways entirely different from Haileybury. Then we were told that we ought to follow the example which we ourselves have set in our Civil, our Forest, and our Telegraph Services. As to our Civil Service, we replied it is much easier to get adequate instruction in the branches which a civil probationer has to study than it is to get instruction of the kind which we mean to give to our engineering probationers. And, further, we never said that the system by which we train our young civilians at present is by any means a miracle of human wisdom. As to our Forest Service, we replied if we had institutions ready to our hand in this country or elsewhere, which could be made as useful for our Engineering Service as the Forest schools of Hanover and Nancy are for our Forest Service, we should certainly not have established an Engineering College at Cooper's Hill. As to our Telegraph Service, we replied, its importance is not for a moment to be compared with that of the Engineering Service, and even as it is we are by no means entirely satisfied with the results which we have obtained by the method at present in use. Then we were told that before establishing the College we ought to have tried the effect of raising the pay for the first year. We replied that we feel satisfied that we cannot get the article we want for twice £420 a-year; that it does not exist, and that there are no sufficient means at present for calling it into existence. We, nevertheless, did raise the pay to £420, thinking that sum would not be too much for the new kind of men we mean to turn out. A section of the Royal Engineers contend that the Public Works Department ought to be officered entirely from that body; but that course, although the Government does employ a great many of the Royal Engineers, and will continue to do so, is obviously out of the question. It is said, too, that we are excluding the Natives from competing. So far from this being the case, young English- men are obliged to pay for being educated for the Public Works Department, while young Natives of India are actually paid for allowing themselves to be educated for that service, and the Scholarships available for that purpose are not taken up. "But even admitting," it is said, "that the College may justify all the expectations of its promoters, and maintain an unquestionable superiority over all similar institutions, its establishment will deal a blow to engineering education in this country from which it will take years to recover." Such an argument as this, we said, is really too bad. Is the Government of 150,000,000 of very backward people in Asia not to do what it thinks essential for their welfare, because 30,000,000 of comparatively far advanced people in Europe cannot come to some understanding as to how they shall order their educational institutions? And yet this argument, preposterous as it is, has caught some persons whom it should not have caught. I would not be very much surprised if we heard something like it to-night. We may be told that we ought to have waited till the Royal Commission, which is now investigating the scientific institutions of the country, has made its Report; but we could not wait; while you were deliberating, we were suffering. If anyone is to blame in the matter it is we, who have a right to blame the savants and educationalists of England. Is it not too monstrous that we, the representatives of a nation of Asiatics which has been wandering for so many thousand years in the mazes of science, falsely so called, should be unable to find at either of your great Universities, rich though they are beyond the dreams of avarice, any institution where we could get training for the persons whom we wish to employ on our public works? Do you suppose that if India had belonged to Germany, had belonged to France, had belonged even to Switzerland, it would have been necessary for its representatives to have set up an Engineering College of their own? But here, in this enlightened country, the inheritors of Archimedes have just got the length of persuading the Government to find out whether all was, indeed, for the best with regard to the scientific teaching of this best of all possible Englands. Try our new institution by any standard which you please, have you any- thing to object to it? Take the open competitive examination by which it is entered. Have either of your two contending parties—the men who believe that science, and the men who believe that language is the best training for boys—anything whatever to complain of? Will not any boy who feels in himself an aptitude for engineering be sure to succeed, if he has had a good education in any of the usual subjects taught in your public or other good schools? Then, when the College is entered, is there any of our arrangements which is open to fair criticism? I can only say that if any scientific man of name and fame does criticize them, we will give the most careful attention to his suggestions, but we believe that we have followed the best models and the newest lights. We certainly have done our best to do so. Then, as to the passing from our College into our public service, have we not by discarding the old fashioned kind of examination, and adopting instead a continuous trial—a trial examination in the course of which a youth will not merely be obliged to write down answers on paper, but to show that he is an efficient surveyor, and that he can make plans with the usual aids which he would have if he were working as an engineer on his own account—made it absolutely certain that we shall have no hard bargains; that every man who enters the public service will be fit for it? Here, in England, if a young man after spending more money than we ask upon his engineering education, turns out inefficient, he is simply not employed; but once in the Indian public service, there he is and must be paid, even if he cannot be utilized. The rough-and-tumble of the battle of life has been in itself an examination for your engineers at home, but even here what millions upon millions would have been saved, if only your engineers had been properly trained. In the new number of Macmillan's Magazine there is a short paper on engineering education, which excellently sets forth the views that are now entertained by the best engineers upon this subject. Mr. Scott Russell, Professor Pole, Professor Fleeming Jenkin, and others, have exactly the same things to tell you about your engineering education, that Professor Bryce, and Mr. Maine, and many more have to tell you about your legal education. To sum up then—what we claim is, by the establishment of this Engineering College, to have done, first an imperative duty to India in getting for her the trained engineering ability which she wanted; secondly, to have done many works of supererogation for England, of which the chief are these following:—We have created a new profession on a level with the two great Indian services—the civil and the military. We have not restricted, but widened, the area of competitive examination, by admitting the public schools to compete, which were hitherto, like all the other great schools, discouraged from competing by the necessarily technical character of the examinations. We have offered a first-rate education cheaper than a third-rate education can now be got. We have done service even to those institutions which growl most at us, because such an institution, for example, as University College, will gain much more in its other branches than it will lose in its engineering branch. We have done service to practical men, because, if they can prove while of the proper age, by passing our continuous trial examination and the previous examination that they can be really useful, to India they will go, after merely a few weeks' residence at our College. Lastly, we have done good service to English scientific education by acting, while its other well-wishers have been talking and inquiring. When they have succeeded in creating a scientific institution as creditable to England as the Polytechnic School of Zürich is to Switzerland, then it may well be that our institution may merge in theirs, but before that happy time arrives our Cooper's Hill engineers will have made some thousand miles of railways and canals, have stimulated commerce through wide provinces, and have turned many deserts into fertile fields.

said, he thought this discussion must convince the House that the Committee appointed to inquire into Indian Finance had not been appointed one hour too soon. Here was a new scheme introduced involving considerable expense; but hon. Members did not know now much it would cost, as the Undersecretary of State for India had not condescended to supply any information on that point. Parliament had not been consulted, and if such a system were to be continued, what, he asked, was the use of the House going through the farce of discussing Indian affairs? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) would take the sense of the House on this question, if only by way of protest against the system of spending the money of the people of India in England without consulting Parliament, which, in respect to financial matters, was, to a certain extent, regarded by the people of India as their trustee. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant Duff) had remarked, the system of open competition had proved a failure, and no wonder, considering that the Government expected that English youths of great attainments would, after incurring great expense in their education, joyfully accept appointments worth £240 a-year. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that there was a danger lest open competition should become a fetish with the British people; but he would warn the hon. Member against another fetish — the fetish of officialism. Anyone who had listened to the speech of the Under Secretary, would imagine that this Engineering College was an established success, and that the railways and canals had been constructed with greater economy than they had ever been constructed before. But it was necessary to wait before such brilliant anticipations could be realized, and to see whether the Government can do these things better than could be done by private institutions. The Under Secretary had spoken as if it was impossible to obtain a supply of duly qualified engineers. But the whole question turned on this—had they tried to obtain them in the open market? No one acquainted with practical engineering would say that the Government had made a fair trial when they only offered a salary of £240 a-year. The Under Secretary was mistaken as to the necessary expense of obtaining an engineering education. Premiums of £500 or £1,000 a-year were not paid for education, but for going into the chambers of an eminent engineer for the sake of the ulterior connection that might be secured. A good scientific and engineering education could be obtained in Edinburgh, Dublin, Manchester, or London for £50 a-year. No doubt the College would offer to young men who could afford to pay £150 a-year, or say £250 including incidental expenses, great advantages over those who were training themselves at Owen's College, Manchester; Trinity College, Dublin; University College, London, or at Edinburgh; for the Government would have the examinations in their own hands; and this was the reason why the managers of the educational institutions of the country were unanimously opposed to the establishment of this College. There was no analogy whatever between the Military College at Woolwich and an Engineering College, because the Queen was the only employer of skilled military labour, while the business of the whole world demanded the services of engineers. There was no reason why it should not be left to the educational enterprize of the country to supply any amount of engineering talent which India could require. Of course, the examination ought to be severe; but, besides science and mathematics, practical knowledge was required, and that could be obtained better in the towns than in a remote country district in the valley of the Thames. Let the Government decide upon the most severe testing examination they pleased, and if they offered as a reward for the possession of engineering knowledge a fair and reasonable price in the open market, he had no hesitation in saying that the educational authorities throughout the country would quickly adapt themselves to those examinations, and before the lapse of two years there would be no lack of engineering talent whatever. He had been informed that when the Natives of India had got an engineering education they had found it uncommonly difficult to get engineering employment, and that at this time many young men who had been educated in Native Engineering Colleges were reduced almost to manual employment because the Government seemed to have not a dearth but a surplus of engineering talent. He deeply regretted that this College had been established in the way it had been, for Parliament might have been consulted first. When he found that the scheme was progressing, he wrote to the Under Secretary of State for India, asking him whether he did not think it would be well to delay it for a few months until Parliament had been consulted; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was no time for delay, because land was bought and professors were engaged. All this involved a heavy cost; yet Parliament had never been consulted, and the scheme might fail, because other institutions might produce better men. If it failed Parliament would have to bear the blame, and the people of India would look to Parliament for redress. He trusted the independent Members of the House would unite in bringing to a close a policy which threw upon the House a grave responsibility without adequate opportunity for its discharge.

, on behalf of the authorities and students of the Queen's University in Ireland, said, that they looked upon the establishment of this College as putting an end to open competition. A worse species of nomination than that of patronage was nomination by money. Open competition had not failed, because it had not been fairly tried by the offer of adequate remuneration for engineering services. He believed the result of this discussion would do good, because he felt satisfied that everyone was only stimulated by the single thought of doing what was best for the country. When a few years ago the payment in the medical departments of the Army and Navy was so low, and the position of the medical officers so humiliating, that sufficient young men could not be found to enter into those branches of the service, the evil was cured not by establishing a College for the education of these young men, but by increasing their scale of payment and elevating their position. The Under Secretary for India said it was not the amount of salary which prevented candidates from coming forward, and that even if £800 a-year were offered fitting men could not be got. But had such an offer ever been tried? The hon. Gentleman also said that there was no University or College in the kingdom capable of educating an engineer. But if that were so, where were those engineers educated who had been an honour to this country and to the world? Surely the manufactory which had produced them was also open to the Indian market. It was said that Cooper's Hill College would establish no monopoly, for a young man would not be obliged to spend four years there; but if he satisfied the College authorities one year, or even six months, would be sufficient. They all knew what was meant by satisfying the College authorities. What did University College do? It found it necessary, in order to establish an impartial tribunal, to pass a law that no person holding office in the College should be an examiner. Although the examinations were perfectly fair, the new College would, in its very nature, be a monopoly. It would be impossible for pupils from other establishments to get fair play without spending two or three years there at an expense of £150 per annum, while very few of their parents could afford to give that sum. He would not go so far as the Mover in saying that the College should be altogether dispensed with. He was prepared to suggest a compromise. He knew a good deal of competitive examinations. The practical science competitive examination did not test all the requisite qualities of candidates. The knowledge of medicine and engineering might be tested; but in the Army medical service young men who had passed their examination, having shown a knowledge of the theory and principles of their profession, were not at once put in charge of Her Majesty's soldiers or sailors—it was necessary to test their steadiness, quickness of eye, and social and moral qualities, which, could not be determined by competitive examinations. Having passed their competitive examinations, the young men were sent to Netley, where they got pay—at all events, they were supported without expense—for a term of 6 or 12 months. Their other qualities were tested in that way. If found not qualified they had to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Let young men come from what College they might, they never asked where the horse got his oats if he won the race. The only question was, had the young men the requisite knowledge and other good qualities? Do not let them establish a College which was sure to become a monopoly, and where none would be educated but those who could afford to spend a large annual sum.

sympathized with those who desired to see this College not enter into unfair competition with the existing educational institutions of the kingdom, and had, like his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), put himself in communication with the Secretary of State for India, as representing two Universities, one of which had a large engineering depart- ment, and as member of Council of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The views submitted were met with the greatest attention and consideration, and the evils feared for the scientific institutions of the country were obviated by the regulations which the Government had adopted. In other countries—in Switzerland, Germany, and France, there was a united technical and scientific education of engineers; whereas in this country technical and scientific education were dissociated. That was the root of the whole difficulty the Indian Government had to contend with. They wanted practical men in order immediately to carry out the works of the Indian Government; and the only way of obtaining them was to go to the engineers of the country, who undertook to educate the rising young men of the profession. A fee of from £300 to £500 was required with each pupil, who had the run of the drawing and machine shops, but learnt nothing of the science of engineering except what he could pick up. Apt pupils were generally retained, through a process of natural selection, by the engineers themselves; and it was only the incapables, who were practically rejected by the engineers, that the Indian Government could depend upon. These were found quite unequal to pass the low scientific examination to which they were subjected, and hence the system had broken down from a want of supply of qualified candidates. The College system which existed at the University of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Trinity College, Dublin, Durham, and the Queen's Colleges was a purely theoretic system, which was dissociated from practice. That was not fit for the Indian Government. Only 12 men could be got to answer the combined practical and scientific examination, though purposely kept at a low standard. The hon. Member for Brighton said that was a question of money. He denied it. Whenever men were appointed by that examination they obtained a salary of close upon £300 a-year, and were appointed to the third grade of assistant engineers on probation; but as soon as they had proved themselves capable they were promoted, and there was no difficulty in getting men for the medical service or the Army on such terms. Under the circumstances of the case, there had been three courses open to the Govern- ment. The first course was to reject practical experience altogether, and to trust that theoretical knowledge would bud into practical experience; and the second was to reject theoretical training, and rely on the practical experience of the men derived from an apprenticeship. In a practical profession like engineering the first course would commend itself to no one, while the second was not adapted to a country like India, where engineers were isolated and depended upon themselves. In this country a man with practical aptitude, but deficient in scientific knowledge, could refer to a distinct class of mathematical engineers who made the necessary calculations for him. That separation of practice from science would not do for India. As neither of these two courses would do, the third course open was to wait till the educational institutions of the country and the practical engineers reconciled their differences, and organized a training of young engineers by a combination of scientific and theoretical knowledge with practical experience; but that would be to wait indefinitely, and to leave the opening up of the industrial resources of India to the slow process of educational reform. The Government had done practically what the hon. Member for Dublin (Sir Dominic Corrigan) recommended. They first tested the ability of the persons who came to the College, and if they possessed the scientific knowledge that was required their time was shortened largely; and if in addition to scientific they possessed practical knowledge, their time was shortened still more largely, or they were sent out at once to commence their duties. If the Government had had time to wait until an institution arose like the Polytechnic Institution at Zurich, or the Ecole Centrale at Paris, they would have obtained all they wanted in the shape of practice and science combined. But they could not wait for that; and, therefore, they had joined science to practice in a way which was not a substitution for existing institutions, but a mere supplementary and accessory means of promoting them; and as the representative of the only University that gave engineering degrees he thanked the Government for the care they had taken in giving credit to the work which other institutions were doing in promoting engineering education, instead of monopolizing it all for their new College. The chief argument against the College was the annual charge of £150 a year for pupils. This would practically exclude poor young men of merit. But this evil might be obviated by establishing a certain number of free scholarships for the best pupils. Such a provision, however, did not yet exist.

warned the House that if it was not careful the Scotchmen would be too much for it. The Secretary of State and the Under Secretary having got them into a mess, the hon. Member for the Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Dr. Lyon Playfair) patriotically came forward to defend them. The question lay in a nutshell. The Government of India wanted trained engineers; they said they could not get them, and that that College would produce them. But what means had that College of producing trained engineers which other institutions did not possess? Certainly the Government had boundless pecuniary resources. £90,000 was to be spent on the building, with a large annual sum for the Staff to begin with. But no new method of instruction was proposed. The teaching, it was said, must be theoretical and practical, and no doubt the range of study contemplated embraced an ample field. But other institutions now existing in this country already taught all those very subjects, and if such a handsome market for the young men who had learnt them would be open in India, there could be no doubt that those existing institutions would rapidly provide the necessary training. There were no peculiar facilities possessed by the Government for teaching mathematics, pure and applied, and other subjects required they could be taught equally as well in very good institutions in different parts of the country. The College would only provide what they wanted at an additional cost, and who, either in India or in England, he would ask, would be the better for its establishment? The whole purpose of the Government College was to give a three years' course at £150 a-year to the students; and although it was said that students trained elsewhere might enter the College for a nominal period at the close, yet it was not to be supposed that students who went there for the three years would not be allowed a preference over those who went for six or for three months. As the Govern- ment would decide who were the students to be admitted to the College, it was only to be expected that they would favour those who accepted their whole system and entered for the full term. He protested against that project not only as a gross injustice towards the educational institutions of the country, but as a slur on English education in that particular line in which it had been most successful; for if England had not produced engineers, he did not know what kind of genius she had produced.

assured the hon. Member who had just sat down that his apprehensions were not well founded. Scotchmen were not unanimous on the subject of the College. For himself, he entertained a strong feeling against it, and he found himself in this position—that, sitting on the Conservative side of the House, he had to oppose a monopoly promoted by a Scotch Liberal Member, and supported by Scotch Liberal Members. Hitherto the Government had not given fair play to the young engineers who were to be sent out to India; and let them now see whether the holding out of more adequate inducements would not secure a more luxuriant crop of better educated engineers for service in that country. He was at a loss to know why the Government desired to resort to this new system, which would have the practical effect of handicapping all the educational institutions in this kingdom, and the one educational institution in India, to which reference had been made in the course of the debate. Further, it would be an interference with the Universities which the Government themselves supported. The Chairs of Engineering in the Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities were founded by the Government; but if the scheme they now proposed to introduce were adopted it would at once put an end to the supply of young men educated there for the engineering services in India, and concentrate them into the institution which the Government proposed to establish. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India adopted the view which had been taken by the Mover of the Resolution, and regarded India rather as a great estate belonging to this country than as a country which ought to be governed for the benefit of the Native population. India being regarded simply as a vast estate, it was, of course, neces- sary, following up the same simile, to have preserves, and the Government theory evidently was that it would be well to create a preserve for the rearing of civil engineers; but he had no doubt that the scheme which had been shadowed forth by the Under Secretary for India would fail, and that utterly. He was not arguing solely with reference to the interests of the Universities, because he understood from his hon. Friend the Member for the Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Dr. Lyon Playfair) that some favour was intended to be shown to those students who had passed an University course; but, so far as he understood, the advantage was only intended to apply to those students who had been a full year in the University.

said, it was only intended that the students should have been in the University a sufficient time to enable them to pass the examination.

Let that be as it might, he ventured to say that the proposal of the Government would, if carried, establish a monopoly opposed not only to the interests of the Universities, but also to the interests of those private schools which had up to the present time afforded a good and sufficient education to those students who were anxious to enter into that particular branch of service under the Indian Government which was then the subject of debate.

said, that while he entirely concurred with what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, he (Sir John Lubbock) thought that the discussion had drifted away from the terms of the Motion, which referred not to the establishment of the College, but to the limitation of Indian engineering appointments to the students of that College. He felt bound to say that in the entrance examination for the College, justice had for the first time been done to physical and natural science; and he regretted the more, therefore, that he was unable to support the Government in the matter. If, however, the competitive examination were equally open to students and others, he thought it would very much meet the difficulties of the case. In the interest of general education, and of India itself, he thought it would be wise to accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid).

remarked that one point of view of this subject had been entirely overlooked in the course of the debate, and that was that by the present scheme the Natives of India would be entirely excluded from profitable employment as engineers in that country—a result that would lead to considerable dissatisfaction among the people. The people of India were not very well content with the existing state of things, and the scheme would increase their grievances. India had produced engineers capable of constructing the most magnificent works in the world, long before we had ever had anything to do with the country, and it would be very unfair for us to turn round upon the Native engineers and exclude them from employment. The marvellous Taj, at Agra, had been constructed by Native engineers and architects; the dome of Mahomet Shah's tomb at Bejapoor—larger than that of St. Paul's—was supported upon a principle unknown to British architects, which was admitted by the Architectural Society of London, from the inspection of plans and sections which he (Colonel Sykes) had obtained for the society; the celebrated Jumna Canal was designed and completed by a Native engineer; and the gigantic irrigation remains all over India testified that the principles of hydraulics were known and applied in India. In our own times there was the Roorkee College for the express purpose of instructing civil engineers, and all the Universities in India had an engineering class. There should not, therefore, be any difficulty in obtaining competent persons; and if a higher class of engineers were desired, with personal experience of engineering works in Europe, the Government would not have any difficulty in obtaining them, by making it worth their while to give up their prospects in Europe.

said, he had listened to the discussion with very considerable interest, because it appertained to the profession in which he had been engaged for very many years, and if the hon. Member who brought the question before the House (Sir Francis Goldsmid) persisted in going to a Division, he should certainly vote with him. He thought the Government proposal would act unfairly to the other educational institutions of the country, and would further fail to effect the object which the Under Secretary of State for India anticipated from it. As the result of much experience, he was able to express a confident opinion that to send a young and half-educated man—half-educated he meant solely in reference to his particular profession—would have the effect of reducing the engineering staff under the control of the Indian Government to a state of utter inefficiency. In fact, they might just as well send none at all. The salary paid was a very small matter when compared with the necessity for obtaining the services of thoroughly well-educated candidates for the engineering service; he meant educated in the practice as well as in the theory of engineering: and if the Indian Board supposed for a single moment that they could obtain such men for the amount they proposed to pay, they were utterly mistaken. He ventured to inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Dr. Lyon Playfair), that apprentices to engineering are not confined to the run of the plans and specifications prepared in the office—during the first two years they may be so, as during that period their services in practice are not of much value—but afterwards they are engaged in surveys, and designing works, and somewhat generally in superintending works—thereby acquiring a practical knowledge of their profession; therefore to send men out to India learned in theory only, according to the plan of the Secretary for India, would be to transplant from this country men ignorant in practice, and who would have to spend there, as they had to do here, a considerable period in acquiring that practical knowledge essential to their profession, and where the facilities for doing so were less than in this country, and the expense much greater.

said, that as the Government of India was spending £8,000,000 a-year in public works, he presumed it would be admitted that the disbursement of the money should be carefully looked after, in order that it might effect the largest possible amount of good. The Government of India relied upon three bodies of men for this purpose—first, upon the Royal Engineers, who were out in the country with their corps; secondly, upon the Native engineers, who were educated gratuitously in the College of Roorkee, which had been described as a failure; and, thirdly, upon civil engineers who went out to India from England. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) mistook the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India when he interpreted that hon. Gentleman's words as conveying that the Native College had proved a failure. All that the hon. Gentleman said was that the system of education of English engineers in that College had not proved successful. And this was quite reasonable, because young Englishmen were placed at a very great disadvantage when learning their profession in a country so different from their own in every respect as India was from England, and it was incurring a needless expense to take competent gentlemen out from England to teach them that which they could obtain better at home. The failure of the system which had been adopted by the Government of India in order to provide itself with civil engineers might have been predicted long ago by impartial witnesses, because it was based upon examining candidates upon highly technical matters in an open competition. In this country, where engineering was in its infancy, or nearly so, if he might so express himself without offence, no one could be surprised that persons were not forthcoming for the engineering service of India, without reference to the money they were to receive. As for the money, he thought a little too much had been made of that. It was supposed that competent men would not compete for positions worth £240 a-year; but he could tell hon. Members that at the English Universities a man thought himself made for life if he could obtain a Fellowship of a like amount; and, he would add further, that to secure the £240 a-year candidates had only to pass an easy examination, with the prospect of speedily rising to a salary of £360, and then in a short time to £440 per annum. Hon. Gentlemen who objected to what was proposed on the part of the Government had nothing better to suggest than that the old system should be continued—a system based upon competition, but under which the majority of the appointments were the result of simple nomination. If they were not to revert to the old system—and he thought no hon. Gentleman who calmly considered the question would advocate such a course—what was to be done? He thought the best course would be to adopt the plan that had answered so well in connection with the appointments to the Indian Civil Service. For appointments in that service three things were required—good natural ability, a good liberal education, and the technical education and knowledge of those branches necessary and useful to the Civil Service of India. They had not instituted a competition in the Hindostanee and Telegu languages, and technical matters of that kind, because it was thought that what was gained in these special technical matters was lost in the general ability of the men. Thus was ensured the greatest possible amount of ability that could be got; and, having got it, the men underwent a period of probation, during which they acquired the other things that fitted them for beginning their work in India. And that system had not been altered. The same principle ought to be adopted in the present instance as in the case of the Civil Service—that is, they should adopt the principle of competition, so far as applicable, and not ruin it by requiring an examination in technical matters, which would only drive candidates away. And that was what Government proposed to do. It required an examination somewhat similar to that instituted in the Civil Service; by the examination, persons were admitted into the College, and then, after their admission, the technical education began which was necessary for forming an engineer. He would not enter into the question whether other interests had a right to be heard in a question of this kind, and whether the Government of India should be prevented from doing what they considered expedient for the sake of English institutions. It was the intention of the Government that no person should be admitted into this College, and from this College into the Indian engineering service, except by competition, and that no one should get a footing in the College at all unless he was a successful competitor for a vacancy. The Government intended that when the number of successful competitors had been ascertained there should be an examination into the amount of knowledge that the successful competitors possessed, and according to their knowledge they would be put through a course of three years, or two years, or one year, or merely retained in the College to enable the authorities to test their fitness to go out. They did not propose, as had been rather invidiously suggested, to put fees into the hands of the College authorities. If the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge now examined their own men, he thought the House might assume that the College authorities would not reject any man at once in order to screw some money out of him in the way of fees for teaching him that which he knew already. It had been suggested that this examination should be placed in perfectly independent hands, so that no suspicion should exist that persons would be forced into this institution merely for the purpose of extracting money from them for teaching them what they knew already; so that if any of those institutions which had been so much recommended sent up a young man to pass the examination, in proportion to the success which he passed the examination, one, two, or the whole three years' course would be dispensed with in his case, and he would be admitted at once to the privileges of the College, just the same as if he had gone through the whole course of three years. That, he trusted, would be satisfactory to the public. It would insure the most perfect fair play and prevent any sort of bias. He maintained, with great confidence, that this system was fair and honest and well-conceived for the purpose that it had in view; that it was founded on a spirit of justice to India, and of enlightened fairness towards all sister institutions. As he had shown that admission to this College might be obtained by those who passed a successful examination without reference to the place where they had been educated, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) that there was no necessity for passing his Resolution.

said, if there were no other person who would insist on a Division of the House on this question, he would. This proposed College, the building of which would cost £90,000, and the supposition it could teach, practical engineering, was as if the art of war could be learned from the fortifications which Corporal Trim put up in Uncle Toby's garden. There were two kinds of education required—one mathematical and scientific, and the other practical and experimental. The first, he thought, might be taught in the Universities better than in any other institution, whilst the second could only be acquired by actual experience or work.

believed that greater experience was to be gained in England than in India, and that it would be better to send out qualified men to that country than go to the expense of educating them there.

Sir, I have on two previous occasions requested the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to defer this Bill on account of the lateness of the hour at which it came on; first, on Wednesday last, when it was a quarter to 6 o'clock, and the night before, when it was brought on at a quarter past 1 in the morning. It is now 35 minutes past 12, and I really think it would be but reasonable that the House should have an opportunity given it of considering the proposals which the Government have to make upon the subject. I will, as shortly as I can, place my reasons for holding that opinion, and for proposing the Motion, with which I shall conclude, before the House. I need hardly remind the House that the Bill was but little discussed on its second reading; except a short statement made by the Attorney General, the Members of the Government said nothing. It has since been understood that there is so much difference with regard to the legal construction of the Bill, that Her Majesty's Government wish to refer it to a Select Committee, in which they may have the advantage of obtaining the legal advice of certain Members of this House on the language and details of the Bill. But I would take the liberty of submitting to the Government that, although the principle of the Bill has been affirmed, there has been no inquiry by Parliament since two circumstances occurred which materially alter the subject-matter, to which it is intended that the Bill should apply. It was in the year 1868 that the House of Lords inquired into the operation of the law with respect to the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. That was the year preceding the passage of the Irish Church Act, which, of course, altered the bearing of the law, inasmuch as, having abolished the legal existence of the sees connected with the Established Church, the 24th section of the Belief Act of 1829, which prohibited any ecclesiastics from assuming the titles of the sees then occupied by Prelates of the Established Church, has ceases to be operative. But another circumstance has occurred since the Lords' inquiry in 1868—that was the last inquiry; for the committee of this House sat and reported in 1867. There has also been a Council held at Rome, called "Œcumenical," by which, avowedly, according to the statements of the Roman Catholic Bishops who composed the minority in that Council, their positions, and that of all Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, have been entirely altered. After January, 1870, the proceedings of the Council were secret by command of the Pope; but before the 14th of January, 1870, much information was published, which shows that the Bishops considered their position was to be materially altered by the proceedings of the Council. Notwithstanding the attempts to preserve secresy, much has become known of the latter proceedings of the Council, while the decrees, as published, prove the altera- tion in the position of the Bishops. The plea issued by the late Cardinal Wiseman in defence of the Papal Brief of 1850, which created in this country, and in Parliament, the feeling that subsequently took form in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, was that the Vicars Apostolic—the title by which the Roman Catholic Bishops were known previous to the publication of the Brief—had no canonical jurisdiction, and that they could not therefore assemble in synod, whether diocesan or provincial, and bring the canon law into operation; and it was pleaded that the English Roman Catholics would acquire certain rights and advantages for their Church, if the canon law were brought into free action. As far as I can gather, the recent decrees of the Council have not abrogated the jurisdiction over others, which the canon law vests in the Bishops who were appointed under the Brief of 1850; but it has done this—it has totally annulled all independent rights, all power of independent action on their part; and, therefore, whilst they are still invested with all the privileges and powers which the canon law confers upon them over others in their own community, or over any country, where that law is admitted, they have no right whatever as against the Holy See itself. So there is a distinct change created by the Irish Church Act with respect to the constitution of the United Kingdom; and, next, there is a still greater change in the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church itself, and in the position of those, who, by this Bill, would be permitted to assume titles, that have hitherto been by law prohibited. I will not now go into other circumstances, which might well induce the House to pause; but I will simply move by way of Amendment to the Motion of the Attorney General, the words of the Instruction, adopted by the House of Lords in the year 1868, for the guidance and direction of their Committee—namely, that all the words after the word "that" be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words—

"A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of any Law or Laws, as to the assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles in Great Britain and Ireland, and whether any and what alteration should be made therein,"

It should be remembered that in 1868, the Committee of the House of Lords inquired into the operation of the canon law as it affects Bishops, and with all respect for the learning of this House, I do believe, that there is at present a want of important information which has never reached the Members of this House generally. And, whereas, this very Committee of the House of Lords deemed it essential to ascertain the position of those Roman Catholic Bishops in their own Church, I think that, if their Lordships did not err, it must be still more the duty of this House to obtain information on the subject, considering that the position of these Prelates has been materially and recently altered, so far as the information goes which has reached this country. For my own part, I cannot conceive what objection the Government can have to allowing this House to obtain additional and necessary information upon this subject, since that information relates to facts and their effects, which are totally novel as respects both the laws of this country and the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not longer detain the House; but I hope I have stated sufficient grounds to show that my Motion is neither factious, nor without foundation.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would see the expediency of not proceeding with the Amendment. The proposition to which it was an Amendment had already received the sanction of the House. He was a decided advocate for the Bill, having always considered the Ecclesiastical Titles Act as one of the most unstatesmanlike measures ever passed, and he should view its repeal with unqualified approbation. A Committee of the character suggested by the hon. Member was wholly unnecessary, seeing that the Committee of the House of Lords had fully gone over the ground. Was the Committee intended to stop the progress of a measure to which the House had already as- sented? The Bill had now arrived at a stage in which nothing but the settlement of certain legal points remained to be done. In his opinion the supremacy of the Crown was fully established by the common law without this Act. The hon. Gentleman would have other and ample opportunities of enforcing his views on the House, and he did trust that the hon. Gentleman would now withdraw his Amendment.

was of opinion that further inquiry was necessary, and he reminded the House that penalties in reference to this subject were not new, having been imposed by Richard II. There could be no doubt that the Attorney General had refused to give Mr. Cobbett permission to proceed against Archbishop Manning.

gave the statement that Mr. Cobbett applied to him a flat contradiction. He applied to his clerk, who told him he must memorialize in the usual way, but he declined to do so.