said, it would be in the recollection of the House that about the same hour on the previous day the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) moved that the Order for the reception of a Petition in favour of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill, presented to the House from certain Protestant Dissenters at Chatham on the 28th March, and purporting to bear the hon. Member's signature, should be discharged, on the gronnd that he had not seen the Petition, that the signature was not placed there by himself or by anyone having his authority, and that he believed he had never presented it. He (Mr. Callan) now wished to move that the Order for the reception of three other Petitions of a similar nature, from Kensington, Broad-stairs, and Avebury, in Wiltshire, should be discharged. To these Petitions there was attached what purported to be the name of the same hon. Member, the handwriting being found on comparison to be identical with that of the signature to other Petitions which had been presented on various subjects during the present Session by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who must be unfortunate, indeed, if his name had been forged to all those Petitions, presented at various dates extending from the 24th February to the present month. He (Mr. Callan) was surprised to have been informed that day, that at the very time when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was moving in the House that the Order for the reception of the Petition from Chatham should be discharged, he was aware that other Petitions to which his name was in a similar manner affixed, and which contained similar offensive and disgraceful charges, were on the records of the House. He (Mr. Callan) did not move for the discharge of the Order relating to these Petitions because the hon. Member's name was not attached to them by himself, or by his authorization; but in the cause of the honour and prestige of the House, which ought not to be regarded as a receptacle for documents which were fitter for the atmosphere of Holywell Street. In these Petitions charges were brought against the sisters and daughters of Members of that House, as honourable as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the Petitioners praying that the Bill might pass because convents were used to inveigle and corrupt Protestant pupils; that many of the nuns had "a hell here and a hell hereafter;" that monasteries and convents "combine in themselves the worst evils of the workhouse, the asylum, the prison, and places of bad repute." These were some of the allegations contained in Petitions bearing the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire. Whether the hon. Member would repudiate the other Petitions as well as that to which he had called the attention of the House on the previous day it was for him to decide. On a former occasion when the hon. Member's statement was challenged by Sir Charles Clifford, he sheltered himself under the plea of Privilege. Would he now shelter himself under a similar plea? The Petitions went on to make the most extravagant assertions, saying—"that nuns were treated most cruelly, and were made the victims of horrors which far surpassed anything that had entered the mind of the most fanatical enemy of the convents;" and that the inmates of the convents might "be put to death or much worse." He (Mr. Callan), as a Catholic Member of that House, indignantly repudiated such charges, and he should be sorry to be proud, as he was, to be a Member of that Houes, if he made any such charge affecting any lady belonging to any other Member; or if he made such a charge, he should not shelter himself under the plea of Privilege, but come forward manfully and endeavour, if he could, to substantiate such charge. He could not but stigmatize these charges as disgraceful to those who signed and forged them; for he could not possibly believe that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire affixed his name to them. He begged to move that the Orders respectively made for receiving these Petitions be discharged.

seconded the Motion, feeling as he did that the language of the Petitions in question was most un-Parliamentary and scandalous, to say nothing of its being most unkind, involving, as it did, such reflections on the friends of Members of that House. He happened to represent a large Catholic constituency, in which there were several of these convents and monasteries, with most of which he had a personal acquaintance; and he maintained that these institutions had been of the utmost use, diffusing as they did amongst the poorer classes an amount of knowledge that was incalculable. He was acquainted with one in the county of Kildare, in which those ladies who were spoken of in such horrible terms not only imparted knowledge to the young every day, but also daily fed the children when they came to school. All that had been done by voluntary contribution. The work had been carried on by ladies of the highest rank. One of them was a sister of Lord O'Hagan. There were also monasteries the heads of which were gentlemen as much as any Gentleman of that House, and they adopted rules all of which were for the good of the community. The work was not done for gain, nor for anything but the good of their fellow-creatures. He was not going to say whether it was right or wrong to go into those places; but he maintained that it was a scandal that those men—those holy men—should be vilified in the language of the Petitions in question. Those institutions ought not to be looked upon either with the jaundiced eye of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, nor with the bigoted views of the hon. Member for Peterborough. He believed there was not a single Catholic Member of that House who had not, either directly, or indirectly, some relative or some friend in those institutions, and it would be wrong of them not to get up and protest against Petitions containing such disgraceful language being placed on the Table of the House.

said, he should be sorry that it should be left entirely to Catholic or Irish Members to speak indignantly against the language employed in these Petitions. For his own part he shared, in common with all English Members, he was sure, the utmost indignation that Petitions making charges so gross against ladies who devoted their lives, whether rightly or not, to the objects of these institutions, should be presented to that House. On the other hand, he thought that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had addressed to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire language which was hardly justifiable. The hon. Member for Dundalk must know, as every hon. Member knew, that the Member for North Warwickshire was one of the most veracious, honourable, and straightforward Members of that House. The language which had been used towards the hon. Member was almost menacing. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not denied that the signature to the Petitions was not in his own handwriting. ["No, no!"] If he had done so, he (Mr. Mundella), for one, would believe him. No one would question the truthfulness of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire. The hon. Member might have presented the Petitions, as probably the majority of hon. Members had presented Petitions, without mastering their contents. He (Mr. Mundella) would acknowledge that he had frequently done so. The mastering of all the Petitions that hon. Members were asked to present would be a heavy burden for those who represented large constituencies. He himself sometimes received as many as 20 Petitions to present on the same day, and it would be extremely difficult for him to read and master all their contents; but the present instance was a warning to be careful, and for the future he should endeavour to do so. He supported the Motion that the Order that the Petitions lie on the Table be discharged, and only regretted that anything should have been said by the hon. Mover against the character of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

Sir, I think I have some reason to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), who, with a Notice on the Paper with reference to the discharge of an Order relating to a Petition from Chatham, which I yesterday felt it my duty to make, comes down and introduces another subject altogether respecting other Petitions, without giving any public Notice or sending me, as is usual, private Notice. I had reason to believe that my name was improperly attached to the Petition for the discharge of which the Order was made yesterday. That was unquestionably a breach of the Privilege of the House, if the offence alleged were committed. I instantly moved that the Petition be discharged, and I immediately put myself in communication with the Petitioners to know how the Petition was prepared, and how it was transmitted to this House. It is totally impossible that I could receive any reply up to this time to my communication. Before I could do so, the hon. Member for Dundalk, with a Notice on the Paper to call attention to the subject of the Chatham Petition, comes down to the House to raise a question of Privilege, of which he has given no private Notice, upon other Petitions that, he alleges, were presented in my name, and which, so far as any assistance the hon. Member has given me, I never had the opportunity of examining. The hon. Member is perfectly aware of what I said yesterday—that I was under the impression that undue liberties had been taken with my name; but before it is possible for me to ascertain whether that has been done, he comes down to raise a question as he pretends, of Privilege, but which I utterly deny to be a question of Privilege in any sense, and takes advantage of the impossibility of my having informed myself to bring this accusation before the House. Now, subject to your decision, Sir, I deny that the hon. Member has made out any ground of Privilege. If Petitioners chose to state to this House that all one side of St. James's Street consisted of brothels, that is not a breach of Privilege. The House may think fit to examine as to the truth of the allegation made, and condemn the assertion; but it is no breach of Privilege. Nothing is a breach of Privilege except allegations, or some matter in a Petition that is treasonable.

interposing, said he had not moved on a question of Privilege. What he had moved was, that the Orders for receiving the Petitions be discharged.

Then I simply ask you. Sir, whether the hon. Member for Dundalk is in Order in rising now on a question, which he admits is not one of Privilege, to call the attention of the House to Petitions presented yesterday, having given no Notice of his intention to do so?

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire yesterday moved that an Order for a Petition, to which his name was attached, lying on the Table be discharged. That Motion was made without Notice, and was agreed to by the House. I considered that he was justified in making that Motion without Notice, because if not a breach of Privilege, certainly a gross irregularity had been committed by affixing the hon. Gentleman's name to a Petition without his leave. Now the hon. Member for Dundalk, finding that other Petitions identical in terms and language, and having the same signature affixed to them, have been presented to this House and received by this House, he, exercising his right, as I think, has moved that the Order that these Petitions lie upon the Table, be discharged.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule that this is a question of Privilege I am perfectly satisfied. According to inquiries I have made, the affixing of a Member's name to a document that he has not authorized is a breach of Privilege. I have not alleged that my name has been improperly attached to these Petitions; and for this reason—simply, because I have not had time to ascertain how nay name has been attached. In the case of the Chatham Petition the name was misspelt, and it was not therefore my name which was attached. In the case of other Petitions, so far as I have been able to ascertain, my name is rightly spelt. I therefore ask time to inquire; but I hope the House will be cautious in what they are about to do. I do not conceive that this is a question of Privilege. I have asserted that, however gross may be the allegations introduced into any Petitions presented to this House, and however little the hon. Member who presents them may agree with them, unless there is something in them that is treasonable, seditious, or disrespectful to Parliament, such Petitions are no breach of Privi- lege. I humbly submit to the House that if they are asked to deal with any Petition on any other ground than that of Privilege, the ordinary rule of the House ought to be observed, and Notice ought to be given of the intention to call the attention of the House to those matters. This is a very grave question, because it involves true Privilege—the proper order of the Business of this House, and the possibility of Members being prepared to deal with the questions that are committed to its attention. I for one am quite prepared to resist this Motion, because I say there has been no breach of Privilege proved; and if it is the intention of the House to examine any Petition on other grounds than a breach of Privilege, Notice ought to be given to the Member who appears to have presented it, and to the House of the intention of some other Member to call attention to the contents of the Petition.

did not see how it was possible to resist the Motion on those grounds. He did not understand the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to admit that it was his signature attached to the Petitions.

The hon. Member will excuse me. I am not in a position to deny that my signature was attached to these Petitions by some one claiming authority from me. It is impossible, without Notice, that I should be in that position.

thought that raised the question whether they ought not to adhere to the rule that the Member's name must be attached to the Petition he presents, and that it must be signed by himself, and not by any one for him. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire ought either to say that he had himself signed the Petition; or, if he would not, they ought to be discharged, because they had not got the signature of the hon. Member who presented them, as required by the Sessional Order passed at the beginning of each Session. He suggested last year, when a discussion took place on Petitions containing objectionable language, that it was almost impossible to prescribe, once for all, limits to the language in which any Petition might be couched. It was a very dangerous thing to draw a hard-and-fast line, and to say that a Petition which might contain language distasteful to some portion of the House should not be received. But he also stated that it would be a dangerous and bad thing to allow the Table of the House to be made the vehicle of abusive and scandalons language by irresponsible parties. He suggested that if they were to be tolerably liberal in the receipt of Petitions there should be an understanding that if, after a certain time, no hon. Member was prepared to move on those Petitions, an Order should be made by the House to discharge them. The Petition in question was one which it would be very difficult for any hon. Member to present, as it contained charges which were of a dreadful nature, and it ought not to lie on the Table for any length of time, unless some hon. Member was prepared to make a Motion on it or deal with it in some way. The Order of the House required that the signature of the hon. Member should be affixed by himself, and that not having been done, the proper course would be to discharge the Petition on that ground alone.

Sir, the rule of the House is, that the language of Petitions should be respectful, decorous, and temperate, and, having read the Petition in question since I have been in the House, it appears to me neither respectful, decorous, nor temperate. I think the House ought to show its disapprobation of Petitions couched in such language as the one before us. But I do not wish to dwell further on that point, because there is a technical point before us which ought to guide us. The rule that every Petition should be authenticated by the signature of the Member who presents it is one to which we ought to adhere even with severity. I do not see myself that there is any mode by which we can secure the presentation of Petitions expressed in language which is respectful, decorous, and temperate if we do not adhere to that rule. I shall be prepared, therefore, to support the Motion that the Order that this Petition do lie on the Table be discharged.

begged to withdraw his opposition to the Motion for this reason—that it was no longer pretended that it was a question of Privilege. If the House thought fit to deal with Petitions without Notice, he bowed to that decision.

thought some opportunity should be afforded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to clear this matter up, by showing distinctly that he did not attach his signature to the Petitions, or authorize it to be done by any other person. He would therefore move the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, he understood that his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire admitted that he did not sign the Petitions himself, and that he was not prepared to say whether he gave his authority for such signature or not. The fact that they were not signed by himself was sufficient, and it was on that ground alone the Government supported the Motion.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he would state to the House how much cash, if any, have the Church Temporalities Commissioners (Ireland) now in hand; are there any, and what kind, of outstanding claims against the fund yet unsettled; what is the description and value of the property which the Commissioners have yet undisposed of; how many days in each month for the past twelve months did the Commissioners meet; and what are the current expenses of the trust?

Sir, the Church Temporalities Commissioners (Ireland) are not under the control of the Irish Government, and therefore my knowledge of their proceedings is only derived from their Report for 1875, lately presented to Parliament, in which the hon. Member will find all the information which he desires. I should therefore be sorry to deprive him of the profit and pleasure of reading that Report by making any extracts from it in order to reply to his Question. There is one point, however, not alluded to in that Report, the number of days on which the Commissioners have met in each month for the past 12 months. They are not bound by law, nor by the requirements of their work, to hold such periodical meetings. I believe they meet as often as is necessary for the due performance of their duties.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he would state to the House what is the average number of paupers in Kilmacthomas Workhouse; and, whether he has considered the advisability of amalgamating this union either with one or more of the unions adjacent?

Sir, the average daily number of paupers in the workhouse alluded to during the year for which the Returns are given in the last Annual Report of the Local Government Board was 143. No proposal has at any time been made to the late Poor Law Commissioners or the Local Government Board to amalgamate this Union with any other, and therefore the matter has not been specially considered. But the general question of amalgamation was thoroughly considered in 1857.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, How soon after the Easter recess it is likely that he will make his financial statement with reference to the revenues of India?

, in reply, said, that so long as the Indian financial year ended on the 31st of March, as the whole details of the accounts had to be considered by the Secretary of State in Council, it would not be possible under the present system to introduce the Indian Budget before the first week in June,

asked the Vice President of the Council, If the Government intend to modify the recent regulation by which the children in elementary schools are virtually deprived of instruction in scientific subjects, because no child (according to the Minute) in an elementary school shall be presented for examination in any scientific subject until he (or she) has passed the sixth standard.—a standard which comparatively few children pass, for want of the ability to remain long enough at school; and, whether, if a child, not having passed the standard, should actually leave school, it might be allowed, under the Minute, to join science classes and be presented for examination?

Sir, the regulation by which children in public elementary schools who have not passed the Sixth Standard cannot be presented for examination in the Science Classes of the Science and Art Department was introduced into the Code of last year, and has therefore received the sanction of Parliament. There is no change this year. As to children who have not entered public elementary schools, or who have left them, the Code in no way affects their position, and, if they think fit, they may present themselves for examination in Science in accordance with the regulations of the Science and Art Department. As to children in public elementary schools, I would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that those who are presented in Standards IV. V. and IV., can also take up in those schools the following, which I think I may properly call Science subjects—Mathematics, Mechanics, Animal Physiology, Physical Geography, and Botany, for which payments are made under the Code. I consider it most undesirable that children of the early age of those who attend our public elementary schools, few of whom are more than 12 or 13 years of age, should attempt to pick up a superficial acquaintance with scientific subjects of a more advanced kind than those which are mentioned in the Code, until they have received a solid foundation of ordinary education such as is provided by the Sixth Standard. I, therefore, can hold out no hope whatever to the hon. Gentleman that we can modify the regulation to which he has called attention.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further news has been received at the Foreign Office concerning the murder of the first mate of the "Talisman" in prison at Callao; and, whether any information has been received concerning an assault with a knife described in a letter from the second mate of the "Talisman," as having been made upon three prisoners (a native and two British subjects) confined in the same cell with him, by a drunken prison corporal on Sunday the 20th of last February?

Sir, no communication of any importance has been received at the Foreign Office with regard to the murder of the first mate of the Talisman. The only communication which has been received has been communicated to the hon. Member and the friends of the mate. With regard to the second part of the Question no information has been received of the nature alleged.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of the Council on Education, Whether the Scottish Education Code, ordered by Law to lie upon the Table of the House during one month to afford opportunity for amendment and discussion, was not this year presented "in dummy," and allowed to remain inaccessible to Members for 24 days after its nominal presentation; and, whether he will undertake that it shall in future be laid upon the Table in fact as well as in form within the time specified by Law.

Sir, the Scotch Education Code was presented this year according to usage in dummy; but there is no doubt that, owing to accidental circumstances, a longer time than ordinary elapsed, to my regret, before it was in the hands of hon. Members. I quite agree that it is essential that hon. Members should have the full month at their disposal within which to raise objections to the Code, and I should think it very wrong that delays in printing the document should in any way curtail the rights of the House. We have the power of altering the Code by Minute of the Privy Council, and, if any hon. Member wishes to raise objections to it in the ordinary manner, within a reasonable period, I should not think of opposing the discussion in this instance, on the ground that the strict limit of time had elapsed. By saying that, however, I must beg to be distinctly understood as expressing no opinion whatever as to the hon. Member's proposal to make a Government grant for teaching Gaelic in certain Scotch schools.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has seen the telegram from Canada to the effect that in a debate in the Dominion Parliament on the Washington Treaty—

"Mr. Mackenzie, the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech on the subject, said that it was almost impossible to obtain an enlightened execution of the Treaty from the United States, since they refused to admit free of duty a number of articles the free entry of which had been stipulated by the Treaty. The United States also failed to enforce free navigation of the canals. He therefore advised the Canadian merchants to pay the duties demanded on the articles in question under protest, and to appeal to their Government for protection of their rights and interests. Sir John Macdonald concurred with the Premier that the construction placed upon the Treaty by the American Government was most unsatisfactory."

whether this is correct; whether it is also correct that the United States Government is interposing difficulties in the way of the meeting of the Fisheries Commission; and, what course Her Majesty's Government are taking to protect Canadian interests under Treaty with the United States?

Sir, we have no information with regard to the details of the debate in question other than that contained in The Times' telegram. There have been differences of opinion with respect to the execution of the Treaty on the points referred to, and Sir Edward Thornton has been instructed to make representations to the United States Government upon them, and communications are still being exchanged. As to the second part of the Question, I feel that this is hardly the way in which to speak of the attitude of a friendly Government on a pending question. Delays have arisen from various causes in the appointment of the Commission; but it would be manifestly inexpedient to enter into a detailed explanation at the present time. Her Majesty's Government are not unmindful of the important question involved, and will not fail to take such steps as may be proper for the protection of Canadian interests.

gave Notice that he would take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject, and would move—that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the interests of Canada had been dilatory and injurious.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, To state the result of the inquiry held in 1872 on the subject of the use of trawling vessels within the Bay of Galway; and, whether any steps have been taken since its conclusion, by the authorities in Ireland, with reference to the question then in dispute?

The result of the inquiry held in 1872 was that the Inspectors of Fisheries decided to institute a series of experiments in Galway Bay, in order to ascertain the precise effects of the use of trawling vessels upon the fisheries there. These experiments were carried out by the Inspectors with the aid of the Coastguard. They necessarily took some time, and were further delayed by a Coastguard officer who had been particularly active on the subject having been transferred to another station. The Inspectors have not yet, I believe, taken any final steps on the question, but I am now in communication with them upon it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it could be arranged to issue a Treasury Order, authorising the Postmaster General to convey, free of postage, for every Member of Parliament his own copy of the Blue Books and other Parliamentary Papers to such persons and places as he might address them to, it being understood that the Post Office authorities should not be bound to forward them except at such times as might be found most convenient for the departmental arrangements?

, in reply, said, he must remind the hon. Member and the House that some years ago the privilege of franking letters was withdrawn from Members, and they were obliged to pay the postage of letters to their constituents. The duty of conveying letters was primarily the first duty of the Post Office, and the presence of bulky matters, such as Parliamentary Papers and Blue Books, was exceedingly inconvenient, and tended to delay the transmission of mails. He should also say that any new duty imposed upon a public Department, such as the conveyance of such bulky matters, tended to increase the charges of the Department. Accordingly, after a due consideration of the case, he thought it would not be advisable to recommend that such books and papers should be conveyed free of charge by the Post Office.

wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question in reference to the Papers produced on the subject of the loss of the Mistletoe. In explanation of the Question, he begged leave to state that the Papers produced did not contain the report or proceedings of the Court of Inquiry. They contained only the letters of the officers giving explanations and the decision of the Admiralty. He should like to ask Whether, looking to the impossibility of adequately discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, without a full statement of the facts being before the House, the First Lord of the Admiralty would undertake that the Report of the proceedings should be produced and delivered to Members before the Motion was brought forward?

I beg to say that the Report was designedly omitted from the Papers laid before the House, on the ground that it has always been considered undesirable, on grounds of public policy, to produce the Reports of Courts of Inquiry, either military or naval. I have ascertained that there is no precedent for producing such Reports, and it is on that ground, and not because there is any wish to keep back anything in the present Report, that the Paper was not included in those already presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the inquiry as to the loss of the Mistletoe was not among the Papers asked for and promised by him?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in the election for members of Local Boards owners of property residing out of the district, who are entitled to vote by proxy under the Public Health Act of 1875, are subject to the payment of a 10s. stamp to be affixed to their proxy papers; and, whether, if so, he is prepared to take any steps to remove this burden?

in reply, said, that, in the opinion of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, the appointment of a proxy to vote for an owner in the election of a Local Board required a 10s. stamp, and that applied equally to owners resident and non-resident in a district; but an appointment once made did not require to be renewed so long as the name of the proxy remained on the register. Whether the impost could be removed was a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can now state how soon after the Easter Recess he will be able to introduce the Government measure dealing with Primary Education?

I have every hope, Sir, unless unforeseen circumstances should occur, of being able to introduce the Government Bill with respect to Primary Education in the first or second week of May. I may mention, at the same time, that the Government measure was ready for introduction to the House at the beginning of the Session, and that we have only refrained from bringing it forward because it is for the advantage of Public Business to avoid, if possible, crowding the Paper with Government Business.

It will be in the recollection of the House that yesterday the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) offered a Petition to this House from Inhabitants of the town of Boulogne sur Mer, in France, and upon the hon. Baronet presenting the Petition I demurred to the acceptance of it because I doubted whether there was any precedent for the reception of a Petition from any foreign town; and I asked for time to consider that question. I have now to state to the House that I have searched for precedents in this matter, and I have found one, and one only, which I will now proceed to read to the House. It is as follows:—

"17th February, 1831.—Lord John Russell presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Crete, complaining of their suffering under the Turkish. Government in that island.

"Mr. SPEAKER said that a very important question was suggested to the consideration of the House by the hon. Member for Middlesex—namely, whether petitions from persons who owed neither allegiance to, nor could claim the protection of, this country could be received. The object of the petitioners was, to obtain the interference of the Crown of Great Britain to protect them from the miseries under which they were at the present moment labouring. Was this a petition at all? and, if so, was it not a petition to the Crown of Great Britain solely? The Petition did not appear to contain any matter which brought it within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. It commenced 'Honour- able Sirs,' and stated, that 'On the renowned English people, the lovers of liberty, the patrons and protectors of the injured, the Cretans placed their last hope of salvation, looking up to them for the advocacy of the cause of Crete.' It was clear that the Petition could not be received by the House of Commons. It was an address to the English nation. Petition withdrawn. (Decision of Mr. Speaker Manners Sutton.)"—[3 Hansard, ii.,654–5.]

I think it right to observe to the House that it appears that this Petition was not received, mainly upon the ground that the Petition related to a matter not within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. I have further to observe that the Petition from Boulogne offered to the House yesterday by the hon. Baronet refers to a matter quite within the jurisdiction of this House. The Petitioners pray that the Consulate in that town should remain a Consulate, and should not become, as proposed, a vice Consulate. I submit to the House that, if the House thinks fit to receive, as an act of grace, a Petition from inhabitants of the town of Boulogne—many of whom appear to be British subjects—upon such a matter, it may be received upon the ground that the subject-matter of the Petition refers to a question within the jurisdiction of this House. I may observe that, as a general rule, the House receives Petitions from all British subjects in all parts of the world, and it receives also Petitions from foreigners resident within the dominions of the Queen; but I am not aware of any Petition being received from the inhabitants of a foreign town, such as the Petition offered to this House yesterday. It relates, as I have already said, to a matter within the jurisdiction of this House; but, in the absence of any precedent, it will be for the House to determine whether it may fitly be received.

Sir, the House is always jealous of restrictions on the right of petitioning, and I trust that that is a feeling and a principle which will always guide the House. You, Sir, have reminded us accurately that all Her Majesty's subjects in foreign countries have the right to petition, and all foreigners in Her Majesty's dominions have also such a right. The precedent which you have quoted is one which has no affinity to the Petition of the inhabitants of Boulogne. We should recollect that at this time, when the rela- tions between the people of this country and foreign countries are so intimate, the refusal of this act of grace to foreigners, when the matter is within the jurisdiction of the House, might be disadvantageous to the public interests. I am inclined to think the course we ought to take is to receive this Petition. I believe that, certainly, as an act of courtesy and grace, and also as a precedent, it will be advantageous. I therefore move that the Petition be received.

Sir, it seems to me that this is a question on which, at any rate, it seems desirable that we should not proceed with haste. I do not know, Sir, whether I have collected with perfect accuracy the effect of what has fallen from you; but I understand the case to be this—that on the surface of the matter there appears to be a precedent against the reception of a Petition from foreigners resident in foreign countries; but that, upon the examination which you have been good enough to make, it seems there are circumstances of difference in the case, which you have made known to us, sufficient to show that we are not bound by that precedent. I imagine the effect of that to be—giving full force to the judgment you have pronounced—that while there is no precedent to require us to decline to receive the Petition, there is certainly no precedent which would bind us to receive it; that the question is one entirely new, and really amounts to this—whether we shall now make a precedent in favour of receiving Petitions from the subjects of a foreign Power not resident within the British dominions. There seems to be three classes of persons from whom we receive Petitions. In the first place, all subjects of Her Majesty residing within the limits of the British Empire, which is the simplest of all the three cases. Of their right to petition there can be no question. The second is the case of British subjects residing beyond the limits of the British Empire. That also appears to follow naturally out of their relations to the Houses of Parliament, because these persons, though temporarily non-resident, or even if perma- nently non-resident, are in no respect dismissed from their allegiance. All our rights over them exist and remain intact; and, consequently, all their rights in relation to us, as they are doing nothing illegitimate to us, would be held to remain intact also. Then, thirdly, there is the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of foreigners resident within the limits of the British Empire. I understand we are in the habit of receiving Petitions from such foreigners. That likewise appears to me to be a perfectly clear case in point of principle; for such foreigners, living under the protection of our laws, apart altogether from what they may continue to owe to their own country, owe for the time temporary allegiance to this country. I agree that there is force, as an appeal to feeling in the consideration mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is desirable to perform any act of grace or courtesy towards the inhabitants of foreign countries, provided we can perform it without apprehension of probable future difficulties in consequence of our act. I recollect, in one instance during my official experience, having received a memorial from a large number of wine growers in France. I did not feel any difficulty whatever as a Member of the Executive Government in answering that memorial; but that is a very different question from that now before us. You have stated, Sir, that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, and I perfectly understand the sense of those words is, that it is a matter in which this House is perfectly free to act if it thinks fit. Whether there should be a Consulate or a vice-Consulate is a matter on which the House, if it thinks fit, may claim to give an opinion, by address or otherwise. At the same time, I would observe, it seems to me that if a Petition of this kind is to be received we have not, in the first place, those means of examining or inquiring into the circumstances under which the Petition was prepared, or of dealing with it upon its merits, which we would have in respect to all Petitions proceeding from our own fellow-subjects, because we have no rights over the parties who present them. In the next place, I am rather struck by the nature of the Petition. This is a Petition to the effect that some measure which I presume has been contemplated by Her Majesty's Government for the reduction of a Consulate to a vice-Consulate—very properly suggested by the vigilant zeal of the Secretary of the Treasury, whom I see in his place—may not be carried into effect. It occurs to me that there is some danger in giving encouragement to Petitions of this particular description; because I can imagine it to be possible—although, of course, I have no knowledge of the facts of the present case—that some one whom Her Majesty's Government intended to make a vice-Consul might be possessed—and, perhaps, very properly—of so high a sense of his own merits as to think it would be much better that he should be made a Consul, and therefore would make use of his influence in a foreign town to get signatures to a Petition to be presented to this House praying that it might be a Consulate instead of a vice-Consulate—or, in other words, that he might be a Consul instead of a vice-Consul. There may be some danger, I think, of Petitions of this kind being got up; but, independently of that, I am very reluctant to come with haste to any affirmative decision on this matter. I cannot escape from the idea that there are possibilities of serious inconveniences involved in the reception of Petitions from the subjects of a foreign Power. We have no rights over them; they have no relations to us. Courtesy and grace are excellent things; but the right of petitioning has nothing to do with courtesy or grace. It is a security for the discharge of mutual rights and mutual obligations.I think that if we heard that the inhabitants of Dover were petitioning the French Legislative Chambers, as Englishmen we should not much approve of it, and should not like to see the example followed. I do not now wish to give a final opinion on the subject, and if we were called upon to give a final opinion now, I should give it reluctantly. We should keep on safe ground. I do not see any principle leading us to pronounce an affirmative decision on the matter; and if the question were to be decided now, my disposition would be to decline to receive the Petition.

The right hon. Gentleman has classed among the Petitions that ought properly to be received by this House Petitions sent by subjects of Her Majesty temporarily residing abroad; and that is precisely the case in regard to this Petition. There are numerous signatures of Her Majesty's subjects residing in Boulogne attached to the Petition, and therefore, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it ought to be received. There are also signatures of certain French subjects, and to those the objection of the right hon. Gentleman should be rather applied; but it would be an act of discourtesy to strike out a number of signatures from a Petition sent by those who are unquestionably subjects of Her Majesty, petitioning this House on matters most germane to their interests and feelings. Therefore, I should say, upon the whole, it would be better to accept the Petition as it stands.

having presented the Petition, wished to explain that the facts of the case were these—For a long time there had been a British Consulate, but it was reduced to a vice-Consulate, and the object of the Petitioners was to restore the office to its former rank. A great many English people resided in Boulogne, which was a town increasing rapidly in importance. One-half of the imports, amounting altogether to £35,000,000 sterling, from France to this country, and one-third of the exports from the United Kingdom to France, passed through Boulogne, and a new quay—the Quai Napoleon—had been opened, affording very superior accommodation to every class of ships; and the Petitioners felt that the dignity of this country was not adequately represented by a vice-Consulate in such an important town.

I addressed the House under an entirely false apprehension that this was a Petition from foreigners. Of course, I do not wish to treat it as being vitiated by the presence of a certain number of foreign signatures. Perhaps, Sir, you will be good enough to state to the House the nature of the Petition.

When the hon. Baronet presented this Petition yesterday, I particularly asked him whether it was from British residents in Boulogne. Had he answered in the affirmative, I should have made no objection to the reception of the Petition; but the hon. Baronet read the heading—"The humble Petition of Inhabitants of Boulogne-sur-Mer, in France;" and upon that, I demurred to its being received, upon the ground that it was from the inhabitants of a foreign town. The hon. Baronet stated that it was signed largely—and on the face of the Petition it appeared to be so—by British residents; but I could not do otherwise than regard a Petition with that formal heading, as a Petition from inhabitants of Boulogne-sur-Mer.

said, they were placed in a position in which they ought to be careful how they acted. The Petition came from the inhabitants of a French town, and was largely signed by French names. The first name subscribed to it was that of a Frenchman, who described himself as Mayor of Boulogne. No doubt, there were English names to the Petition, but they had no evidence to show that the English Petitioners were not naturalized French subjects. At all events, the Petition emanated from a foreign town, and there was no precedent for the reception of such a Petition, although there was no precedent the other way. Under the circumstances, he could not but think that the best course to pursue would be to send the Petition to a Committee, who would search for precedents and report to the House on the subject.

thought it would be a most dangerous precedent to allow the Petition to be received without further inquiry. He could conceive nothing more compromising to our relations with foreign countries than to allow inhabitants of them to appeal to the English House of Commons. Circumstances were possible under which the inhabitants of a foreign town might appeal to that House against an act of legislation which was desired by their own Government. For instance, a treaty of extradition might have been signed, requiring an Act of Parliament to be passed in consequence, and the inhabitants of some town in France or Germany, or anywhere else, might object to such a law being made, and appeal to the House of Commons. He therefore agreed in the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester, that an opportunity for deliberation should be given before the Petition was received.

We seem to be a little at issue as to whether this is really and substantially a French, or an English Petition. I would venture to submit that it would be a good plan to refer the Petition to the Committee on Petitions, to report to us as to what is the nature of the Petition. We have not the facts before us which it is necessary we should have before we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. We do not know whether it is a French or an English Petition. The initiatory names appear to be French, and other names appear to be English. Before we came to a decision, we ought to have before us the report of our own Committee on the subject.

asked, whether a Petition would not have to be received and lie upon the Table, before it could be referred to the Committee on Petitions?

Any Petition to be referred to the Committee on Petitions, or any other Committee of the House, must first be received by this House.

said, that the precedent they were about to set would have an interesting, if not an important, aspect in reference to a large number of citizens of the United States. He had seen it stated in the public prints that a Petition to that House, or to the Government, was being very largely signed—indeed, it was said that it would bear the signatures of 3,000,000 of Irishmen, now citizens of the United States—praying for the release of the political prisoners. He mentioned the fact in order that the House might see what was before them if they made a precedent by receiving the Petition under consideration.

said, that it was not easy for hon. Members at the lower end of the House to catch every word that was uttered at the upper end, but he agreed with those hon. Members who held that they were in danger of establishing a precedent which would lead to complications practically unlimited. Religious Petitions in large numbers would flow in from Continental States, and other evils would arise. He therefore hoped the Petition would not be accepted without consideration, and at all events, without consulting the tribunal which generally inquired into these subjects.

said, the Petition now in course of signature in the United States was to be presented not to Parliament, but to Congress, on behalf of an imprisoned American citizen. It was necessary to correct the statement of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) in that respect, lest what he had said should deter the House from acting on the suggestion of the Prime Minister. The Speaker had made an observation which afforded a sufficient protection against any possible danger in future, for he had pointed out that the Petition referred to a subject over which the House had special jurisdiction. The cases in which they were likely to be appealed to by foreign citizens on matters over which the House had jurisdiction must be very few indeed. He saw no reason for delaying the decision of the House in assenting on grounds of courtesy and grace to the Motion of the Prime Minister.

said, that the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken supplied further reasons for doubting the expediency of receiving the Petition. Although the Petition referred to by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) might not be intended for the House of Commons, there was no reason, if this, as he thought, dangerous precedent were to be established, why another Petition should not be got up in America and addressed to the House. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had said nothing in proof of his allegation that there were few questions beyond the jurisdiction of the House on which foreigners were likely to address it. He believed there were many such questions which might crop up any day. He would refer to only one. They had heard of a proposal to appoint an English Commissioner with reference to the finances of Egypt. Was it impossible that the merchants of Alexandria should get up a Petition to the House on that subject; and if this Petition were received how could they refuse to entertain a Petition of the kind which he suggested? In such a case, there was no knowing what dangers it might lead to. The precedent would, in his mind, be a very doubtful one, and ought not to be set without due deliberation.

The discussion which has taken place upon the subject shows that there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of many hon. Members as to the proper course to be pursued upon this occasion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with those who have spoken, at all events, in thinking that in regard to an act of grace to a foreign town the House should be unanimous, and that we should have no division. It seems to me that a very grave question may arise as to whether it is right, in consideration of our diplomatic relations with other countries, that we should receive a Petition from a foreign town or country without knowing whether their Ambassador in this country is acquainted with what they have done, or has sanctioned it. As right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been in office will remember, in dealing with a foreign subject we always take care that he approaches us through his Ambassador, and I think that is a subject well worthy of consideration. I would therefore suggest that my right hon. Friend should withdraw the Motion he has made, so that we may move for a Committee to inquire into the question, and report upon it.

As there seems to exist in the House some doubt and great anxiety not to have any division of opinion, I will withdraw the Motion I have made, and avail myself of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend.

I think the best way will be to give Notice that on Monday a Motion will be made for a Committee to which this Petition can be referred.

in rising to call attention to certain defects in the "Public Schools Act, 1868,"and the position of assistant masters under that Act; and to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any alteration is desirable in the existing relations between the Governing Bodies, Head Masters, and Assistant Masters of the seven schools under the operation of that Act,"

said, he hoped he should be acquitted by the House and the Government of any disrespect or want of courtesy for not having postponed his Motion. He should have done that readily, if there had been any general expression of a desire that he should do so. So far, however, from that being the case, he had only, on the preceding day, received many representations, all of which were to the contrary effect. He knew that in bringing the question forward he incurred some responsibility. There were many who would meet him with the remark—"Pray let our Public Schools alone. The less they are interfered with from outside, the better for them." There was so much truth in that remark, if it was applied to a constant and unnecessary interference, that he could well understand the feeling with which it was made, and the dislike which was entertained to a Public School discussion in that House. But there were exceptional cases, in which such a discussion was not only desirable, but imperatively necessary, and the present was, in his opinion, one of them. An evil had arisen directly out of the legislation of recent years, and to that evil he wished to call the attention of the House. When Parliament, selecting seven of the principal Schools in the country, determined to make them the subjects of special legislation, several consequences immediately of necessity ensued. In the first place, anything that was private in the character and constitution of those schools was so far swept away, that they became emphatically the Public Schools of the country, in which the public had a right to take an interest, and which were brought more directly within the control of public opinion and under the eye of public criticism. In the second place, being governed by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, which, as a first attempt at legislation upon the subject, could hardly be expected to be perfect in all its details, these seven schools became at once a fair and natural object for Parliamentary inquiry from time to time, in order that it might be seen whether the working of that Act had answered the anticipations of its promoters. And, thirdly, having been ranked and recognized among the acknowledged institutions of the country, the public had a right to expect that the same constitutional principles which permeated our whole Government would be found henceforth existing and flourishing in these Public Schools. If then the subject was one fairly open to public criticism and Parliamentary inquiry, he should have owed no apology to the House if he had merely come there to show some defect in the machinery established by the legislation of 1868. But the matter was of wider and graver import: he should show that a body of men, most hard working, meritorious, and valuable to the education of the country, had, by recent legislation, been placed in a position wherein they were compelled to give their services under conditions more stringent, galling, and onerous than was the case with any other body of their fellow-countrymen, or with any similar body of men in other countries. He should show that in this country, which prided herself upon the possession of equal laws for all her subjects, and of constitutional liberty greater than that possessed by other countries, there existed in one class of her public institutions—and in one alone—a despotism unknown in the similar institutions of other countries, and an absolute power as injurious to him who wielded it as to those who had to submit to its exercise. He should point out, moreover, this strange anomaly, that they who doubtless wished their sons to inherit that independence of thought, that freedom of speech, those general principles of liberty which stamp the English character, had been content that the men to whom they entrusted the education of those sons should be obliged to submit to a system under which their tongues were tied, their very thoughts suppressed, and their independence crushed out beneath the pressure of a degrading thralldom. And when he should have shown that this was no whim, no fancy, no crotchet of his own, but a real evil—living, present and active in our Public Schools—threatening their future welfare; grievously felt by those who were doing the educational work within them, and acknowledged even by those in whose hands this absolute power was placed, he should not only stand in need of no apology but should have earned the gratitude of those who cared for the educational efficiency of our Public Schools, in affording to Parliament an opportunity of removing a grievance which its own legislation had created. It was unnecessary to inform the House that the class of men to whom he had alluded were the assistant masters of our Public Schools, in the name and by the authority of a great majority of whom he introduced this subject. They were the men upon whose shoulders really rested the fabric of our Public Schools; they bore the burden and heat of the day; they had adopted the education of youth as a profession, and their heart was in the work. Upon the result of those men's work depended the future career of very many of those who would hereafter possess in this country all that social power and influence which followed the possession of monied and territorial wealth. It was not surprising that such men should feel something of the responsibility of their position, and should desire that in the exercise of their duties they should be as much recognized and protected by fair and equal laws as the members of any other profession. Before refusing this, Parliament was bound to show something so exceptional in their position as to justify a refusal which could not otherwise be maintained. There was no greater mistake than to speak of the assistant masters of Public Schools as if they were mere teachers in private establishments. After they had acquired houses, they much more nearly resembled the heads of Colleges, affiliated to a University, or the masters of a number of small schools incorporated together. They were part and parcel of the Public School system, and after they had become established at their several schools each of them occupied a position from which his sudden removal could not but operate injuriously to the school. Their complaint was that by the provisions of the Public Schools Act they were not only subject to such removal, but might be turned adrift without knowing the reason why, without the statement of any definite charge against them, and without any opportunity of justifying themselves and vindicating their character. The effect of this state of things could not be better described than in the words of the Petition which he had presented—

"That a sense of insecurity has arisen, and has been gradually increasing among your Petitioners since the enactment of the aforesaid clause; and that this feeling is likely to operate to the detriment of the Public Schools by disturbing the cordial relations which have generally existed between Head Masters and their assistants, and by discouraging men of high attainments and independent character from accepting or permanently retaining appointments from which they may at any moment be removed by the simple fiat of their immediate superior."

said, his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had addressed the House at considerable length, and in doing so had dealt out very severe animadversions upon the proceedings of the Governing Body of Eton—calling them, among other things, a Star Chamber—on the question under dispute. He deeply regretted that his right hon. Friend should have had recourse to such language as that, particularly in a case which, involved questions partly of private and personal interest, and partly of public concern. Now, in dealing with questions of this kind, private and personal interests were not well introduced to the consideration of that House, except so far as they might tend to explain and illustrate the public matter which was brought under its notice, and he, for one, would forbear from entering into them. His right hon. Friend would have done well to have recollected that there was danger, to say the least of it, that any one who in dealing with a public matter imported into the discussion private feeling and personal predilections would not be likely to bring to the consideration of the question that calm judgment which it demanded. His right hon. Friend, in opening the case, seemed to think that the Public Schools Act of 1868 had for the first time introduced into this country an absolute power and authority totally unknown to us at any period of the history of this country; But did his right hon. Friend mean to say that he had so partially and imperfectly read the Report of the Commission which brought under the notice of Parliament all matters concerning these Schools, as not to observe there was no point so strongly insisted on by the evidence and the Commissioners as that, with regard to the position of the Head Masters in Public Schools, these should always be given—and that Parliament should be required to give to them—absolute power in every matter connected with the discipline and management of those Schools? If his right hon. Friend would refer to the recommendations of the Commissioners with regard to Eton, Rugby, and St. Paul's, he would find that in all those cases the Commissioners stated their unanimous conviction that the Head Master ought to have the supreme authority; that in exercising it he ought to have complete power in the selection of the assistant masters, and that these powers should rest exclusively with him. His right hon. Friend did not really do justice to the case he had in view, when he thought he was advocating the reasonable feelings entertained by the assistant masters, and far different was the opinion of those gentlemen themselves. But it was not only in the Commissioners' Report that that absolute authority of the Head Master was recommended strongly as the chief means by which the teaching and discipline of the School should be maintained. The Bill, when discussed in the other House of Parliament, was referred to a Select Committee, and was brought here again on the Report. He had charge of the Bill. He recommended that it be referred to a Select Committee, and on that Committee there were many hon. Gentlemen who took great interest in this matter; but in all the Amendments they made they strongly insisted that this absolute power of the Head Master should not be interfered with. In one of the discussions which occurred on going into Committee on the Bill on the 16th of June, 1868, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), one of the most competent men in that House to give an opinion on the question, confirmed in the amplest manner the opinion so given by the Commissioners. He said—

"What, then, was their duty in this matter? It was to leave the greatest possible scope to those who managed the school—to the Head Master, in fact, to manage it as he pleased; and all they could do was to give parents the best means of knowing the manner in which their children were educated, leaving them to find out whether it was satisfactory or not. He should say form a Governing Body if they pleased—that was, a body to appoint a Master and remove him in case of misconduct or for the interest of the school; but when they had appointed him give him full power and control over it."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 1643.]

These observations clearly showed that on the general point the Master of the School should have absolute power, and that this was recognized and sanctioned by the authority of Parliament. Nobody could dispute that was the view of Parliament at the time the Act was passed. What had happened since to induce any change of opinion? His right hon. Friend said two cases had occurred—that of Rugby and that of Eton. He (Mr. Walpole) ventured to say these two cases, looking to the points on which they turned, were strong illustrations of the necessity of giving this power to the Head Master. The Rugby case, so far as he could gather it from the statement of his right hon. Friend was of this kind—there had been a great difference, not to say conflict, between the Head Master and some of the assistant masters; it had been going on for some time, and the Head Master felt he could not conduct the School as he thought it should be conducted so long as that conflict of opinion between some of his assistant masters and himself continued. That was the ground on which he dismïssed an assistant master; and if there had been an appeal to the Governing Body on such a point as that, they could not have decided it, because the Head Master told them he had lost all confidence in the assistant master, and therefore it was impossible for them to go on together. In the case of Eton, his right hon. Friend said Mr. Browning was dismissed, and he never knew on what charge. He was entirely mistaken. That charge did not rest on one single act which might have been the subject of appeal, but a course of action between the Head Master and the assistant master, by which the School suffered. The charge was stated in the letter of dismissal from the Head Master as follows:—

"I must remind you that in your case particular attention had been called to your violation of the rules last winter; that you had in consequence received a reprimand, and very definite instructions in writing as to your future course. I believe that your colleagues will be found to have kept within the regulations; but if there has been any violation of them (and I shall at once proceed to investigate this), it cannot in any way justify what you have done. For two or three years hardly a school term has passed in which I have not been compelled to undertake the very painful task of calling you to account for neglect of work or violation of rules. I feel that I have carried forbearance in your case beyond the limit which I ought to have observed in strict duty to the school. I have done so because of the extreme gravity of dismissing a master from Eton, especially one of your age and standing, and because I tried to indulge the hope that your conduct might yet be such as to make this extreme measure unnecessary. I feel, however, that after recent events, and after our conversation of yesterday, it is not possible for me to feel that confidence in you which is absolutely necessary to our working together, and to my entrusting you with the important duties which belong to an Eton master."

He thought that after that it could hardly be said that Mr. Browning was not aware of the charge that was brought against him. It was a charge which plainly could not be determined by any Court of Appeal, because it turned on the question which such a Court could not decide—whether a Head Master could go on conducting his School when he had lost confidence in his assistants. His right hon. Friend said the Governing Body sat, in a secret chamber; that they never listened to the representations made to them; and that Mr. Browning had been wrongfully dismissed by the Head Master. But when they came to the question—Could the Governing Body interfere in such a case? he said they had no such power. Further, the Governing Body themselves decided that no appeal could be brought before them. So the cases of Rugby and Eton stood. But his right hon. Friend had dealt with private matters which he (Mr. Walpole) thought ought not to have been so pro- minently brought before the House, as they had really no proper means of judging of them. One point, however, he thought well worthy of consideration, and that was the way in which the assistant masters represented their case. It was said that since the Act had passed, and since the two cases referred to had occurred, they felt themselves to be in a position different from that in which they formerly stood; that they had a sense of insecurity and a feeling of uneasiness in their present position. But although the assistant masters did very temperately and properly address their Petition to the House, did they arrive at the conclusion that the power of the Head Master was an absolute power which ought to be taken away? Far from it. They said in their Petition that the authority of the Head Master was necessary for the maintenance of discipline in the several Schools, although they thought that that authority would be in no way impaired by the concession to them of such security as a body of educated gentlemen might reasonably claim. He would ask what was that security to be? On that the House was left entirely in the dark. His right hon. Friend said there should be a right of appeal; but no appeal could lie from an assistant master who had been acting out of harmony with the feelings of the Head Master in regard to what he was directed to do—no appeal to any Governing Body could decide whether the Head Master in such a case was right or not in getting rid of the assistant master. Then his right hon. Friend said—"Refer this matter to a Select Committee." For what purpose were they to refer it to a Committee? Were the Committee to rake up and go into all those charges and counter-charges as his right hon. Friend had done? He hoped the House would not consent to that. If his right hon. Friend had any plan in his own mind, he should put it into the shape of a Bill, and let it be discussed; but he warmly objected to a Select Committee. Were the Committee to try, as his right hon. Friend seemed to intimate, to find from one source or another how some kind of security, which could not possibly be explained, was to be given to the assistant masters? If that was his right hon. Friend's object, he (Mr. Walpole) said that the House never did grant a Select Committee for such a purpose. It required, in the first place, that grounds should be shown for appointing such a Committee; and, secondly, that their was a reasonable prospect of a practical result being attained. Neither of these things had been made out. The strong recommendations of the Commissioners were in favour of the absolute authority given to the Head Master remaining in his hands for the best interests of the School; and to raise a sort of mutiny on the part of the assistant masters, encouraging bickerings and strife between them and the Head Master, was the very worst thing that could be done for the permanent welfare of those institutions. He therefore hoped that the House would negative the Motion of his right hon. Friend and leave that matter where it was, on the lines upon which, for good reasons, Parliament had settled it, giving the Head Master the power of selecting and dismissing the assistant masters, and not allowing the Governing Body any power of interfering in the management, discipline, and teaching of the School which ought to be entrusted to the Head Master and to him alone.

said, he entirely agreed in the introductory remark of his right hon. Friend who brought forward that question—namely, that he incurred a grave responsibility in re-opening the question of our Public Schools after Parliament had so recently legislated upon it; but he regretted that that sense of responsibility seemed to have vanished from his right hon. Friend's mind the moment after he had expressed it. He would appeal to those hon. Members of the House who had been educated at Public Schools whether, when they were at school, they looked upon the assistant masters as "miserable slaves," as gentlemen living in the "degraded thraldom" that was pointed out by his right hon. Friend. He recollected many of his present friends who were assistant masters at Harrow, and he was bound to say that his right hon. Friend had painted them to the House in a light in which they had never presented themselves to him at the time he had the honour of being instructed by them. He admitted that his right hon. Friend had a very fair case; but he was bound to say that what chance he had of securing this Select Committee from the Home Secretary had been entirely dissipated by the manner in which he had handled the case. He protested against his right hon. Friend getting up in that House, and talking of the vindictiveness of Head Masters, and his description of the position of the assistant masters of Public Schools as one of degrading thraldom and of slavery under an irresponsible authority. As he had said, his right hon. Friend, starting at the outset with a good case, had so entirely overdone it, that if the Home Secretary did not refuse to grant a Select Committee it would not be his fault. The first point to which the proposed Select Committee was to address itself was the relations between the Governing Body and the Head Master. He could not conceive a more mischievous proceeding than that they should now nave a Select Committee to re-open the question of the relations between the Governing Bodies of those schools and the Head Masters. He believed that the best relations that could subsist between a Governing Body and a Head Master was, that they should select the best man they could get to put at the head of the School, and then leave him alone, and not perplex and harass him with interference in affairs which he was far more able to conduct than they were. His right hon. Friend next dealt with the relations between the Head Master and the assistant masters, and he certainly made out some sort of an argument for a change in those relations; yet he admitted that under the present system they obtained for the position of assistant masters men of the very highest standing, and who were deserving of the greatest confidence. But upon what facts did he base that great and amazing change which he desired to see? He referred to the case of Eton, in which he had taken a very prominent part; and considering the part he had taken with regard to those unfortunate proceedings, it would have been a great deal better if this Motion had been placed in other hands. He (Sir Robert Anstruther) deeply regretted the part which his right hon. Friend took in that matter; it was not for the well-being of Eton, and it would have been far better if he had maintained the opinion which he said he had at first held, and had left the Head Master of Eton to arrange affairs with the assistant masters without his intervention. The assistant masters of Harrow had, he said, signed this Petition. The were in a more favourable position, than the assistant masters and others of these great Public Schools. They, of course, held office at the pleasure of the Head Master, but the Governing Body had passed this statute—

"That all the assistant masters shall be appointed and hold their office at the pleasure of the Head Master, but in case the Head Master shall dismiss an assistant master he shall forthwith notify in writing the fact and the reason of it to the Governing Body, and it shall be the duty of the Governing Body to consider, though not in the way of appeal, any statement which shall have been presented to them by an assistant master who shall have been dismissed."

That placed a very remarkable and, in his opinion, a perfectly sufficient, check on the Head Master, supposing him to be such a Head Master as his right hon. Friend had described—that was to say, one full of vindictiveness, an irresponsible tyrant, &c. [Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I never used the word tyrant.] The whole tenour of his right hon. Friend's observations went to show that the Head Masters of the seven great Schools of England were tyrants to their assistant masters. He (Sir Robert Anstruther) had received a letter from the Head Master of Harrow, who was favourable to such an appeal as his right hon. Friend advocated, but Dr. Butler was able to say this—

"I am happy to say we have never had a case here of the dismissal of any master, or the contemplated dismissal. But I see plainly enough that the old state of the law cannot possibly stand."

He submitted that although his right hon. Friend had, to a certain extent, a case when he commenced his speech, that case was practically destroyed before he sat down; and considering the magnitude of the interests involved, and how very undesirable it was that the House should constantly be tinkering at these great Public Schools, he trusted the Motion for a Committee would be negatived.

said, he deeply regretted not only what had taken place at the several Schools that had been named, but also the course of the discussions which took place with regard to Eton, and Rugby. The course which was taken, the examples that were set, the discussions that ensued, and the way in which everything was made public, did not tend to do good to the schools, improve the discipline of the boys, or to encourage the persons who sent their children to those Schools. He was in hopes that all those matters might have been considered closed. He was in hopes, to quote the words of an able writer on the subject—

"That, for the future, nothing would be heard in public of the Public Schools, but that they would set diligently to work to teach the boys, not only by the simple process of teaching, but by setting an example of that discipline which is so necessary."

He, therefore, regretted very much that the subject had been re-opened that night in the way in which it had been, and he was bound to say that the remarks made by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Spencer Walpole) showed in his (Mr. Cross's) opinion, quite clearly that the mind of his right hon. Friend opposite had been warped in this matter by the interest he had taken in one of the recent cases which had, unfortunately, happened. Whatever his right hon. Friend opposite might say to the contrary, he (Mr. Cross) thought that one of the most important matters in relation to Public Schools was that discipline should be kept up, and that end could not be obtained in a Public School, as they desired, except in one way. The best man that could be found ought to be appointed Head Master of a public school, and when he was appointed we ought to leave him alone and not meddle with him. If we found we were mistaken in the man, if he did that which he ought not to do, that would render him a fit person to be dismissed from his office, and we ought to dismiss him and appoint the best man we could find in his place. But whilst he was there, they ought not to interfere with him. He believed firmly that the only way of carrying on great Public Schools was to give to the Head Masters uncontrolled power in carrying them on. His right hon. Friend opposite had drawn a very strong picture of the Head Master. He had described him, if not as a tyrant, at all events as an irresponsible despot. He was not irresponsible; for, in the first place, he was responsible to the parents whose children were in the school. Next he was responsible to the voice of public opinion, and beyond that he was respon- sible to the Governing Body, because by the very same section by which he had the power to dismiss under masters, the Governing Body had an absolute power to dismiss him, if he acted without discretion in carrying out the powers which were entrusted to him. Whether in relation to the boys or the under masters, the Governing Body might step in and say he was no longer fit to be Head Master. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in the case of Endowed Schools relief had been granted to the assistant masters, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not followed that case to a consistent conclusion. This was the history of the transaction. The Endowed Schools Commissioners first began their work by directing that the Head Master should be appointed by the Governing Body without appeal, and then that the assistant masters should be appointed by the Head Masters and dismissed by him without appeal, but as time went on, and exception was made by the Commissioners early in their proceedings with reference to assistant masters who with the sanction of the Governing Body and the Head Master had laid out large sums of money in boarding-houses or other matters. That was the arrangement till 1873. What happened to the Endowed Schools then was exactly what happened in the case of Public Schools at the present moment. In 1873 the Commissioners were memorialized by a very large number of assistant masters of the chief Schools of the country, who urged on them the propriety of giving to all assistant masters the power of appealing to the Governing Body in case of dismissal. That matter was carefully considered by the Commissioners, who saw that the feeling was very strong among the assistant masters, while among the Head Masters there was a difference about the expediency of making the concession asked by the assistant masters, and ultimately the Commissioners in the scheme which they then made provided an absolute appeal to the Governing Body in all cases. But when the control of the Endowed Schools was transferred in 1875to the Charity Commissioners it was found that this did not answer, and the Charity Commissioners took the appeal away, and reverted to the old practice, including the exception he had referred to. Having said that, he would now say a word as to the assistant masters. He did not believe there was a set of men in England who performed more arduous duties, or performed them better than they did. But he did not think they would agree that their real case had been put before them to-night by the right hon. Gentleman. A proof of that was to be found in the fact that there was no difficulty in getting the very best men of the country to act as assistant masters. He thought that part of his right hon. Friend's case had broken down. He believed that what was necessary for the carrying on of Public Schools was that there should be a thorough understanding and confidence between the Head Master and the assistant masters. He believed that did exist in most of the schools in England, and that was the reason why they had so flourished. His right hon. Friend asked for a Committee to inquire into the matter. This was not a question for a Committee. The simple result of a Committee would be that they would have all the details of those two cases which had unfortunately happened filling the pages of Blue Books scattered all over the country. He believed that that would have a most mischievous effect, and he, for one, would not take any step which would produce that result. He hoped, therefore, the House would refuse to grant a Select Committee. He hoped the assistant masters would not think that by not doing so the House had no feeling for them. He thought that in working honestly with the Head Masters they need have no fear of any injustice, because they had two safeguards against it—namely, the effect of public opinion and the absolute control of the Governing Body.

said, the conduct of the assistant masters of Rugby School had been such that it was impossible for the Head Masters to get on with them. He considered if the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich was carried, it would lead to the destruction of discipline in all our Public Schools.

said, that if a right of appeal were to be given to every under master, the Governing Body would probably be compelled to interfere with the administration of the school in a manner highly detrimental to its efficiency. Practically, there was always an appeal from the decision of the Head Masters dismissing under masters, to to the Governing Bodies of our Public Schools, inasmuch as the dismissal of an under master was an item in the conduct of the Head Master which the Governing Body could not fail to make the most searching inquiry into.

said, the idea of a Public School which prevailed on that side of the House seemed to be that it was an institution in which perfect discipline existed throughout, and they were ready to sacrifice to that end the whole individuality of the assistant masters. He supported the Motion, because he thought that the House should respect the rights of men who had spent 30 years of their life as under masters, and prevent them, after so long a period of service, being sent out into the world with their characters impaired, and without means, at the mere caprice of an individual.

opposed the Resolution. He said that the question before the House interested Public School men, and that that must be his excuse, if excuse were needed, for taking any part in the debate. The position in which Head Masters and Assistant Masters stood to one another required the utmost mutual confidence and forbearance, so that the discipline of a School might be maintained. He did not think a case had been made out for a Committee; but the discussion would be productive of good, for it was not desirable that the management of Public Schools should be matter of newspaper correspondence, and it was better that an appeal should be made to that House in a matter which arose out of the administration of an Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Dalrymple) was one of those who saw no reason for the change suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich. The power of dismissal had been in the hands of Head Masters before the Act of 1868 was passed, and the system had worked well, and for the benefit of the great Public Schools. It had been asserted that Assistant Masters through fear of dismissal would conceal their feelings, and that their spirit of independence would thus be injured. Practical men of the world would not be induced to believe that a large number of distinguished men—and Assistant Masters were among the most distinguished men drawn from our Universities—necessarily of very different characters and temperaments would under any system smother and bury their opinions for fear of any consequences. It was contrary to all experience of the past to maintain that such could be the case. The best thing that the Trustees of our great schools could do was to appoint the very best men as Head Masters. When a Governing Body had selected the best men they could find—a man remarkable for graceful scholarship, for knowledge of men, for administrative power, for blameless life, and placed him over a great Public School, they ought to lay upon him the chief and undivided responsibility, giving to him the power of appointing and dismissing his Assistant Masters, with only such, security for their offices as mutual forbearance and consideration might be expected, and had often been found, to supply. It was for the interest of Assistant Masters themselves, and for the interest of the management and discipline of a school, that the responsibility should rest with the Head Master. The clause relating to Assistant Masters in the Act of 1868 had received the careful attention of Parliament, and he (Mr. Dalrymple) could not admit that a case had been made out for its alteration. The next clause to it related to Head Masters, and if a change were made in the position of Assistant Master, the case of Head Masters might claim attention also, since they held their office at the discretion of Governing Bodies, and a plea of insecurity of tenure might readily be established on their behalf also.

said, he was disappointed at the turn of the discussion. The Resolution was temperate, and so was the Petition of the Assistant Masters; and it was a matter of regret that that which should have been discussed as a question of principle of great importance to assistant masters and the country at large should have drifted into a question of personal grievances connected with Eton, and should have been met in the spirit it had been by some hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who found fault with the tone in which the question had been introduced, seemed to fall into the very error he had deprecated. No answer had been given to the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich, and the assistant masters would have reason to complain that their complaints and representations had been ignored.

expressed his willingness to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]

apologized at that late hour for standing in the way of the division, at which there appeared a great anxiety to arrive; but still he hoped the House would bear with him, while he made a few remarks, relative to the transactions at Rugby School, which had been commented upon by the right hon. Member for Sandwich and by other speakers who followed him, and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) asked for the indulgence on the ground that he had himself been partly educated at Rugby, and, as a Warwickshire man, not only took deep interest in the School, but had many friends who had at various times taken part in its administration. He had listened with great attention to the able speech of the right hon. Member for Sandwich, in the hope of finding arguments in it, upon which might be based an alteration of the present statute, which gave the Head Master absolute power and control over the assistant masters; but the opinion he himself had always entertained of the sound policy of the Act in this particular, was even strengthened and confirmed by the statements made by the right hon. Member and by his narrative of the late proceedings at Eton. As the right hon. Member had cited the case of two assistant masters at Rugby, although his version of that transaction had been corrected already by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), yet, perhaps, he might be excused if he referred more fully to the facts which led to that dismissal, as showing how important it was that the Head Master should be supported by the Governing Body in any attempt which he made in putting in force his power under the Act over his subordinates. As the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire had already stated, 20 out of 21 assistant masters had openly rebelled against the authority of the Head Master, and being supported in their insubordination by the Governing Body, they ultimately prevailed. The facts were these—In 1869 Dr. Temple, the Head Master of Rugby School, re- signed his office on becoming Bishop of Exeter, and the Trustees, who were at that time almost all Warwickshire men, after much and careful deliberation and examination of the testimonials presented to them, selected Dr. Hayman, at that time Head Master of Bradfield School, as his successor. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) knew from the best authority that the Trustees considered the testimonials on two successive days, and that the conclusion they came to was unanimous. But no sooner had Dr. Hayman been selected as Dr. Temple's successor, than a marked and undisguised hostility appeared against him in more quarters than one. Twenty out of the 21 assistant masters memorialized the Trustees against the appointment they had made, and among other complaints was one, that the new Head Master had made an improper use of old testimonials. The Trustees met to consider this memorial, and came to the conclusion unanimously, that the use which had been made of previous testimonials, was in no way censurable. The relations between the Head Master and his assistants gradually improved during the period the old Trustees continued to hold office, and between December 1869 and December 1871, when the new Governing Body assumed the reins of power, the Head Master received the uniform support of the old Trustees, who used all their influence in endeavouring to reconcile the assistant masters to the authority of their chief. Unfortunately, some restless spirits would not be quiet, and it must be regretted that when the Head Master found this to be the case, he did not enforce, at all events against those who continued in a state of half-concealed insubordination and cabal, the power of dismissal which the Act of 1868 conferred upon him. When the new Governing Body took the management of the school in December, 1871, matters grew rapidly from bad to worse. Nothing could be more improper than that the Bishop of Exeter and Dr. Bradley, both of whom had taken an active part already against the Head Master, should allow themselves to be nominated as members of the new Governing Body—but so it was—one was elected by the University of London and the other by the University of Oxford. But no sooner had they taken their seats at the Board, than more than one of the assistant masters who had met with scant encouragement from the old Trustees, began their attacks again against the Head Master. Repeated inquiries took place as to the grounds of complaint alleged, and in October, 1873, the Governing Body called on the Head Master to retract certain charges which he had made against an assistant master, and to tender an apology to him. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would not stop to examine whether this was rightly done or not, he only mentioned the fact, in order to say that the Head Master, on two several occasions afterwards, in conformity with the decision of the Governing Body, expressed his regret to his assistant master in the most unqualified manner, and, having done this, he trusted that the School would now be permitted to enjoy peace and quiet, as these late unhappy misunderstandings had greatly interfered with its prosperity and success. Notwithstanding that all matters in difference seemed now at an end, yet in February, 1873, the Governing Body re-opened the old grounds of complaint, notwithstanding a strong remonstrance from the Earl of Warwick, one of the Governing Body, who greatly disapproved the course of irritation the Governing Body were pursuing. Unfortunately, Lord Warwick left England about this time on account of ill health, and the Head Master lost the support of that highly esteemed Nobleman on the Governing Body. Later in the year Dr. Hayman found it necessary to give notice of dismissal to two other assistant masters for some reasons connected with the working of the School, and this act led to a wider breach than ever between himself and the Governing Body. More inquiries took place, and ultimately the Head Master was dismissed by the Governing Body in December, 1873. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had purposely omitted many circumstances which would tend to show that the Head Master had not had justice done to him; but as the House was anxious to close the debate, he had been desirous of making his narrative as brief and compressed as possible. His object in making these remarks was to show that if a Head Master and his assistants were interfered with, as was the case at Rugby, no Head Master could ever hold his ground. If despotism was ever commendable or desir- able, it was surely and absolutely so in the case of the Head Master of a Public School. Once let a Governing Body be the receptacle of the jealousies which must frequently exist between individuals under authority and those set over them, and the whole discipline and regular action and harmony of a Public School would and must receive a fatal shock. In the Rugby case a single man had to contend with a numerous and powerful body of inferiors, banded together for his degradation and disgrace, and when to this powerful combination was added the no less powerful influence of those on the Governing Body, who were at no pains to conceal their dislike of him, there was no wonder that he was worsted in a conflict so unequal and so hopeless as regarded an appeal in the case of the Head Master's dismissal. He was glad to hear so high minded a man as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford rise, who had been himself a Rugby Trustee, and who had had practical experience of the working of the system, express himself favourably to such an appeal. But that was not the matter now before them. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) could give no support to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Sandwich, as all the facts adduced that evening incontestibly proved to him that the Head Master's power over his assistants should not be in any way controlled or interfered with, and that the power given by the Public Schools Act of 1868 was salutary and sound in principle. He apologized for the length of his remarks, but felt constrained to make them, as he had always been strongly convinced, and he should never shrink from expressing that conviction and that opinion, that the late Head Master of Rugby had had great injustice done to him.

rose to call the attention of the House to the advantages that would arise from the construction of a Central Arsenal. In doing so, he hoped the gentlemen upstairs would convey his remarks to the public, who, he doubted not, took more interest in it than the House appeared to feel. Whatever might be the differences of opinion as to the question of the offensive forces of this country, there could be none so far as the defence was concerned. Had the Forms of the House allowed him to do so, he would have moved for a Committee to consider whether the cost of the removal of the Arsenal from Woolwich to a central position would not be covered by the diminished cost of the raw material and its manufacture. He thought he could show that the change he advocated would not only involve no cost to the country, but would be a positive gain. The present was an unfortified Arsenal in connection with an unfortified capital. It was, besides, situated upon a river, which, on strategical grounds, was not a proper position for an Arsenal. The objection to Woolwich was, however, mitigated by the fact that the fortifications were more or less completed at the mouth of the Thames and by the great increased power of defence afforded by the use of torpedoes. At the same time that was not an answer to the objection, and he doubted whether such conditions as obtained with regard to the relative positions of Woolwich and London were to be found abroad. If an enemy attacked the country, his endeavour would be to march upon the capital and to destroy the Arsenal, and in this case, as he had stated, the capital and the Arsenal were alike unfortified. He did not rest the suggestion he made on his own opinion merely; it was justified by the practice of foreign nations and by the views of the Royal Commission appointed in 1859 to consider the subject. Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

resumed—The Report of the Commissioners stated that the Arsenal ought to be placed in a secure locality, and further mentioned that a complete system of fortifications might be constructed around Woolwich at a cost of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000. Such a system would, however, be in connection with the fortification of London, and he could not recommend the fortification of the me- tropolis, as the extent of the works would be so great and the cost so enormous. Therefore, it was practically impossible to fortify the Arsenal of Woolwich. Besides it was unnecessary, for there were many other sites that could be readily made available for the purpose. For instance, he had heard that arrangements had been made for the purchase of 1,500 acres at Strensall Common, near York. He might also refer to the circumstances that the Government had sent down qualified persons to Cannock Chase and to a place near Leeds for the purpose of seeing how far either place might be suited for the formation of a central Arsenal. The arguments against removal were—first, that the Arsenal was there; and, secondly, that there would be a difficulty and expense in removal; but he believed that he could show there would be no extra expense incurred by the proposal as he had before observed, neither would it be of such an amount as to prevent them having an Arsenal in a locality that would make it less liable to a successful attack from an enemy than Woolwich. He proposed to leave the store and gun departments there, and to shift the carriage department and the laboratory. Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

resumed—The reason why the laboratory departments should be removed and placed together was the necessity for supplying ammunition rapidly to an Army in the field. It would be little less than a national disgrace and breakdown if there was a failure of supply in such a case. As to the argument of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) last year, who proposed to put the work into the hands of private manufacturers, instead of doing it in the national establishments, the answer was that, under present circumstances, there was practically no other demand for these stores in the open market, except that from the national establishments; and in the case of a war, very little assistance could be obtained from the private contractors, and it would be difficult to transfer any portion of the Staff from Woolwich to Devonport or elsewhere in time to have any effect upon a campaign; while, at the same time, the workshops in these places were too small to bear a sudden strain upon their resources. He came now to the most important part of his case—the cost of removal as compared with the economy of removal. There were in the Arsenal at Woolwich some 40,000,000 cubic feet of building, the proportion of iron to brick being as 11½ to 29½. To shift half of the departments as he proposed would be, therefore, to shift 20,000,000 cubic feet of building. The average cost of this building would be 6d. per cubic foot, a sum which would well cover all charges, including the foundations. Thus, the cost of removal would be £500,000, as far as the buildings were concerned, while he estimated that £300,000 would provide for the purchase of land, and £200,000 for the cost of shifting machinery. The total charge would be £1,000,000, for which sum he was certain that the carriage and laboratory departments could be removed from Woolwich. Our fortifications were paid for by Terminable Annuities spread over 30 years, and, at the same rate, £56,000 a-year would be the charge required. If, therefore, he could show that the change would result in saving more than £56,000 a-year, his case was proved: First, there was the value of the land vacated at Woolwich, which would be considerable. He, however, thought it would be wise to shift to this vacant ground the clothing department at Pimlico and the Indian Store Inspection department, which had ground at Lambeth. If that were done the value of the two sites thus relinquished would be very large indeed. When he proposed that last year, he was told that it was important these establishments should be under the eye of the Government. But they all knew that they were conducted mainly by letter, and there would be no more difficulty in transacting the business by letters which had to be sent six miles than two. It was unwise for the Government to have establishments like those on such expensive sites, and, for all practical purposes of communication with the War Office, they might as well be at Woolwich. He estimated that by the change they would save £15,000 a-year in coal, £20,000 in iron, £10,000 in labour, and £15,000 in the manufacturing of stores. This made a total of £60,000; but he believed the actual saving would be far larger. If the proposal he suggested should be carried out, great economy might be effected. At the same time he did not rest this proposal merely on the ground of economy. What was of vast importance was, that if our first line of defence was forced, we should have a sufficient reserve elsewhere. The hon. Member for Greenwich, in addressing his constituents last year, in opposition to the erection of a new central Arsenal, said the Royal Commission who had recommended it were men who were afflicted with "Gallophobia." That was a view of the case which could not be justified when they looked at who were the eminent and experienced men who composed that Commission, and who were the least likely to be actuated by any fears from that quarter. He had shown, he thought, good reasons why, for important strategical reasons, it was highly desirable that the central Arsenal should be established, and also that, with greater efficiency in every department, we should have greater economy. He hoped to hear from the Treasury Bench some answers to both of these reasons. In conclusion, he thought he was entitled to ask what reasonable fault could be found with the estimates he had put forward? If, as he contended, there was none, as the strategical advantages would be in themselves very great, the House would act wisely in acceding to his Motion.

said, he could hardly help feeling that the discussion invited by the hon. and gallant Member for South Durham involved a waste of the time of the House—especially when he remembered the small encouragement a similar Motion had met with last year. On that occasion the hon. and gallant Gentleman was told, in very unmistakeable terms, that his own Party would not have been prepared even to grant him a Committee, much less to take his proposal into serious consideration, if they had been in office; and he was also informed, on the authority of the Secretary to the Royal Commission of 1860, that if that Commission could be re-appointed, it would now report differently; besides he had failed to show that the Committee he desired would be able to collect any information beyond what was already in the possession of the Government. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had succeeded in proving anything, it was that his own calculations were utterly unreliable, for whilst last year his estimate of the saving to be effected by the change he advocated amounted to £90,000 per annum, he now made it £60,000; then he required 7,000 acres of land for his purpose—now he was content with 1,500—a difference which, no doubt in the exercise of a wise discretion, he had omitted to explain. However, he (Mr. Boord) was not going to quarrel with that; for, if his requirements continued to decrease at the same rate, there was some hope that he would not find it necessary to occupy the attention of the House next Session with the same proposition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated the consumption of coal in the arsenal to be equivalent to £30,000 annually, and that he could save £15,000 of that outlay; but although he professed to estimate the saving, he did not appear able to give the number of tons consumed, which was a necessary element in the calculation.

said, he had obtained the amount of £30,000 from the Estimates of the year, and that the number of tons was not given.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the correctness of the quotation from the Estimates; but that did not alter his opinion that £15,000 was a very large amount to save out of £30,000, and he doubted if it could be satisfactorily explained. The Royal Commission of 1860 had three schemes before them for the protection of Woolwich by land; and the wide difference between them, both as to cost and character, sufficiently proved the divergence of opinion that prevailed amongst the Members, and tended to show that its appointment might be traced to the invasion panic then prevailing. But the most conclusive proof that nothing further was required in the direction of the Report of that Commission was to be found in the fact that absolutely nothing had been done since towards carrying its recommendations, with regard to a central arsenal, into effect; and even within six months of its issue General Sir de Lacy Evans had been counted out whilst calling attention to the subject—a misfortune that had twice very nearly befallen the hon. and gallant Gentleman that evening. Even if it were otherwise, the Report on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman relied did not appear to be so favourable to his views as he would have the House believe. It said that the arsenal must be near the sea, so as to be convenient for the shipment of stores and for other reasons—how did he propose to adapt his site in Yorkshire to these conditions? But the whole of his argument was based on an assumption to which he (Mr. Boord) objected entirely—that our first line of defence would be forced. The country was called upon annually to provide enormous sums of money for the Naval and Military Services, and no effort was spared to maintain those Services in an effective condition, yet we were to be called upon to increase our outlay almost indefinitely on the mere supposition that those Services would prove useless in an emergency. He was surprised that such an argument should be seriously brought forward in that House by an officer of the Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made another statement that filled him with astonishment; he had said that private manufacturers were unable to supply arms of precision such as were required for the service of the Army. That was the first time he had ever heard it alleged that there was anything which private industry in this country could not accomplish, and he felt sure that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman took the trouble to inform himself he would arrive at a different conclusion. In case of necessity private firms would be found ready to place their services at the disposal of the Government, a fact which alone rendered the construction of subsidiary depôts and arsenals, to the extent contemplated by the Royal Commission, unnecessary. But what was needed in that direction was already in progress, for he believed the Government were putting the gun wharves at Plymouth and other places in such condition as to render their development a matter easy of accomplishment; therefore we were by no means in so desperate a condition as the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would seem to indicate. The objections to his scheme were sufficiently weighty and numerous to counteract any theoretical advantage, which at first sight it might appear to offer. It would be found very inconvenient to separate the Carriage department, as proposed, from the Gun factory; the first cost would greatly exceed the estimate, already extravagant, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had submitted; he had taken no account of the increased annual cost for maintenance, nor of the extra accumulation of stores, which must necessarily follow the multiplication of such establishments; and, lastly, he had entirely ignored the disadvantages attendant on the publication of the evidence, for the benefit of foreign nations, of a Committee whose chief object would be to discover the weak points in our system of national defence. For these reasons, he sincerely trusted that his noble Friend below him would adhere to the determination he had expressed last year in reference to this proposal.

said, that this was not a new question. It was brought forward in 1860, when a Royal Commission was appointed, and the subject was then very fully discussed. He said last year that if the Commission assembled together again, it would not, in all probability, take the same view as at that period. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

proceeded to say, that he made that observation, as he stated last year, on the authority of the distinguished officer, Sir William Jervois, who was Secretary to the Commission, so that it was not a haphazard view which he expressed. The hon. and gallant Member had divided his arguments into two heads—strategical and financial. It was on strategical grounds that the arsenal was kept in its present position. There was no doubt that if our first line of defence was forced; if an invading army did by any chance land in this country, and if our Army was unfortunately beaten in the field, the consequences would be very disastrous; but he did not believe they would be so disastrous to Woolwich as to London. His impression, and that of military authorities, was that the invading force would advance on the Metropolis, and having captured it, the capture of Woolwich would be a small matter. As to attacking Woolwich by water the defence of the Thames was, he might say, complete. There were now eight iron-clad forts in different parts of the Thames; and if anything more in the way of defence was necessary, it could be supplied by the admirable system of torpedoes which they had now, he hoped, brought almost to perfection. As far as approach by water was concerned, Woolwich was, in the minds of military authorities, impregnable. It was of far greater importance that the arsenal should be within easy access of the officials than that it should be centralized in a given situation. Again, Woolwich was admirably situated as an arsenal if it were a question of embarking troops in the case of an invasion of any country abroad. Turning to the financial aspect of the matter, he might state that the figures upon which the hon. and gallant Member had based his arguments were fallacious, more especially with regard to iron. Then, in regard to coal, the average price of coal at Newcastle in 1874–5 was 17s. per ton, while the price for which it was delivered at Woolwich Arsenal was from 22s. to 22s. 6d., showing a difference of 5s. or 5s. 6d. per ton, instead of 10s., as stated by the hon. and gallant Member. In 1875–6 the average price at Newcastle was 14s., while coal was delivered at Woolwich for 20s. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next told them £20,000 would be saved in metal; but he (Lord Eustace Cecil) was informed that metal was quite as cheap at Woolwich as it would be in the centre or even in the North of England. Then, with respect to labour, the ordinary rates of skilled labour were slightly higher—perhaps 5 per cent higher—at Woolwich than in the North; but unskilled labour was fully 10 per cent lower at Woolwich. Piecework was a time and-a-half, and double time; whereas, at the arsenal, it was a time and a-quarter as a rule, and a time and a-half was the exception. Therefore, the great economies which the hon. and gallant Member expected from the adoption of his recommendations would probably fall to the ground. Moreover, the hon. and gallant Gentleman either proved too much or too little in regard to the removal of those departments. If it was necessary to retain the Gun factory where it was, the same argument would apply, more or less, to the laboratory and the carriage factory. As to the concentration of stores at Woolwich Arsenal, no doubt it would be unwise to place all our eggs, so to speak, in one basket; but we had at least 30 different stations spread over the United Kingdom where we had stores of one sort or another. We had two small manufactories at Plymouth and Devonport which could be made use of at any moment, and which would no doubt in time be very serviceable. Besides that, we had under the local organization some 66 brigades scattered all over the country, where it were proposed, more or less, to have stores of some kind. When, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman supposed we had such a great concentration of stores at Woolwich that if Woolwich was taken we should have nothing to fall back upon, he was under a misapprehension. Moreover, we should also have the private manufacturers to fall back upon. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken slightingly of the private manufactures; but at Birmingham it was perfectly possible to have rifles and ammunition made. The Messrs. Armstrong also could manufacture very good guns and various laboratory stores, while the great ingenuity of Sir Joseph Whitworth in those matters was equally well known. There was not the least doubt that if anything like a stimulus were given to the private manufacture of guns and warlike stores, we could have them in any quantity. It certainly would not be in our present state a matter of wise economy to do away with an old-established manufactory and arsenal like Woolwich. It turned out good work, and it did so economically. Before we abolished it we must be quite sure of a better place for placing an arsenal in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of Cannock Chase and other sites for an arsenal, but they were all considered in 1860, and the recommendations then made were not carried out for a good economical reason. The Government, however, had given this subject their best consideration. At this moment they had bought 1,500 acres near York, and they were proceeding to erect an arsenal there, not for manufacturing purposes, but for a collection of all warlike stores in case of necessity. He thought a central depôt of that kind in the North of England would give us all the extra warlike stores we were likely to require in case of an emergency or an invasion. And he thought it was not necessary—and in that he was backed up by all the military authorities who had considered the matter—to have a manufactory in addition to that which we had at Woolwich. If a Committee were granted, it could not furnish any more information than we had already on this subject. A Committee would probably put on the Table of the House an extra Blue Book, which he supposed would not serve any other purpose than that of giving us a mass of printed matter which might be extremely serviceable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he next brought forward a Motion.

said, he thought the project of separating the different departments of Woolwich Arsenal and transferring two of them northwards was particularly unfortunate. It would be dangerous to remove the laboratory and carriage departments from the vicinity of the Metropolis, where the services of the best workmen could always be readily procured. He did not think, however, that the House ought altogether to disregard the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who brought forward this subject, for if Woolwich Arsenal should by any chance be destroyed, we ought to be prepared for the emergency. We had the Elswick factory, the establishment of Sir Joseph Whitworth, and other arsenals in the North of England; but these were deficient in some departments, and, in his opinion, what we ought to do was in some way to inspect these arsenals and to supply what was wanting in them. With regard to his main principle of transferring Woolwich Arsenal to the North of England, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was totally wrong.

, in rising to move an Address for Copy of the Depositions taken in the case of a violent assault on a person of the name of Palmer, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the case he will, in the interests of the public and the police, by the offer of a reward or by other means, endeavour to bring the real criminal to justice? said, that Mr. Palmer, who, he believed, was a clerk in a mercantile establishment, received a violent blow in the face from the truncheon of a policeman while he was attempting to pass through a crowded street to his place of business on the day on which Her Majesty went to open a new wing at the London Hospital. Mr. Palmer was puzzled when he attended for the purpose of identifying the policeman who struck him, because the coats of the policemen had been changed. At length, however, he pointed out the policeman who he said had struck him, but Sir William Rose, who heard the case, thought the evidence was not sufficient to justify a committal. Now that the police were beards, a constable by a slight turn of his head could easily conceal some portion of his number from being seen. This case was one of general importance; and it was most desirable that it should be known whether any further steps would be taken to bring the party to justice, and it was also most desirable that it should be known by whose orders the police had changed coats when they were paraded for identification. An investigation of all the circumstances ought to take place; and if Her Majesty's Government thought there was a primâ facie case against any of the policemen they ought to institute a prosecution. It was only fair to all parties that he should read to the House certain letters on this subject which had reached him that morning. The first was from the solicitors who had represented Mr. Palmer at the hearing of the case at the Guildhall, when the charge against the constable was dismissed, and it enclosed a copy of a letter which they had written to Colonel Henderson and his reply. In that letter the solicitors stated that since the case was disposed of by the magistrates, they had learnt from Colonel Henderson that a number of constables had witnessed the assault, and had furnished reports concerning it to their officers, which fact had not been communicated to the solicitors at the time the case was before the magistrate. The solicitors further complained that no constables had been called on the part of the police at the hearing to speak to the identity of the defendant as the person who struck the blow, and that their client, who had no personal feeling in the matter, and who had brought forward the case at great personal inconvenience and expense, had been grossly insulted by the magistrate, and, instead of having been protected in every way, was bullied as though he was a witness giving false evidence; and they concluded by stating that they had felt it to be their duty to advise their client to prefer an indictment at the Central Criminal Court against the defendant. In their letter to Colonel Henderson the solicitors stated that, in view of their client preferring an indictment against Police Constable 450 E, they would be glad to receive copies of statements which had been made to their superior officers in relation to this case by the constables on duty near the place where the alleged assault occurred; and asked, whether it was true that the constable against whom the charge was made was formerly in the City police, and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for a similar assault, and was discharged or retired from the City police and afterwards entered the Metropolitan police; and whether it was true that, notwithstanding his conviction, he was allowed his full pay during the time he was so suffering imprisonment; also, whether it was true, that constables who could give information on the subject had been told by their superior officers to hold their tongues. Colonel Henderson, in his reply, said that as to the evidence which had been taken, he thought that the most satisfactory course would be for one of their firm to make an appointment to call at Scotland Yard and see copies of the statements made by all the officers on duty at the time when the assault was committed, and take copies of any that were thought desirable; because there were upwards of 30 of them, and he could not say which might be considered important; that no orders had been issued from headquarters to the constables to hold their tongues about the matter; that he was aware that 450 E had been formerly in the City police, and that since the hearing before the magistrate it had been ascertained that he had been imprisoned for an assault, as stated in the solicitors' letter, but that he had not been discharged from the City police, in consequence of having voluntarily retired, and that he had since served in the Dorset Constabulary for a year and a-half to the satisfaction of the authorities. He was not aware whether his pay was continued during his imprisonment. Having stated these facts as briefly and as fairly as he could, he would say that it was his intention to move on some future occasion for the report of the circumstances which had been sent in by the constable to his superior officer. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give a satisfactory reply to his inquiries.

said, he had no cause to complain of the hon. and gallant Baronet bringing this matter under the notice of the House. No doubt the police rendered great service to the public, and on the whole performed their duties, which were arduous, difficult, and occasionally dangerous, most satisfactorily; but, at the same time, it was to the interest of the police themselves, as it was the wish of the gallant gentleman who had command of the force, that every cause of complaint against them should be thoroughly investigated, and the offenders, if such they were, punished. When a case of misconduct was made out against any single policeman it was quite right that he should be punished, as an example to others. He was sure that no one felt more than the hon. and gallant Baronet did that on certain occasions it was scarcely possible to find out the exact truth; and it was very difficult indeed for police constables, in the hurry and rush of a great crowd such as assembled at the time of the Queen's visit to the East End of London, to be precisely on their guard. All he could say was that in this instance the police-constable had been placed upon his trial and had been discharged by the sitting magistrate at the Guildhall after all the evidence it was in the power of the prosecutor to adduce had been laid before the Court. The hon. and gallant Baronet asked for copies of the depositions which were taken in the case of this alleged assault. All he could say was that they were entirely at his service, if he chose to move for them. The hon. and gallant Baronet asked further for a copy of the statement made by the policeman implicated to his superior officers; but as the hon. and gallant Baronet stated that it was possible that further proceedings might be taken against the constable, it would be unfair to him that a confidential statement made by him to his superior officers should be laid before the jury who were to try him on such a charge as this. Colonel Henderson had with perfect truth said that there was only one wish on the part of the police authorities in the matter, and that was, that justice should be done to all parties. He did not think that a fairer offer could be made to the hon. and gallant Baronet than that he should be allowed to see the reports made by all the police constables on duty at the particular place at the time of the alleged assault; but those reports could not be laid on the Table of the House without striking a great blow at the efficiency of the police force, by preventing such confidential reports from being made in future. He had made such inquiries into the matter as he could, and he felt bound to express his regret that the case had not been fully heard out by the magistrate, so that all parties might have had a full opportunity of making their statements to the Court. He believed it was a fact that before any evidence was tendered on the part of the policemen the magistrates dismissed the case. He regretted that very much, as there would have been an opportunity for any one of the constables to have been summoned, and the whole of the facts would have been investigated before the magistrates. Their opinion was that no case had been made out. In his opinion, the circumstances of the alleged assault had been greatly exaggerated; but, however that might be, if any further investigation was to take place, the hon. and gallant Baronet might feel assured that he would afford him every assistance in his power to enable him to elucidate the whole circumstances attending this case, while he might be satisfied that the police authorities had no desire to conceal any fact connected with it.

inquired whether it would not be better to take something on account, in order that another opportunity might be afforded of discussing the Vote in detail?

said, there had been an understanding that the Navy Estimates were to be proceeded with that evening, but it was considered desirable to go on with the Civil Service Estimates. He did not, however, wish the Committee to take any Votes that they might not be prepared to take.

asked the Government not to press the Vote until further accounts of the details in a tabular form were furnished as formerly.

replied that no such details had been furnished—certainly, in the last three years.

said, he would not object to a Vote on Account, but must oppose the Vote in bulk.

asked for some explanation of the heavy charge for boundary surveys, as America and other countries did not expend half that sum for such purposes.

supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), that a Vote should be taken on account only, leaving the discussion on these items till another day.

said, that it was intended to change the Mission at Rome into an Embassy, in which case an increased salary would, no doubt, be necessary for the holder of that office. Other changes would produce a like result. It was hoped that the whole of this kind of work would be accomplished satisfactorily, and without unnecessary expense. He would also inform the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) that the Votes with reference to boundary surveys had resulted from the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, and he had reason to believe that that would be the last demand on the public purse for that purpose.

drew attention to a sum of £950 for the Charge ďAffaires at the small German town of Coburg.

said, he was dissatisfied that more satisfactory details were not given of the way in which the money comprised in the Vote was spent.

promised to give full information with regard to the details of the Vote as soon as possible.

said, he was not satisfied. The House of Commons should be furnished with accurate information, and he submitted that the Vote should be withdrawn until satisfactory information was given.

agreed in that opinion.

said, he would move to report Progress.

explained that the Estimate was as full as the information at his command enabled him to make it, and that it was perfectly true; but if it was required he would in future go as far as possible into details.

said, that the Estimates for 1869 were in his hands, and he found all the particulars connected with the Vote fully set forth.

said, that many of these items could only be estimated on the expenditure of the previous year.

hoped, as the Government had brought forward the Estimates so early, that they would be able to allow the Committee a further opportunity of considering them.

said, the details asked for by some hon. Gentlemen had been promised as Returns which would be presented to the House. It would be a pity, after going on so long with the discussion, not to come to a decision that night. If it was understood, as he was now informed it was, that no opposed business Votes would be taken, the Vote would not be pressed. They would require, however, to take Votes on Account.

said, he wished to refer to a promise made on a former occasion by the right hon.Gentleman to remedy the hardships to which Irish paupers were subjected in their removal from Scotland into Ireland, and to complain that that promise had not been fulfilled. In consequence, the Bill would not operate beneficially with respect to Ireland, and it was exceedingly obnoxious to his constituents in Cork County. He complained of the action of the Scotch authorities with regard to Irish paupers, as compared with the treatment of Scotch paupers in Ireland.

said, he thought, notwithstanding what the hon. Member had said, that the Bill would work beneficially for Scotland and Ireland, and hoped they would go into Committee and pass the first 10 or 12 clauses, and discuss the remainder at their leisure. Although his Bill had really nothing to do with the Law of Settlement, he had gone out of his way to insert clauses which, as it was, he should have the greatest difficulty in carrying.

complained of the reflection made by the hon. Member for Cork County as to the burden imposed upon Ireland by Scotch paupers. Why, according to a recent Parliamentary Return—No. 390 of last Session—there were 487 lunatics born in Ireland annually maintained in Scotland, while there were only 14 Scotch lunatics supported in Ireland. The paupers born in Ireland and maintained in Scotland in 1874 were in the poor-house 1,839, and those receiving out-door relief 5,836. Independently of these, there were other 5,835 dependents of such paupers receiving out-door relief. So that, while there were only 100 Scotch-born paupers maintained in Ireland and 14 lunatics, there were 11,671 Irish-born paupers, and 487 lunatics, maintained in Scotland. He complained that the Irish landlords, instead of maintaining their own paupers in their workhouses, and by out-door relief, threw the burden on England and Scotland to a large extent.

trusted the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee.

denied the justice of the observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). He forgot that the unfortunate persons to whom he referred had laboured in Scotland for 20 or 30 years before they were overtaken by the visitation of Providence. Could it be said that there was any hardship in Scotland being bound to maintain those persons after having profited by their labour? What the Irish Members complained of was, that poor persons born in Ireland, after having spent nearly all their lives in Scotland and England, when overtaken by poverty were sent back to be maintained by the rates of a country to which they had virtually ceased to belong.

also questioned the accuracy of the statements of the hon. Member for Edinburgh in al- leging that the Irish send their poor over from Ireland, and said that those Irish labourers who went to Scotland worked hard for their living there.

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh made the bitterest and most unfounded speech he had ever heard against his (Mr. Stacpoole's) countrymen, and he hoped they would resent it in Edinburgh.

said, he should move that the Chairman report Progress. The Bill was an important one, and ought not to be proceeded with at that hour of the night.