asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can state the number of deaths from small pox in England and Wales in the years 1876 and 1877 respectively?

in reply, said, the number of deaths from smallpox in 1876 was 2,413; in 1877, 4,280; the difference being entirely due to the small-pox epidemic in London.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill were correctly stated by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 18th of January last, when he promised for the Government (reserving the right to move certain Amendments) to

"support it in its earlier stages, and afford greater facilities, with a view to the question being settled this Session and not delayed;"

or whether the present Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke with greater authority on Saturday last, when he announced to a deputation of Brewers and Liquor Merchants that the Government would neither directly nor indirectly support the Bill, and that, with the conceding of one day for its discussion, the obligation of the Government ended?

The statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary previous to the introduction of this Bill correctly expressed the views; and intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and I understand it was not in any way the intention of my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to override or alter the understanding which was then arrived at. What my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary promised was this—He said, speaking of the Bill before it had been introduced—

"If the provisions of that Bill are identical with those of the measure brought in last Session by the hon. Member for Londonderry County (Mr. R. Smyth), Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take the same course with regard to it as they took last year. They will support its earlier stages, but reserve to themselves the right to move such Amendments as may appear advisable in Committee."

He went on to say—

"I cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Roscommon will take every means in his power to secure opportunities for the discussion of his Bill by this House; but, if necessary, the Government will be prepared to aid him in obtaining greater facilities for the purpose, with the view of securing, so far as we are able, that a settlement of the question shall he arrived at this Session, and shall not be delayed, as was the case last year, from want of time."

We have thus far fulfilled this obligation, because we did support the Bill in its earlier stages, and we hope to fulfil the engagement as far as is in our power with regard to the subsequent stages. But this Bill is not a child of the Government, and what our duties to other people's children are is always a question of some delicacy. We do not propose either to make a promise to be so kept as to be only keeping it to the ear and breaking it to the hope; and, on the other hand, we must not be supposed to pledge ourselves to give an indefinite support to this Bill, so as to set aside other Business of pressing importance. [Major O'GORMAN: Hear, hear!] The most practical Answer I can give with regard to the next step of progress is this. I promised some time ago that if our Business was making fair progress about the middle of March, I would make some arrangement for the further discussion of this Bill. We have not yet arrived at the time I then contemplated; but, if we continue to make fair progress with the Business of Supply, and especially with the Army and Navy Estimates, I hope to be able to place either Monday, the 25th of March, or the following Thursday, the 28th, at the disposal of the promoters of this Bill, in order that we may proceed with the discussion of it, and make progress.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to an accident, attended by grievous injury to several persons, which occurred on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway on Wednesday last; whether he is aware that this is the second accident of a similar kind, on the same Railway, and in the same locality, within the last six weeks; and, if he proposes to institute an official inquiry into the causes of these accidents, and the necessity for continuous brakes?

I have sent Major-General Hutchinson to report on the accident referred to, and will lay his Report on the Table when it is received. The Board of Trade have no information of a similar accident on that railway during the present year. I have this evening laid on the Table Papers on the subject of continuous brakes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any information confirmative of the truth of the account of an atrocity which was described in the "Standard" of March 2nd:—

"Intelligence has been received here (Paris) of the hanging of several alleged Polish doctors at Sofia when the Russians occupied that town. The victims were residents of Cracow, and Austrian subjects, being natives of Galicia. They bore Polish names, and had, like many medical men in England, joined the Turkish medical staff. When the Russians entered the town these gentlemen, in defiance of the Convention of Geneva, were arrested, tried by a drumhead court martial, and hanged before the troops. I can assure you that this is no fiction. The men were hanged solely and simply because their names were Polish and they spoke the language. General Gourko ordered the execution."

I answered a Question upon this subject a few days ago, and I have no reason to believe that the Answer I then gave was in any way inaccurate. I have nothing to add to the information I gave to the House at that time. Rumours upon the subject have reached Her Majesty's Government; but we have not sufficient evidence to justify me in making any statement to the House.

in rising to call attention to the present condition of the National Portrait Gallery, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for the Treasury to carry out the promise made by it in March 1876, of appropriating certain specified portions of the Exhi- bition Buildings at South Kensington for the accommodation of the National Portrait Gallery, in addition to the apartments already occupied by the Gallery,"

said: I appear, Sir, on behalf of one of the established and recognized collections of the country—the National Portrait Gallery, which has existed for upwards of 20 years. This Gallery is one of those collections which exist directly under the Crown, and are managed by trustees appointed by the Crown. We are not in any way a branch of the South Kensington Museum; but are, like the British Museum, or the National Gallery, an institution specially founded, managed by our own Trustees, and subsidized annually by a Vote in Supply, which, in our case, is one of £2,000 a-year, to be spent in the purchase and conservation of pictures, besides certain expenses for which the Government make themselves chargeable. We were founded in 1856, consequent upon a Motion of the late Lord Stanhope. What a student of history, what a critic, and judicious appreciator of art, he was, it is unnecessary for me to state. Lord Stanhope made a Motion in the House of Lords, that it was desirable that a Collection of Portraits, illustrative of English History, should be created. That Motion met with the approbation both of the Government and of the House, and Trustees were accordingly appointed. Of this Board our present Chairman is Lord Hardinge, a most accomplished artist, and of his Colleagues are the Earl of Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), the Dean of Westminster, the President of the Royal Academy, the Earl of Derby, with Sir Coutts Lindsay, Lord Somers, Lord Ronald Gower, Lord De L'Isle, Mr. Shirley, Mr. Cochrane, the Lord President (officially), the Marquess of Bath, and I must add myself. It is on the behalf of these Trustees that I now appeal. Among those who have been Trustees in former times there are such names as Lord Stanhope, the famous Lord Lans-downe, the first Lord Ellesmere, Sidney Herbert, the present Lord Salisbury, Macaulay, Mr. Carlyle, Bishop Wilber-force, Sir George Lewis, Sir Francis Palgrave, Sir Charles Eastlake, and last, that friend, whose death everyone has so much lamented this year, Sir William Stirling-Maxwell. The Gal- lery started with a noble gift from Lord Ellesmere of the famous Chandos Shakspeare. The acquisition was made of a house in Great George Street, and it opened in January, 1859. In that year 5,305 persons came, despite the restricted collection. In 1868 the visitors to the George Street Gallery had increased to nearly 25,000. In the next year—1869—that miscellaneous collection of sheds, which had in 1862 been the scene of so much noise and confusion, and of many unpalatable meals—the Exhibition buildings—fell into the hands—partly of the Government, and partly of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851—and in the former portion, rooms were assigned to the National Portrait Gallery. They were rooms having the advantage certainly of being able to hold pictures to a certain advantage in a fair light; but otherwise very undesirable, from the thinness of the walls, the badness of the floor, and the risk of fire in such a temporary structure. Such as they were, we moved down into them; and in 1870 the number of visitors had shot up to nearly 59,000. In the year 1871 it grew up to 63,000. The year 1876-—being the year of the Prince of Wales' India Exhibition and the Exhibition of Scientific Instruments—was an exceptional year; and then there were more than 100,000 visitors. Of course, it could not go on at so high a level; and in the year after—1877—the attendance had fallen down to about 80,000. But I put it to this House, that a public collection which has in the course of a year been visited by 80,000 persons, is no mean contribution to the education or the recreation of the people of London and the country. At present, I suppose, a great many Members are familiar with the Gallery. To those who are not, I may tell that the practical space at the disposal of the Exhibition is a long gallery, of which the extent has been eked out by cross-screens, with a staircase at each end; and that it is approached by a long temporary passage between the entrance of the Horticultural Gardens, and that magnificent pile which is at present rising to receive the Natural History Collection of the British Museum. We have in the collection some 488 pictures, and we have also 50 busts, bronze statues and casts—for the National Portrait Gallery, be it noted, is not merely a collection of pic- tures. It is emphatically a collection of portraits of distinguished English persons, or of persons connected with English history. Therefore it admits pictures, drawings, busts; and it has created lately a very interesting series of bronze casts, carried out by the Elkington electrotype process, of monuments of Sovereigns and otherpersons, which are otherwise difficult to see, and cannot otherwise be brought into one conspectus. We have Robert Curthose from Gloucester, and Henry the Seventh and Elizabeth of York from Westminster, where you can hardly see their effigies on account of the intervening metal screen. We have the historical"Sic Sedebat" statue of Bacon from St. Albans, and his Sovereign Elizabeth. We have others which I need not name. We have drawings, we have autographs. In fact, more and more is the National Portrait Gallery becoming an historical gallery. Of course, in a gallery so constituted, the merit of the artist is not the first concern; but among our painters we may reckon names like Lely, Kneller, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Opie, Lawrence, and Landseer. Therefore, even as a collection, it is very valuable; and its present worth is set down at £50,000, consigned to rooms miserably temporary and dangerous. Well, such as they are, we are in these rooms. I do not pretend—no one who is connected with the gallery does pretend—to like it; but as it is, so long as we are like the children of Israel dwelling in tabernacles, at least, let our tents be wide enough to hold us. In 1874 a negotiation that did not come to much was vaguely set on foot to give us those galleries running from north to south on the west side of the Horticultural Gardens, in which a dead-alive ghastly after-thought of an International Exhibition crawled on for a few years, until it collapsed from inanity. Well, after the unwept end of that Exhibition, those galleries were vacant; and in 1874 we heard that they might possibly be transferred to the National Portrait Gallery. The Trustees said, as they always had said, that they would be very glad indeed to change; but this insuperable difficulty—at least, if not insuperable, this very great difficulty—intervened, that under the strange and complicated arrangements which characterize all the South Kensington Art property, these galleries were not the property of the Government as the Govern- ment, but of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. Therefore, it fell out that the Government to which we looked, could not obtain possession of those galleries on behalf of the National Portrait Gallery except at a very high rental. So those negotiations fell through, while our wants remained the same. In 1876 the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) who was at that time First Commissioner of Works, addressed on the 29th of February a communication to the Treasury. I am now referring to a Parliamentary Paper which has been printed and distributed about a week, from which I shall be able briefly to run over the salient points. On February 29, 1876, the noble Lord writes to the Treasury acknowledging a letter, and enclosing one from the Commissioners of Patents asking for more room, in which he refers to that portion of the South Kensington Buildings now under consideration. The First Commissioner observes—

"The South Kensington Museum authorities have been permitted to occupy these galleries until they should be required for other purposes, and the time for their surrender has now arrived. I therefore beg to suggest to your Lordships the following arrangements."

This is a most important statement. Here are certain rooms which have only been lent, and as to which two years ago it was said that the time was up, and the occupants must vacate. What are these rooms? I shall often have to refer to them. They are rooms some immediately adjacent, and others just under, those at present occupied by our gallery. They stand at the end of, and beneath it, forming part of the same block; they are space which, so long as we are to continue in our present lodgings, are the rooms which emphatically might be easily added to us, and that we beg may be added to us. We claim that they shall be added to us, as making our present temporary location, at least in the way of elbow-room, tolerable. But to return to the Paper—

"The South Kensington Museum authorities have been permitted to occupy these galleries until they should be required for other purposes, and the time for their surrender has now arrived. I therefore beg to suggest to your Lordships the following arrangements."

First, the noble Lord proposes to assign a certain portion of the building to the Patent Museum. Of course, we had nothing to do with that. But then he goes on to say—

"The Portrait Gallery requires more room, and I propose to assign to them the ground floor of the space marked XXII., together with the upper floor of the part coloured blue and marked with a cross."

To those who are not familiar with the place, I should explain that this space marked "XXII." is the gallery under the existing Portrait Gallery, which is now used for the valuable purpose of the Educational Exhibition, so called, of the South Kensington Museum, as to which I shall have a little to say presently. The "part coloured blue" is the first of the rooms beyond the Portrait Gallery, and one of two large rooms where was the great restaurant during the Exhibition of 1862. They have been used for miscellaneous objects ever since—sometimes for the exhibition of naval models, sometimes for one thing and sometimes for another. But, two years ago, on February 29, 1876, it was suggested that they should be surrendered to us for the Portrait Gallery. That was the suggestion of the then First Commissioner. On the 13th of March, accordingly, Mr. Lingen, the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, replies to the Chief Commissioner—"The Treasury agrees to the proposal as above, "but with two conditions. The first was about the naval models—which I will not trouble you with; and the second was—

"No work now nor hereafter, without further reference to this Board, be undertaken beyond what is required for immediate purposes,"

—that is reasonable enough—

"and is such as in nowise commits the Government to a definite mode of occupying these premises, the ultimate disposal of which is uncertain."

Nothing, of course, could be more satisfactory to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery than this general stipulation; for, much as we wanted additional space, we might pause—we ought to have paused—before we accepted that concession of additional space as amounting to anything like an obligation upon us to remain for evermore contented with our present unsafe and inadequate accommodation. We asked for it as temporary accommodation. Mr. Lingen says, emphatically, it shall be temporary; and nobody wants a more satisfactory reply. That was about two years ago. On the same day, Mr. Lingen writes to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, giving to them, and defining the rooms so assigned by that letter of the 13th of March, 1876. Well, at that time youmight have said the sun had come out early in spring; but three days after we had the usual result, for a spring frost overtook us. Another letter came from the Board of Works, saying that they were unable to make provision in the Estimates for the extension, or for a more convenient approach, from the main road. That, of course, damped our hopes for that year; but it did not cancel the standing promise, and, on the 29th of September in that year, our secretary, Mr. Scharf, wrote a letter to the Board of Works recalling the promise of March, and proposing, in the name of the Trustees, certain suggestions as to how to lay out the space which we had every right to suppose our own, and, above all things, calling attention to the danger of fire incurred within the last few months by the introduction of gas jets. Will the House readily believe that in this building, so temporary, so combustible, so crammed with everything in the world that would blaze away like tow and pitch, the authorities, whoever they may be, had actually without telling us—the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery—Trustees, in the name of the Queen, of that magnificent collection which could not be replaced, and containing works of art worth £50,000, though the mere money value is the least thing—laid gas pipes in that place? Is not that inconceivable? And two years ago they opened a department of cookery, and put a furnace down there just under our rooms—a furnace, with everything ready for a bonfire. I have some difficulty in bringing this matter before the House, for I cannot divest myself of the idea that I am a nurse speaking to a lot of little girls in muslin frocks about not playing with lucifer matches—the cases are identical, but not the way of meeting them; for the nurse has a right to scold these naughty little girls, as it would not be respectful to scold Her Majesty's Government, for they are persons of ripe age, in full possession of their faculties; majors in the eye of the law. On November the 6th, 1877, Mr. Scharf, our secretary, again protested against the introduction of gas into the central building. Mr. Lingen, in replying, on the 20th of November, 1877, enclosed a copy of a letter from the Chief Commissioner, and stated that for these reasons—

"My Lords are of opinion that they would not be warranted on the statement before them in prohibiting the use of gas in the galleries needed for the Civil Service examinations."

That brings me to another point. What had been done with these rooms that ought to have been ours during the last two years? I shall, before I have done, explain the condition of the lower gallery. The big room upstairs was turned over to the Civil Service Commissioners for examinations. There it still is, with tables, benches, ink-stains, ink-pots, and everything else to match; and accordingly the Civil Service Commission, which I suppose is not so very poor, has taken the ewe lamb of the National Portrait Gallery. But what is the drift of the enclosure in Mr. Lingen's letter from the first Commissioner? He says it is impossible, without having this gas, which was laid on without notice to us, for the Commissioners to examine in winter. And, therefore, because the Civil Service Commission, which might examine where it pleased, chooses to examine in these rooms, this Portrait Collection is to be subjected to this enormous and unnecessary risk. What can be so preposterous as that? Then he goes on to say that the South Kensington Museum is always to be seen by gas. Of course, that may be so. I trust it may prove safe. But it was built with the intention of being fire-proof, so that gas might be used without danger accruing. These committee rooms, however, these refreshment sheds, these temporary ebullitions of the Exhibition of 1862, were constructed—cheap, nasty, and rapidly—of the most inflammable materials possible. There is more balm in Gilead yet. At last we are told, as a great comfort, that "gas pipes also run under the gallery immediately under the National Portrait Gallery." We complain of gas being next door, and they reply—"Never mind, dear fellows, the gas below you is much more dangerous. Bless your stars you are not worse off." That was on the 1st—not the 5th—of November. The next letter was sent by Mr. Scharf, to point out that the National Portrait Gallery building was temporary and combustible, while the South Kensington Museum was the contrary; and observe that there was no gas either in the British Museum or the National Gallery. Well, but this building, which I have shown to be combustible, is also in every way unfit for pictures, except in the last resort. The floor is made of rough wood—so rough that it never can be washed down or cleaned; and the consequence is that there is a perpetual cloud of insidious dust rising from it, to the very great detriment of the pictures, which are plainly suffering from it. Not one of those arrangements which modem science has, with eager emulation, been following in the galleries of London, Vienna, Dresden, and all over the world—not one of those appliances can in the most rude, rough, rudimental way be applied to our gallery. Yet we submit for the present, and at least we contend for getting this ground-floor gallery. That, I believe, would give us a foundation on which we could plant our busts, our statues, and our casts, which, of course, are very heavy, but which could be set up there. At present they are put on brackets against one of the boundary walls, which is luckily included in our lot, and against which we are able to place them without fear of some frightful catastrophe. Now, I must direct the attention of the House to another circumstance very briefly. Within a year after the creation of our gallery, Lord Stanhope, who was himself both Chairman of the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery and one of the Trustees of the British Museum, communicated with the British Museum, in the person of its principal librarian, Sir Antony Panizzi, under these circum-stance. There was, and is, a collection of portraits belonging to the British Museum, which had been gradually accumulated there before either the National Gallery or the National Portrait Gallery were formed. But in the British Museum it was comparatively useless, forming no proper part of its scope; and, there being no proper place in which to show them, these pictures were left in obscurity, hanging up behind the natural history casts. They are not portraits exclusively of Englishmen; but a large portion of them—probably 88, as I computed by rapidly running through the list—might come within our scope. Lord Stanhope, in making this application in February 1857 to the British Museum for a loan of their pictures, gave a pledge, on behalf of the Portrait Gallery, that, if the British Museum looked favourably on his application, the National Portrait Gallery would, of course, avoid—unless in very special cases—making purchases of portraits which might be the same, or nearly the same, as those which are now in the Museum. Sir Antony Panizzi, on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum, very heartily answered, on the 3rd of March, that the Trustees would have great pleasure in meeting the wishes of the National Portrait Gallery Board, so far as they might have the legal power; and so the matter stood. There is no doubt—not a shadow of doubt has been thrown upon it from that day to this—that the legal power exists. Then the British Museum has lent pictures under similar circumstances to the National Gallery. The portraits are virtually assigned to the National Portrait Gallery by the British Museum; they only wait to be moved until the gallery has wall space or screen space whereon to hang them. The National Portrait Gallery has, with wise economy, followed out for 21 years the pledge then given—not to buy portraits identical with those in the Museum. And what is the result? That, interesting and full as our collection is, with its nearly 500 portraits, there is no picture of Bacon or of Oliver Cromwell; no likeness at all of Newton or Commodore Anson, or Speaker Onslow, or Cranmer, or Usher, or Baxter, or George Buchanan; or of the antiquaries Camden, Dugdale, Spelman, and Cotton. All these great men are in the British Museum, but they will be virtually part of the National Portrait Gallery, we trust and believe, as soon as the National Portrait Gallery can be a good hospitable host to them. The application was not for a present of the pictures. The Trustees cannot give away their property, though they can lend it. We only asked them to do by us what it was legally open to them to do, and what they have since done to the National Gallery, and what, if conceded, will make the National Portrait Gallery infinitely more interesting and complete than it at present is. Well, you may ask, having done with the examination room—-what is the other important thing that keeps us out of the downstairs gallery which I have mentioned; what is there there at present which we should have to turn out if we went there? I have already pointed out that the occupying tenant is what is called the Educational Exhibition of the South Kensington Museum. No doubt, education is a grand thing. Nobody in the world would say a word against it. Nothing could be better, no feature more worthy of a great nation, than an Educational Exhibition. But no man can conceive what this one is. I would invite the House; you, Sir, and Her Majesty's Ministers, to go and see that Educational Exhibition which fills this gallery for which we are sueing. It would elevate all your minds. It would charm your taste. You would see there a very large assortment of globes, and all of them with their prices marked, which run up from 18d. to £18. You would see—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid, would look at them with envy—fao simile nuggets from Australia. There is also a beautiful collection of magic lantern slides. Then there is something as to which I must throw myself on the indulgence of the House, for I find it utterly impossible to explain what it is. You will find there the "Foundations of Takimetry." Then there are charming doll houses, dolls, puzzles, and a quantity of those pretty pink shells you can buy at Margate and Ramsgate. There are also painted beasts and birds; some nice water-colours, such as you may see in the national schools; a great many benches; and, finally, 14 clocks, none of them going, and fourof them made by Sir John Bennett. This, Sir, is the National Collection, which keeps Newton and Cromwell, and Cranmer and Usher, and Bacon, and other great men, out of the sight and appreciation of the people of England. I appeal to you whether such a state of things ought to continue any longer? I have put my case fairly before the House. I do not pretend to say that the galleries we are in are galleries we should like to occupy. So far as mere arrangements go, they are very inconvenient. But beyond that inconvenience, there is this risk—which really is almost too painful to dwell on—of immediate and perfectly helpless destruction. Still, as they are, and such as they are, until we have—as we have a right to claim in some future years, when there may not be such a pull on the Estimates as we have now—some proper, decent, and sufficient National Portrait Gallery, I contend that we have on all accounts every reason to claim, at all events, from Her Majesty's Government their fulfilment of their promise of two years ago. Thinking and believing I have made that plain to the House, I beg leave, Sir, to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.

said, he desired to second the Motion as one who had no official connection with the Gallery, and simply as one of the public who valued historical works of art. It was an anomaly that works of art and portraits of distinguished Englishmen should be kept in obscurity to avoid the cost of finding the necessary accomodation. He read with humiliation and shame the Correspondence which had been placed in their hands, for it seemed almost to indicate a conspiracy to prevent the portrait collection acquiring the value which it ought to have for the nation, considering that it comprised authentic portraits of all the Sovereigns and Princes of the Realm from the time of the Plantagenets, and of many distinguished Englishmen. The words of Charles Surface might well be applied to the nation; and with justice one might exclaim—"How little this nation cares for the portraits of its ancestors!" Surely no one could pretend to be satisfied with matters as they were now? His hon. Friend the Member for the Cambridge University was entitled to demand from the Government that these works of a historical and national character should be protected from fire and flame, and from the dust and dirt place in which they were now stown from the public sight, and from that inspection which no doubt would result in the instruction and benefit of the people.

said, the question was one of real importance; it was, in fact, whether a collection of pictures which was national, and which had been considered of sufficient importance to receive an annual subsidy, should continue to be relegated to a lumber-room? His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge had already drawn attention to the condition of the building in which these pictures were at present housed; and, from a personal inspection made since this Motion had been upon the Paper, he could corroborate all that he had said, and declare that the dangers by which the pictures were surrounded were real and not imaginary. The building was in part a wooden shed, in part lath-and-plaster, with just the amount of brickwork necessary to keep the whole structure together. Therefore, it behoved the Government to look seriously into the question. The rooms which were originally promised were promised before it was necessary to apply the space to the Civil Service examinations. It would be well for the present to suspend the proposed transfer of some of the rooms for the purposes of these examinations until some other arrangements should be made in favour of the Gallery; but, if such arrangements could not be made, then it ought to be a question whether it was desirable to transfer the Gallery elsewhere? Meanwhile, he thought it necessary to enter his protest against the action of the Treasury in the matter.

said, he should not have offered any observations, had it not been for the frequent opportunities he had had during the last few months of visiting the picture and sculpture galleries abroad; and on all occasions he had been forcibly impressed with the contrast presented by them with those of our own country, which were greatly inferior in the accommodation they presented for works of art. He, therefore, thought the House and the country were much indebted to the hon. Member for Cambridge University for bringing forward the question of our National Portrait Gallery, andhe(SirEardley Wilmot) should certainly cordially support him in his Resolution. They might recollect that it was one of the customs of ancient Rome that on solemn festivals and public holidays the busts and statues of its heroes and illustrious men were carried in procession through the streets, in order that the citizens, looking upon that solemn ceremony, and seeing the respect thus paid to their memory for great services done to their country, might be led to emulate their noble deeds. Although we might not follow the Roman example, yet by providing more commodious and accessible places for the portraits and historical pictures of our eminent men, and by affording the public greater facilities for seeing them, while, at the same time, we encouraged high art and culture, we might cherish the memory of illustrious actions, and lead our youth and all classes of our fellow-countrymen to admire and respect, the doers of them, and endeavour to follow their example. Of the importance of this he had been made more sensible by the want of reverence for the past, and for those who had gone before us, which was one of the characteristics of the present age. Mention had been made of gas and firing by an hon. Member; and he might observe that in no foreign gallery which he had visited was gas admitted—not only on account of the danger of conflagration, but also because it was felt that the use of gas had a gradually, but certainly deleterious, effect on the pictures or statues; and he found it was even a subject of complaint, sometimes among visitors to the Italian galleries, that in winter they were closed somewhat early, in consequence of there being no provision made for lighting them. He could not help expressing his regret that our country did not afford greater facilities to young artists to copy the great works of art abroad; and the hon. Member for Cambridge University had used an expression in which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) fully concurred—namely, that he felt humiliated by the inferior advantages in our own country when compared with the liberal encouragement extended to genius abroad, where magnificent galleries and buildings, both public and private, contained works open to every one to admire and copy. He joined in the appeal made to the Secretary to the Treasury, not only to find more ample and suitable accommodation for the portraits now at South Kensington, in places where they could be seen—the rooms containing them were used for various other purposes—but also to provide for the reception of those numerous worthies now in the British Museum, many of whom had been enumerated by the noble Lord who seconded the Resolution, and who surely deserved a better fate than to hang there unobserved and forgotten. While on the subject of this Portrait Gallery, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) might, perhaps, be allowed to advert to what was not strictly belonging to the question before the House—namely, the opening of public galleries, gratis, on Sundays. He had uniformly voted against that proposal; but he must say, that, after having seen the galleries abroad, and the pleasure and enjoyment they afforded to those classes which were necessarily debarred from visiting them during the working days of the week, and the orderly way in which the visits were conducted on Sundays, he could not help feeling that this privilege might safely be extended to the working classes of our own country, and he was sure they would show themselves as worthy of that privilege as the people of other nations. He should cordially support the Resolution of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beres-ford Hope).

said, he should be happy indeed, if in the few remarks he had to address to the House, he could excite the amusement or attention which his hon. Friend's observations had caused. He confessed that if it had not been for the infectious good-nature which they always recognized in him, he should have felt that the inflammable nature of the building in which the National Portrait Gallery's collection was stored had communicated itself to the Trustees, and for some moments he almost felt like those naughty children of whom the hon. Gentleman talked as deserving a scolding. Turning in all seriousness to the points advanced, he felt bound to say that both from the perusal of the Papers which had been laid before the House, and from what he had himself seen, he was disposed, although he could not on the part of the Government accept the terms of the Motion, to go a very long way with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) in the objects which he had in view. Hon. Members who had studied this question, and indeed all who had read the Papers, would bear in mind that, roughly speaking, on the south side of these buildings there was a central block which was used as the refreshment department of the Exhibition of 1862. It was that part which stood on the right or to the eastward of this central block with which they had in this instance to do. The principal portion of this was occupied by the National Portrait Gallery. He would venture to say that anyone who had ever seen these pictures could not help coming to the conclusion that the collection was worthy of the utmost development, and also that it was insufficiently housed at the present time. He understood that besides the 450 or 500 pictures now in the Gallery there were 60 to 80 more ready to come in as soon as wall space could be found for them. Then the question was, in what manner could the relief be given? In 1876 there was a proposal to increase the space of the National Portrait Gallery by two additional rooms, one of which was on the ground-floor immediately under the present Gallery, and the other the easternmost division of the central block. The central block was now occupied by the Civil Service Commissioners, and he was bound to admit the truthfulness of the description given of it; and, indeed, it might well bear to some of the candidates the idea of a chamber of torture. The portion proposed to be given up, however, was only about one-third of the upper storey of that building; and his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works informed him that the structural details would render it extremely difficult to screen off such a portion in a manner which would make efficient provision against fire. It would be very difficult to give up that portion of the centre block, though he was willing to confess that it was intended, in the first instance, that they should be allotted to the National Portrait Gallery. The Civil Service Commission occupied the central block for 60 days in the year, and it would cost some £1,200 a-year to provide the same accommodation elsewhere. He would now state what, with the concurrence of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, might be conceded to the Trustees—namely, the portion of the building which was under the present Gallery. To this his hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) offered two objections—one on the ground of insufficiency, the other on the ground of danger from fire. So far as the first objection was concerned, he thought it would be met by an offer which, if accepted, would double the accommodation the Trustees now possessed. It would be only necessary to construct two doorways—one right and one left—a small covered way, and also a staircase at each end, leading to the gallery above, which would enable visitors, when there was a large attendance, to circulate without inconvenience. It would, of course, be necessary to remove the objects which were now exhibited there. Large cases of pencils and remnants of school desks were, no doubt, of great value to those who were interested in education; but they had been in their present position for some years, and the time had arrived when it might be said that they had served their purpose. It was, therefore, his intention, and he believed that of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner, to press upon the Science and Art Depart-that, without doing away with a collection to which they attached value, they might select the objects of undoubted interest which it possessed for exhibition elsewhere and allow the rooms he alluded to to be given up forthwith to the Trustees. A more formidable question had been raised, however, in the course of the discussion—namely, whether anything that could be done on the present ground would meet all future requirements. That was a very large question, one which involved several Departments of Art and of Science, and affected those who were interested in historical collections, antiquities, and other matters of that kind; and he trusted he might be allowed not to say anything with respect to it at present, lest some hasty expression might, perhaps, hereafter ripen into a crop of disappointments. In these matters they were obliged, to a certain extent, to live from hand-to-mouth; and he hoped that, pending the settlement of the larger question, his hon. Friend would accept the extra accommodation of which the trustees were in want and which he hoped they would at once obtain. He was, he confessed, somewhat frightened at the long list of English worthies to which his hon. Friend had alluded. What they should look to now was the practical question whether, without prejudice to anything that might be proposed in the future, the additional accommodation he had spoken of should not be accepted as an instalment. It would, at least, be an encouragement to those who might be willing to offer their pictures for the enjoyment of the public. In one of his letters the Secretary to the Trustees had spoken of the necessity of erecting pedestals on the ground-floor. He trusted that when they were erected, and when the friends of the hon. Member for Cambridge University presented him with a statue of himself, it would be placed on one of the pedestals, so that his hon. Friend might gaze over the work he had accomplished. What he had proposed had at least this merit—namely, that it could be proceeded with, probably, at once; but the House would allow him to make this reservation, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council—through illness, he regretted to say, but who, he had no doubt, would assent to his proposal—he could not, the responsible Minister not being present, give a positive promise on the subject.

in reply, thanked his hon. and gallant Friend for the candid, satisfactory, and straightforward answer he had just given. He joined in the regret expressed as to the cause of the absence of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council, but he willingly accepted a limited promise which was accompanied by such words as "forthwith" and "at once." He wished to supply an omission in his speech and record a very valuable gift which had been added to the Gallery by the wisdom and generosity of the Serjeants of the late Serjeants' Inn, consisting of their series of eminent lawyers and judges in 26 pictures, some by artists of fame, besides engravings, and state that that collection was already in the Gallery.

regretted that the time of the House should have been taken up by a discussion of this kind, when the matter might have easily been settled by the authorities at the Treasury.

Sir, I am sorry to be obliged to take up the time of the House with a question which to the House may appear not of great importance; but by the constituency which I am here to represent, it is considered of the greatest importance. I regret very much the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon) is not present; and I regret, as I am sure we all must, the cause of his absence. But by Act of Parliament only a certain time is allowed—I think 60 days—after a school scheme has been laid upon the Table, wherein the propriety of that scheme can be questioned. Therefore, although I have put off my Motion in the hope the noble Lord might be present, I am compelled to bring it on now, or I may have no other opportunity, and the scheme may receive the sanction of Parliament unquestioned. My Motion is—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth in Birmingham, and for the management of the Foundations of John Milward and Joanna Lench, in the county of Warwick."

The school, as I need hardly tell the House, for many hon. Members are well acquainted with it, is one of the most ancient character, having come down to vis from the time of King Edward VI. It was not exactly established, but it was restored, by that Monarch in 1552. The importance of this school will be at once recognized when I inform the House that the increased value of the present income is £15,000 a-year, and that the number of children receiving education is not less, if it is not more, than 2,000. The town of Birmingham, therefore, may be forgiven if it takes the greatest interest in this educational institution, and with my constituents, the question I am now asking the House to consider is regarded as one of considerable importance. There have been many past efforts made in the town for the improvement of the management of the school. Going back to 1842, the town council of Birmingham, representing at that time the population of that great town, humbly asked that five members of a representative character might be admitted to the board of governors of the school; and again, in 1861, they endeavoured, by means of a Private Bill, to obtain a Private Act to enable the mayor and ex-mayor of the town to be members of the governing body; but in both these attempts they failed. In 1866 the Schools Inquiry Commissioners inquired into this school, as they did into many other schools in various parts of the country. They recommended that out of 21 governors, 10 should be appointed by the town council of the borough; but the town council were not satisfied with this, and wished that the whole power of management should be transferred to the corporation; but every proposition, every attempt at reform made in past years to give the direction into the hands of the public of Birmingham, through their municipal body, has been persistently, continuously resisted by the governors of the school. The School Inquiry Commission reported upon this school, and one or two extracts I may give the House. They state that scarcely a child of the poorest of the population was to be found in the school; but almost the whole benefit of this great charitable educational institution was given to the superior classes. They say that the well-to-do tradesman sends his son to the school free, for the school is free, and has been so for 300 years. But the tradesman's porter sends his son to the national school, where he pays for his education 2d., 3d., or 4d. a-week, as the case may be. Canon Miller, a clergyman well known to many, and then a resident clergyman in the town, said the effect of the principle of self-government has been that members of all the Nonconformist Bodies are particularly excluded from the management of the schools. Now, I need not tell the House what is the general feeling in Birmingham when such is the state of things; for if there is a town in the Kingdom where Nonconformists are numerous and influential, Birmingham is the town which must specially be pointed to. There were some other points in the evidence to which I might refer. One witness, a resident of eminence and influence, stated that up to that time no member of the town council had even been elected to the board of governors, and no Member of Parliament for the borough had ever sat on the board with one exception—and he believed he was elected before he became a Member of Parliament—the late Mr. Spooner, a Member of the Party opposite. It was stated further that up to that time 23 gentlemen had held the position of Mayor of Birmingham, but not one of these had been elected to the board. I believe that up to now 30, if not more, gentlemen have occupied that eminent position—Mayor of Birmingham—and I understand some relaxation has taken place, and two of those who have occupied the office of mayor have had a seat on the governing board. As might be expected, other things have followed this system. It was represented that the expenditure for the classical branches of education was large and expensive, while the provision made for elementary branches of education was insufficiently small. I could say more; but throughout the whole establishment from end to end the advantage of the schools came to that class who are represented on the board of management, and the intentions of the founders of this great educational institution are frustrated solely on account of the manner in which the governors of the school are appointed. The Endowed Schools Commission, which investigated the whole subject, presented a scheme in 1873. That scheme did not please everybody, but still it was such that it received a large share of support, and if it had been passed it would have settled the question. It was not called in the House of Commons; but it was opposed in the House of Lords by the Marquess of Salisbury. I have taken the trouble to read the debate that then took place, in order to ascertain on what grounds that scheme was rejected, and, as I think, most unfortunately rejected. The Endowed Schools Commissioners proposed in that scheme that the schools should be under a board of 21 governors—eight were to be what are called co-optative governors, one was to be appointed by the teachers—male and female—in the school, eight by the town council of the borough, and four by the school board of the borough. In that case, there would have been 12 representatives of the corporation and school board, eight governors self-elected, and one elected by the teachers, and the majority would be with the representative class, the school board and corporation. This compromise would have been accepted generally in the borough; but, unfortunately, the other House of Parliament rejected it. The ground of the objection to the scheme was that there was not sufficient provision for religious instruction in accordance with the views, belief, and practice of the Church of England. I believe that this objection was made under mistake, for I cannot, after reading the words of the charter, believe that anybody concerned in it had any idea to shut out the majority of the people of Birmingham from the benefit of this school. The only ground upon which that argument seems to be founded is, that a Bishop—I think the Bishop of Worcester—is the Visitor of the school, and, in concert with the governors, does certain things in the fulfilment of his duty. It was urged that, because a Bishop was in the matter, nobody but those who believe in Bishops had a right of entry into that great institution, on the ground that the scheme was rejected by the other House of Parliament, and it failed with regard to the question of religious instruction. That was the ground upon which the other House of Parliament rejected it, and if this House was to take the course pursued by the other House on that ground it would reject this scheme. The scheme having been rejected, it fell to the lot of the Charity Commissioners, who have succeeded the Endowed School Commissioners, to found a new scheme, and in this new scheme they have adhered precisely to the course taken by their predecessors as regards religious instruction. I do not want to discuss the religious system at all. I am quite certain the Government in this scheme will take all needful means to give such religious instruction as they think wise to the scholars who are under their care. The point I want to call the attention of the House to is the constitution of the governing body. The people of Birmingham object to the scheme of the Charity Commissioners on this, among other grounds—that, whereas the school has been free for 300 years, it is now proposed to establish a system of fees. I formerly thought that free schools were not so good as schools in which some fees are payable; but I confess the more I consider the question the more I am inclined to think that the opinion was not a wise one, and that a free school after all is something better than where something would have to be paid. If I wanted an illustration I or an argument to support that view, I would point to a remarkable case in the city of Edinburgh, where the schools contain from 4,000 to 5,000 children—schools which have been established by the accumulated funds derived from Heriot's Hospital; and I learn from good authority that in the attendance of the children in free schools there was a very large percentage of the children whose names are on the rolls attending schools, and that the general advantages of free schools are shown in the city to be altogether indisputable, and such as might well afford, in my mind, and, I might add, in the minds of others, a change of opinion in regard to the general advantages of free schools. But I shall leave that question, and I think my hon. Friend who will follow me, who is more acquainted with that subject, will deal with this question when he states his views to the House on the point. With regard to the constitution of the governing body, the present scheme proposes that out of the 21 governors, nine should be co-optative or self-elected. The town council shall appoint eight, and the teachers, men and women together, shall appoint one. There remain, then, three governors to be appointed elsewhere or by some other authority. In the proposed scheme of 1873 four were appointed by the school board, they being representatives of the population of Birmingham just as freely and clearly as the town council is. In this case, instead of giving eight co-optative governors, this scheme proposes nine—eight by the town council and one by the teachers, and three elected by the three Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London. What the corporation and the people of Birmingham object to is that the majority, which in the scheme of 1873 was given to the corporation and the school board, is reduced to a minority, the school board being altogether got rid of, The co-optative members are increased by one, and three members are to be appointed by Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities. If the right hon. Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) were here I would ask his opinion whether it would be well to give these three Senates power to appoint a governor of a school of a town with which they have no connection, and about whose circumstances they may be held to be entirely unacquainted. I am not arguing the question between the town council or the school board; but I think this will be clear to the House—that on the whole, if you have eight or nine members to be elected by the town council, it is the simplest way altogether to allow the representative members to be elected by the same body, whether it were a town council or whether it were a school board. The representative system should be adhered to, and the people, to a large extent, would be satisfied. I believe the public of Birmingham would prefer the three members to be elected and appointed by the corporation rather than the matter should be under the control of the three Universities. I would like to ask the House one simple question. I was looking last night into a very interesting book, which I believe nobody has ever read through—I refer to Whitaker's Almanack—and I looked to see who were the Charity Commissioners. I will not mention their names; but I think five of them sat in London, and no doubt they performed their duties to the best of their knowledge and capacity. I would like to ask whether these five are more likely to know what is better for this great school at Birmingham than the town council, the school board, or the public of that great city. The town council it is admitted throughout the Kingdom is one of the most eminent of our municipal bodies. It has the management of the gas works of 300,000 or 400,000 people; it has the power of laying out large sums for the supply of water to that great population; it has the paving of streets and the management of the sewage of the town, and also the management of the police; it has also the conduct of all that is necessary for the sanitary condition of the town. Now, the school board is a body of which the public has heard a great deal. I believe there is no school board in the Kingdom that has done more for education than that of Birmingham, excepting the School Board of the City of London. The Birmingham board has the education of 22,000 children, and Parliament has entrusted that board to be elected by the ratepayers of the town, and they have the care of the education of a vast number of the children of that population. I should say that the Univer- sities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London have no pretence of pointing out to the corporation or the school board of Birmingham the knowledge of the wants of that town as regarded the great educational question. In the scheme there is a description of the classes to be appointed on the board, and it states that no person shall continue to be a govenor unless he carries on a trade, business, profession, or calling within the municipal borough of Birmingham or some parish adjoining thereto, or resides within a convenient distance, such distance to be determined from time to time by the governors. I should like to ask the hon. Members for Oxford, Cam-bride, or the London University, whether it was convenient, right, or just to the population of Birmingham, to the corporation of that great town, or to the school board, that these Universities should be called upon to select somebody in the district, and put him or them on the governing body of this school, with the expectation that these three gentlemen so appointed will be more eligible in any degree than eight or 12 that the school board might be called upon to elect. It is obvious that the plan is one on behalf of which no fair argument could be offered. Last year I went with a deputation to see the Charity Commissioners; and, though they heard all we had to say, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that they did not pretend to have any kind of argument in favour of their proposition as against that which the town made. Last summer, also, I went with a deputation to meet the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, and the whole question was discussed before him fairly. When the deputation withdrew I stayed with the noble Lord, and was asked if I thought the town of Birmingham, on the whole, would be satisfied if, as regarded the three members for the Universities, that portion of the scheme were omitted—whether it would be opposed in Birmingham? With regard to the free schools, I gave my honest opinion that all my constituents were in favour of free schools, and that if they removed that objectionable part upon which the town felt humiliated, they would, on the whole, be fairly satisfied, and the scheme would be accepted, and no further difficulty would arise; and that, so far as I had any influence, I would advise them to accept the scheme. I confess I was very much surprised, after the question was put to me at the Privy Council, when the scheme came forth, to find that the three University members were still retained. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for London University whether he thought the Senate would proceed to appoint anybody, and he said he really did not know. He thought, perhaps, they might have a committee, or some one person to recommend another person, and that the appointment would be made, no doubt, perfectly honestly and to the best of the judgment of the Senate. Allowing they did their best, it is quite obvious it must be better that Birmingham through its well-known and legal representative members of the corporation or of the school board—I prefer the corporation myself—it must be better that one of these bodies should have the choice of those three members rather than that they should be chosen by the Universities upon whom the duties have been assigned in this scheme. I understand that, though it is competent for me to move the omission of any clause from the scheme, I cannot propose the insertion of something else. Therefore, what I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will no doubt reply to me, is whether he will sanction the withdrawal of the scheme for a time, and that the Charity Commissioners be given to understand that that particular point may be re-considered, and probably they might take away these three members whom they propose to have elected by the three Universities and transfer them to the corporation of Birmingham. If that were done, I believe the whole question would be permanently settled to the general satisfaction of the town, and we should hear no more of it. If it is not done, we shall have continued attempts on the part of the corporation and the people of Birmingham to get rid of this very objectionable scheme, and other means will be taken to apply either to Parliament or to the Charity Commissioners on the subject. Before I sit down, I should like to remove the impression as regards the management of the school. I am happy to say that the management of the school has undergone a most salutary change during the last few years, and there is much greater satisfaction in the management of the school than in past years. The whole of that has been brought about mainly through the corporation, who had infused into it a new spirit, and this magnificent school is now conducted in such a satisfactory way that no complaint is made as to its management. You have a great population, a great industry, great intelligence; you have a corporation directing the population wisely in all that it does; and there can be no doubt in my mind that the corporation is wise enough to take its fair share at least in the management of this great institution, whose property has been created by the industry of the town, and whose children, to the extent of 2,000, are now in the schools, who will form a large portion of the intelligent population of the town. I have made no attack on the schools or on the present Government. The course taken by the Charity Commissioners is, I think, humiliating and somewhat offensive to the town of Birmingham. I think it would be a good thing to allow the scheme to be withdrawn in the manner I have proposed. I believe I speak the opinions of a vast majority; the minority is not to be counted, it is so small on this matter; and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would consent to this, it would give great satisfaction to the population. In conclusion, I beg to move the Resolution.

Sir, I rise for the purpose of seconding the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken some personal interest in this matter, because I know the subject is one that affects my constituents, and indeed the vast majority of the inhabitants of Birmingham. The public bodies of the town had urged the Charity Commissioners to make a local inquiry, in order to satisfy themselves as to the state of public opinion on the subject, but the Commissioners had refused. The town council and the school board had protested against the scheme, public meetings had been held, which had been of an open character, and presided over by the mayor; and upon all these occasions an overwhelming majority has pronounced in favour of the proposition of my right hon. Friend. The objections to the scheme as it stands are stated to be twofold. In the first instance, we object to the alterations which are proposed to be made in the system, which has prevailed for more than 300 years, under which the school has been a free school. It is rather strange that I, as a Radical, representing] a Radical constituency, should have to appeal to a Conservative Government not to destroy an institution which has confessedly worked well up to the present time, and which no one in the constituency desires to have altered, and which is likely to be much more useful in the future than in the past. Now that the Elementary Education Acts have been passed, and the number of children going through the public schools of Birmingham are numerous, I think we may well hope more of the poorer classes will be enabled to give their children the advantages of a higher system of education, if only the doors are not closed upon them by a system of fees. It seems that the proposal for change is made at the very moment when the poor are enabled to avail themselves of the advantages offered. We say that the school should remain free for children of all classes. If not, the whole question ought to be relegated to the governors for the time being. This, after all, is a secondary matter in comparison with what is the broad issue raised by my right hon. Friend. It was whether or no the people of Birmingham are fit to be entrusted with the management of their own schools. The scheme proposed is altogether unsatisfactory. Although the governing body was to consist of only 21 members, there were six sets of electors, residing in four or five different towns. I put it to the House, as a simple proposition, whether the representatives of the people, the town council by preference, should not have the nomination of the whole of the board; or at least, if it is considered necessary, as an experiment, to introduce other elements, that the representative element should be in a majority. There was a time in the history of the school when the majority of the governors consisted of Dissenters and Liberals, and they were so liberal that they were satisfied with maintaining a majority of one, and leaving the remaining nine to be elected by Conservatives and Churchmen; but, on one occasion, when there happened to be an election to fill two vacancies, one of the Nonconformist members could not resist the temptation of a very fine morning in May to go trout-fishing. He went, and the temporary majority of Conservatives and Churchmen thus secured elected two of their body, and no Dissenter has ever since been elected. At all events, up to recent years, no Dissenter and no Liberal had ever been elected. The result was for a long period complaints of favouritism in the nominations and of extravagance in the expenditure, complaints which had now been remedied; but distinctly in consequence of the pressure of public opinion, and not by the initiative of this self-elected board. Yet the scheme proposed to lessen the influence of this popular opinion, and to perpetuate the influence of the self-electing system, from which such grievances had resulted. The question is whether Birmingham is fit to be entrusted with the management of the school. It may be said that gentlemen are fitted to the members of a corporation which is entrusted with the management of sewage, or to be members of a school board which looks after the elementary education of the people, but have nothing to do and are not fit to be entrusted with the higher education of the people; but I say that no town in the Kingdom has shown a deeper interest in culture and in education than Birmingham. It has just been determined, with the full assent of the people, to spend £20,000 in the improvement and enlargement of its Free Library and Art Gallery, one of the finest of such institutions in the Provinces. There are thousands of members of, and subscribers to, the Midland Institute, which is one of the largest institutions in the country devoted to the work of secondary education. Sir Josiah Mason has established a Science College at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000. These things prove the interest that is taken in general culture and in higher education, and the citizens of such a town are to be denied the management of this school! It is said that town councils want intelligence, culture, and breadth of appreciation; but how is it likely they should be better if, when there is a question of culture, you say these men are not fit to undertake it? You leave it to be inferred that they find an appropriate occupation in sewage and other matters. I hope that the Government will listen to the appeal that has been addressed to them. I feel that if they do not it will be as useless to argue with them as with the master of many legions; but we shall at least have made our final protest against the scheme. It is unpopular with our constituents, and sooner or later I believe the wisdom and justice of the House will secure its revision, and give us the management of our own school.

said, he did not represent any interest in Birmingham, nor had he been communicated with on the subject; but he would speak as an independent Member, who had lived long in Birmingham, and knew something of its public life, at least, as far as his political opinions did not exclude him from its public offices. The question was whether a great educational foundation, 300 years old, which had done great service and sent many distinguished men to the Universities, which it was admitted had been fairly administered for many years past, should be administered under a thoughtful and impartial scheme, framed by the most competent authority, or whether the corporation, as now constituted, was a body better qualified than that indicated by the scheme to carry on the work. If it were a question of investing money raised by rates in making sewers or gas, he would say that the corporation, whether it fairly represented the town or not, should administer the funds, and the people must take the consequences. But, in dealing with funds, not one farthing of which came from the ratepayers, but were due to a magnificent act of Royal bounty, Parliament and the Crown, acting under proper advice, had the right, for the public good, to impose certain conditions on the management of the institution. What was the corporation of Birmingham? It consisted of 64 members, 63 of whom belonged to one political Party, and the sixty-fourth was expecting his doom if the threats of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite belonged were carried out. That corporation, it was known, did not represent at all a minority, which was estimated at two-fifths of the population. Again, the school board, which was composed of the same Party as the corporation, was not noted for its liberality. Indeed, it was unique of its kind. It was the only board which refused its teachers liberty to give religious instruction to the children, even out of school. Such a body, however admirable in its composition, was scarcely fitted, in his opinion, to manage the funds of a great institution like King Edward's School. He would be the last to say a word against the culture of the town; it was as good as in any manufacturing town; but town councils were elected for other than educational purposes, and for reasons which had nothing to do with education. He thought the advantage which would be derived by the school from three of the governors being nominated by three seats of learning was undeniable. This would ensure there being on the board men who knew what real culture was, and who would help in keeping up a good tone in the school. As to the corporation, he thought they had a very fair share of the representation. They had eight members already against nine co-optative members and if the corporation used their important share of the representation wisely, he thought they would be able almost to determine what should be the course of education in this school. It was highly desirable that this institution should be kept a middle-class school. There were many points with regard to fees, &c, which, however, he would not now go into; but, with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that the question before the House was whether they were fit in Birmingham to manage their own affairs, he desired to say that was not the question. The question was whether the Birmingham Corporation was a fit—or rather, indeed, the fittest—body to manage a middle-class school. The people of Birmingham had never been polled on whether they approved this or not; and if they were to go by the results of the last contested election, it was clear that the present corporation did not exactly represent the opinions of the town, unless it had changed since that time. Therefore, for all the grounds that he had stated, and others he might name, he ventured to express a hope, without do-fending every detail of this scheme, that the House would not pass the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, were it not that he was responsible with Lord Ripon for the first scheme to which reference had been made, he should not have risen to address the House; but it might be well that he should briefly explain the ground on which they gave a majority of the governors to the representative bodies of Birmingham, and therefore show, he thought, why it should be desirable for the present Government to continue in the same course. In both schemes there were to be 21 governors, and they proposed, under the original scheme, to give eight to the town council, four to the school board, one to the teachers, and eight co-optative. The present scheme proposed to give eight to the town council, nine co-optative, one to the teachers, and three to the Universities; therefore, in this latter case, the majority were not elected by the bodies in Birmingham, whereas before they were so. The real question for the House to consider was whether it was better in the case of this great school and this great town that the majority of the governors should be appointed by the representative bodies or not? At the time of the original scheme the town council of Birmingham wished to have the governing body entirely representative. On the other hand, the governors wished a very much smaller share of the representation to be given to the town council than was finally given. A powerful body in Birmingham, called the Grammar School Re-form Association, composed of various religious denominations, wished the governing body to be divided so as not to have more than six co-optative members on the board. He was not going to say whether too large a share had been given to the co-optative section or not; but the scheme was accepted, though reluctantly, by the town council and by that Party in Birmingham which was represented by the three Members in that House, by the town council, and by the school board. The scheme was opposed in the House of Lords, not on the ground of the constitution of the board, but on the ground that some arrangement was required for religious education—a point which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). In this scheme, however, the provision with regard to religious instruction was perfectly clear; and, therefore, it was impossible that the governing body could imitate the conduct of the school board of Birmingham on that subject. The real point was whether one of the most magnificent institutions and one of the most progressive and powerful cities in the Empire should be out of harmony. His own views were not altogether in accord with the views entertained at Birmingham on the subject of education; but then Birmingham might not always remain of the same opinion as at present. No town was more in earnest on matters of education, nor was there any town in which the leading men had given more time to serve the cause of education. "Was it then advisable in framing a new scheme to run counter to the feelings of the town in regard to that school? Because there could be no mistake about the feelings of the town with regard to King Edward's School. He would not go into the question of the University nominees. It struck him that Birmingham was not the place to try that. They should trust to the educational zeal of the town. In supporting this Motion, he must not be supposed as admitting that it would be desirable to make education free. Having been a Member of the Schools Inquiry Commission, he felt with regard to the secondary and higher schools, that it would be no advantage to culture to make entrance to them free. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Motion of his right hon. Friend would be approved by the majority of the House.

said, he regretted that the absence, from indisposition, of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council (Viscount Sandon), imposed upon him the necessity of answering the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) and his supporters. He regretted the absence of the noble Lord, not only because of the reason of it, but because his noble Friend was more familiar with all the details of this question than he could pretend to be. However, he had a general acquaintance with the question; and from some consideration of it in former times, and from what had passed in the present debate, he might venture to express his opinion, and to give the reasons why he could not accept the views which were put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the junior Member for Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) had put the matter in this way. He said—"I desire to see, and I think it is a fair thing you should see, a majority of the governing body composed of the representatives of the people of Birmingham." But did the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what the nature of the representative body would be under any circumstances, and especially if he and the Members for Birmingham succeeded in getting it altered in the way they wished? The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be elected members and co-optative members, and that of these the former should be in a majority. Did the right hon. Gentleman, however, recollect that co-optative members were to be kept up in the event of vacancy by election by the whole body; and that if that process were to go on the co-optative members in time would be absorbed altogether? They all admitted that in regard to the purposes for which town councils and corporations were elected, it was right that the majority should rule; but was it necessarily desirable, in a question of education and the direction of a great institution, to put the whole management into the hands of a body elected for the management of the physical condition of the town, and the management of the gas and waterworks, and so forth, and many other important functions which undoubtedly those corporations fulfilled? But hon. Members would remember this, that in what they were proposing to do, and the principles they were laying down, they could not confine their case to Birmingham; but they were introducing principles the application of which might be claimed by a great many other towns besides Birmingham. It would be invidious to say that this principle was to be applied to Birmingham and not to other towns, because they were less impartial and somewhat less advanced and intelligent. The question might be raised in a painful way by instituting comparisons of that kind. What would Manchester say? He did not profess to know the governing body of Man- cheater; but he did know that there were upon the governing body of Manchester School the University men who were now objected to by Birmingham. Were they to say to Manchester, if they asked for similar powers—"It's all very well; you are not of the same intelligence or the same advanced culture as the corporation of Birmingham; and though it would not be right to offer such an insult to Birmingham as to have University men represented in their governing body, yet for an inferior set of people like you in Manchester it is quite good enough?" Such a principle would hardly be contended for by anybody; but if they were to admit that principle, then all the different corporations would have the same claims allowed as were put forth by Birmingham. In a governing body so constituted they might have great variety of views, and some of the views that might be brought forward might be of a very questionable character. He observed that on the present occasion the Motion which was made was for the rejection of the scheme upon two distinct grounds; one was that the governing body was not rightly constituted, and the other was that there was no provision made for gratuitous education. But some of those who supported the view that they ought to give the majority to the corporation of Birmingham held that it was not desirable to give gratuitous education; and yet they would, by supporting this Motion, put the power into the hands of men who probably would go on the length, or at all events might do so, and in that way they might be sacrificing a principle which was influential in educational questions for the sake of giving power to a corporation who took a particular view—and they must bear in mind always, when he spoke of the corporation and the representatives of a class, he was speaking of the representation of the majority and not of the minority. As regarded the bodies that should elect the governing body, the Endowed Schools Commissioners had made every reasonable suggestion in proposing bodies that could not give any offence. What was this governing body for? It was to have the conduct of a great educational institution; and surely, in conducting their affairs, it was no reflection that a small proportion of the educational body should be com- posed of gentlemen who had a particular knowledge of the practices and principles of education. In the Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, the Commissioners said—

"It seems to us that in a good school trust, the representation of the interests of parents, the interests of education, and the past management of the school should, if possible, he combined;"

and the Gentlemen from whose Report he quoted further said that, in their opinion, while the other two objects were attended to, some trustees should be appointed, on the ground of special knowledge, to represent the interests of education. They must bear in mind that what they did to meet the case of a particular town might have to be extended to other towns; and he feared that if they admitted the principle of the objection taken by this Motion, they would admit principles which would unravel the workings of the Schools Inquiry Commission, and remit to a number of bodies with by no means the high level of culture of the town of Birmingham the consideration of those questions, without that due reference to the interests of education which the Schools Inquiry Commission tried to introduce. He must apologize for not being able to enter more fully into the matter; but he thought that it was not necessary to do so, because the principle was easily understood and apprehended, and in itself it was a sufficient answer to the arguments of those who wished to upset the scheme. It was not necessary to go into the scheme; but he thought they might challenge the 'opinion of the House whether they would or would not affirm the principles laid down for their guidance by the Schools Inquiry Commission.

said, he must oppose the Motion. The scheme, he said, connected the school of Birmingham largely with the Universities. In the 78th clauseitdevoted£400perannum for scholarship in connection with Oxford and Cambridge. Surely, therefore, when they had a system beginning with the elementary schools of Birmingham, and going through the secondary scoools, and connecting them with the great Universities, it was desirable that those great Universities should be represented on the managing board. By Clause 79, £200 a-year was devoted to other Universities. But he failed to see why the London University should have a nominated governor on the board, for it was not a teaching University, but only an examining board. The money must go to the other Universities, and not to the London University. When it was seen that this money was given in connection with the great Universities of the Kingdom, he could not, as a University man, support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he particularly objected to that part of the scheme which related to the Universities. The present governors were just as much opposed to the three members being appointed by the Universities as the town council were. If the scheme were confirmed, the 2,000 children in the elementary schools who were now being educated gratuitously would have to leave unless they paid certain fees. The school was doing an enormous good, and they were going to put a stop to it. ["No, no!"] It was useless to attempt to argue with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a majority at his back. He believed that Birmingham would have cause to regret the day when University men meddled with the educational affairs of the town, without really understanding its wants and requirements.

said, that, while heartily sympathizing with the reform of our grammar schools, he could not support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. He asked all those who valued culture in their municipal institutions in England to pause before they adopted a principle which would compel them to give way to every petty local influence in the boroughs. He could not agree that the London University should not have a voice in the management of the school, and that Scotch Universities should have a part in the management of English educational establishments. He recommended the diminution of the number of the co-optative members, and was in favour of allowing University members to be chosen from any part of England instead of within seven miles of Birmingham.