The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-15 00:00:00

filE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING,' AUGUST' 15, 1860.

tation of 50s. for every scholar who attended regularly.
The real cause of the repeal of that minute, he believed,

was that it was found to be too costly. The great expense,
he believed, was due to the item for the main-
tenance of the scholars, but more especially to the cir-

cumstance that the minute was extended to refugees and

other places that did not at all come properly under the de-
finition of ragged schools. The minute which was substi-

tuted for this- allowed one-half the rent for premises in
which industrial instruction was carried on ; ss. per annum
was allowed for the scholars according to the average num-
ber under industrial instruction. Now what he was assured

of by those who were well informed on this subject was,
that the grants for the industrial portion of the system
were barely sufficient to carry on the industrial training,
and that there was to margin left for other purposes except

the grant of books and maps, and the augmentation of a
certificated teacher's salary. Now certificated teachers wore
not the teachers for ragged schools, which required a par-
ticular and special class of teachers. The ragged schools
were peculiar in their nature, and must therefore be dealt
with in a peculiar manner. It was clear that the council
were not disposed to grant any aid to those schools beyond
a very limited amount, as would appear from the minute
of council explanatory of the minute of December, 1857.
The right hon, baronet having read the minute proceeded
to say—He would then read a document entitled a " Me-
morandum," which had been signed by about 112 gentle-
men who had always been conspicuous for their advocacy
of the ragged school movement. Amongst the names he
saw those of Mr. Thompson, of Banquarrie, near Aberdeen,
Dr. Guthrie, Mr. M. D. Hill, the Recorder of Birming-
ham, and a number of gentlemen who had swpported the
ragged school system in Aberdeen, Arbroath, Ayr, Bristol,
Cardiff, Chester, Dumfries, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool,
Manchester, Paisley, Salford, Stirling, and York. That
memorandum referred to the report of the committee ap-

pointed to consider the state of public education, which
committee sat for two sessions, and ultimately reported
that voluntary contributions had been found insufficient,
and therefore that the ragged schools ought not
to be excluded from participation is the national
grant. They also intimated that it would not
be advisable to fix the standard of education neces-
sary to qualify for a certificate so high as it had for-
merly been, owing to the exceptional character of the
schools themselves. Those gentlemen then drew up their
views under nine different heads. The first very truly
stated it was not only the duty of the Government to punish
crime and vagrancy, but also to attempt to prevent it by
education. The sth resolution stated that, as a matter of
simple justice, the ragged schools ought to be supported,
because the parliamentary grant was intended to aid volun-
tary effort, and in no schools in the kingdom had there been
a greater amount of voluntary effort exhibited than in the
ragged schools. (Hear.) Those schools were therefore fully
entitled to participate in the amount annually voted. What
was the reason given by the council for not assisting those
schools more liberally ? It was to be found in the report of
a committee which he regretted to find bore the names of
" Granville" and " Robert Lowe." It was that, because
sometimes the children at ragged schools received some
little gifts and charities in addition to their education, it
would be confounding the system of public instruction
with public maintenance. He quite agreed with Miss Car-
penter in thinking that a great mistake, and that a more ex-
tended inquiry by the council would no doubt have led to a
different result. (Hear.) In one school the evidence showed
that the parents of one half of the scholars had been in re-
ceipt of parochial relief, and that many of the children
came to school frequently without their morning meal. A
very important question was, " Were those schools attended
by a class of children who but for such institutions would
be in the streets ?" He believed incontrovertibly that they
would ; and that to cut down the grants to them was a most
unwise economy. (Hoar) Tho Government were unwill-
ing to give the shilling to support ragged schools, but they
were perfectly ready to advance the pound for the expense
of prosecuting those who had been led iuto crime simply
from having been driven out upon the highway without
education and without friends. (Hear, hear.) On the
4th of June, 1860, there was a meeting of the Western
Union of Teachers held at Bristol, at which a resolution
was carried, to the effect that there were large numbers of
children who were utterly inadmissible to any other schools,
to whom it was most important that some kind of educa-
tion should be given. They stated, also, that keeping up
the ragged schools mist prove beneficial to the national and
other schools next above them. (Hear, hear.) He would
shortly state the result in a few instances of the change in
the system of the council in a financial point of view. In
the case of the Harrington British schools at Liverpool,
the vobratary contributions in 1855 had been £l2l, and the
Government grant £224 10s. In 1858 the voluntary con-
tributions had fallen to £B4 125., but the grant was £332
lls. At Bristol and Cardiff, however, that state of things
had been exactly reversed. The voluntary contributions to
the Bristol school were, in 1853, £257 ; 1854, £246 ; 1855,
£175 ; 1856, £251; and 1857, £142; while the Government
grant had been £3B in 1853 ; £Bl in 1854 ; in 1855 and 1856,
under a more liberal system, it rose to £ll3 and £lO5 ; but
in 1857 it had fallen to £59. At Cardiff last year and the
year before the contributions had been £265 and £262, and
the Government aid in 1856 was £7O the first year, and the
next nothing. In 1858 the Government aid to Bristol
school had fallen to £36, and to Cardiff to £34, though the
expenditure remained just the same. These were the com-
plaints made against the present system ; ho would not go
further into them, but would express an earnest hope that
the Government would take a favourable view of the reso-
lution he had brought forward. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLACK seconded the resolution.
Mr. ADDERLEY said there could be no doubt that the
primary object of the educational grant was to instruct
those children whose parents were not able to educate
them. The right hon. gentleman thought that the ragged
schools had not been sufficiently assisted by the Govern-
ment ; but if they put themselves under Government in-
spection they would have grants exceeding £7 per head per
annum. What objection had the ragged schools to come
under that regulation ? It was wise on the part of the
Government not to make those grants without a system of
Government inspection, for otherwise the funds of the coun-
try might be unnecessarily wasted.
Mr. BRISCOE said it was important that the house
should have accurate information with respect to those
schools. Ho advocated the public money being applied to
the support of the ragged schools, as they could not go on
without public aid. These were most useful schools, and
tended very materially to prevent crime.
Mr. A. MILLS said that they were threatened that
unless the ragged schools with which he was connected
had young criminals amongst the scholars, the grants of
public money would be withdrawn from them, and he was
actually writing daily to police
_magistrates to get such a
class of scholars to attend these schools. He doubted the
policy of inducing children to matriculate in crime before
they would be entitled to any benefit from ragged schools.
He thought that if this policy were carried out it might lead
to the breaking up of many of those valuable schools.
Mr. CAVE concurred in the observations made on this
subject by the last speaker. Ho agreed that those schools
in which young criminals were taught ought to be placed
under the Home-office, but it would be most unwise to trans-
fer the whole of the industrial schools from the control of
the Committee of Privy Council to the care of the Home-
office.

Mr. HENLEY said the subject before the house was a
most important one. When industrial schools were origi-
nally established, they were more or less identified with the
criminal element, and the question raised by his right hon.
friend was this—could they separate the penal element from
these schools, and could they carry but the schools upon
the bases suggested by his right hon. friend ? The ground
on which the Privy Council granted the money to ragged
schools rested upon the literary and industrial information
afforded to the children. Now, there was nothing in this to
enforce religious education amongst the young persons edu-
cated at the ragged schools. If they were going to alter the
status of these schools, they ought to see that the religious
element formed a feature of it. The right hon. gentleman
said that while there were at least four million of children
to be educated in England, the whole number educated
under the auspices of the Committee of Council was only
800,000. The right hon. gentleman read an extract from the
report of Mr. Norris, the Government inspector of schools
in Staffordshire, showing that, while those who remained
longest at the schools received a tolerable education, those
who left them early were almost entirely uninstructed, and
he further showed that the system of education, as it
worked, was unsatisfactory and required reform. In Staf-
fordshire about 45 per cent. of married women only could
write their names. In Westmoreland, which was consi-
dered the most highly educated county in England, with
the exception of the metropolitan county, Mr. Moncrieff,
the school inspector, reports that the population of the
county was about 100,000, that the educational grant was
about £5,000, and that only 47 per cent. of married women
could write their names ; and in Cornwall only 51 per cent.
of the married women could write their names. The sys-
tem, in fact, had failed lamentably, and in morality, which
was one of the things they should look for in any system
of education, the system was by no means satisfactory in
its results. It was quite clear that instruction was not edu-
cation. In Westmoreland, for instance, where instruction
was said to be the highest; the standard of morality was the
very lowest. Looking at the statistics of the registrar of
births, marriages, and deaths, he found that in that county
one child in every ten and a fraction was born illegitimate,
whilst in Monmouthshire, which stood nearly the lowest
in point of education, the standard of morality stood there
immensely higher. How did they account for this ? In
Monmouthshire 47 per cent. only of the married women
were able to write their names,. and yet one in every 28
childreti were born out of wedlock, and 63 per cent, of the
women were unable to write their names. He would not
be understood to mean that the instruction of children
would make them immoral ; but it was of the defective
mode of instruction that he complained. (Hear, hear.)
In Cornwall the standard of morality was higher. Ille-
gitimate children born in that county were one in seven-
teen, and in Huntingdon one in nineteen, while in
Staffordshire they were one in ten. According to all ac-
counts:the system was not effecting all the good that could
be hoped from it, and it was quite clear that the Govern-
ment should be prepared at one time or other to adopt
a system which would combine sound moral instruction
with education. Mr. Mosely, when retiring from the
Privy Council, expressed his opinion to their lordships that

the system from which they hoped so much good to flow
had failed, anel Mr. Bellaire and Mr. Cassell had also ex-
pressed their disapprobation of it. It appeared that the
main efforts of the system had been directed to perfect the
pupil teachers, while the children were neglected and

- -
turned out of the schools uneducated. It had been shown

that the children left the schools at an early age, and if they
could not get them. to remain in the schools after 10 years
of age, it was quit° clear they must suit their school sys-
tem in a more satisfactory manner to the poorer children.
The right hon. baronet (Sir Jan Pakington) showed that
there were a class or children in ragged schools who were

described as utterly inadmissible to the national schools.
Surely, then, they ought to do something to aid those chil-

dren in the way of education. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE had listened with great gratification to the
arguments of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
down ; but the right hon. gentleman shcald understand
that the system of which he spoke was nc system at all;

and he confessed he (lid not see the relation of the right
hon. gentleman's statistics. The system was not esta-
blished by the Privy Council. The syStent acted upon by
the Privy Council, whether good or evil, was this—they
did not give money to found schools, but they gave it to aid
parties in establishing them. He would now refer to the
remarks which the
_right hon. baronet the member for
Droitwich, and say he could not but admire the high tone

and feeling in which the hon. baronet hal expressed him-
self. But if the house followed the advice of the right hon.
gentleman, he begged to say that they would relieve any
future party iu the situation which he (Hr. Lowe) had the
honour to occupy from the invidious position of appearing

to decline giving money to aid schools in the manner in
which the right honourable baronet wished. There would,
in fact, be no end of applications for grants from all quar-
ters. There were three different schools : the first was the
certified reformatory school, to which children were sent
after conviction ; the second was the certified industrial

school, to which children were sent by the magistrates after
having committed an act of vagrancy; and the third was
the elementary school, where the children of honest parents
received education. But these (with which the Privy
Council had nothing to do) did not exhaust the schools.
There were the schools which were the subject of that even-
ing's discussion—the ragged schools. The ragged schools
were schools established by humane persons for, as de-
scribed, the " education of children who had no home, and
who attended, not by legal compulsion, but who were
vagrant rather than criminal." He thought that was a very
good definition of those schools. Now with regard to the
support of those schools, he begged to say there seemed to
be considerable error, inasmuch as 48 of the class received
relief from the Privy Council to an amount upwards of
£5,000. There wasiin opinion that the ragged schools could
only receive relief for elementary teaching; but the fact was
they could receive money for a certified master and for
pupil teachers, and they could also receive money for assis-
tant teachers, if the promoters of them complied with the
form upon which assistant teachers could be had. There-
fore they were not excluded by the Privy Council, as
alleged ; and they also could have giants on the same con-
ditions, if they complied with them, that other schools had.
There wore, then, in the first place, the " capitation grant,"
which was a grant in which the children made a particular
amount of payment. Some schools received no payment for
children, yet they had the capitation grant. In the second
place, they were allowed to have, in addition to a certified
teacher, an inferior teacher, who was paid, although he
would not be paid in any elementary school; and in the
third place, the elementary schools did not receive any of
the annual grant for books, pupil teachers, or other matters,
unless they had a certified teacher. Some of those schools
were however without a certified teacher. Elementary
schools were not allowed to have grants from the Privy
Council unless they had a certificated teacher ; but ragged
schools had not that disadvantage, and they had in addition
special advantages which the others had not. Two of the
disadvantages under which they laboured were these, that
they must have industrial teaching, and they could not take
fees from the pupils. The right hon. gentleman had by his
argument paid a high compliment to the Privy CounciMand
he would ask him, did the right hon. gentleman mean to
overthrow the principle upon which the Privy Council
acted ? And if that was to be done, let it be understood
what system was to be substituted. The right hon. gentle-
man wanted the elementary schools to be continued. Some
might think that too much was given to the ragged schools,
and others might think that too little was:given; and that
seemed to be the opinion of the right hon. gentleman ; but
what he proposed would have the effect of dragging down
education in this country. If people found that by calling
schools ragged schools, they could get more money, a rush
would be made to Government for larger aid by that means.
To act simply on the reports of inspectors would not be
right or justifiable. When aid was claimed by a school
calling itself a ragged school, it was necessary that he (Mr.
Lowe) should be supplied with some test to sustain the
allegation. The right hon. gentleman had accepted the
definition of what schools should be considered ragged
schools. Before the Government parted with the public
money it was necessary it should be seen that claims should
be properly substantiated, and it was deemed necessary that
a certificate should be sent in signed by two magistrates. Let
them see how the grants to ragged schools had increased. In
1851 the grant amounted to £llB. In 1857, after the new
I arrangements had been made, the grant was £19,000. In
1858 it was £27,000, and in 1859 it viks reduced to £15,000.
After referring to farther statistics he said it was the duty
of the Privy Council to manage the education of the chil-
dren of those who did not come under the definition of
paupers. In his opinion the matter of education must be
left to the voluntary principle, or to the compulsory one if
the views which were put forward by many were to be car-
ried out.
The question was then put, when the house divided, and
the numbers wero—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
The house then went into committee.
Mr. LOWE, on the first vote (1538,167) for education in
Great Britain), read statistical tables to show that the
number of children in the schools had increased above the
number of last year by upwards of 50,000, and that in point
of economy there was a large diminution—£3o,ooo. He,
however, thought that liberality was the truest economy,
and that the avoidance of sectarianism would lead to
economy, inasmuch as, if to satisfy denominational feel-
ings you had two schools where one might have sufficed, a
double staff of officers would be required, and many other
contingent expenses would have to be multiplied. This was
an evil in itself, and should be avoided as far as possible.
Then came the expenses of the public offices in London,
which had to communicate with the various schools, the
number of clerks employed, and the quantity of post-office
stamps used, and other matters connected with the ad-
ministrative department, which involved a large expen-
diture—much larger than would be required if those
sectarian differences were not recognised. The sums paid
to pupil teachers were well expended, as it encouraged
young persons in the acquisition of learning, and secured
to the country a large number of competent instructors.
Even those who did not remain in the schools amply repaid
the country for whatever they received by the valuable
services which they were enabled to render society in other
departments of industry,
Mr. HADFIE LD thought the grant had already been
too much. It lad accumulated from £20,000 to £900,000,
and it was impossible if the present system were pursued to
know where it would stop. If the Government proceeded
in its present course the expense would soon be £3,000,000,
There were now among the Dissenters 350,000 volunteer
teachers educating about 3,000,000 of children. That system
had worked successfully, and in his opinion ought not to be
interfered with. Those grants were a hindrance and im-
pediment in the cause of education, and therefore he would
oppose them.
Mr. NORRIS apprehended the Government was pursu-
ing a perfectly correct course. It might at times commit
errors in giving more in rich districts than was necessary,
while in poor districts they gave no more. He hoped that
some plan would be devised to reduce the grants in wealthy
localities ea increase them in poorer places. This system
improved the morals and principles of the population, and
that was much better than paying judges and gaolers for
punishing them.
Mr. HENLEY s lid that if the British and Foreign School
system was dying out, it was because the country generally
were becoming more impressed with the importance of re-
ligious instruction, which, in many places, it was impossi-
ble to give the children in their own homes.
Mr. ADD ERLEY said some districts were often called
poor because the people were poor; but there might be rich
landlords. He approved of the system of stimulating vo-
luntary efforts. He thought denominational zeal would
keep up denominational efforts.
Mr. LON GFIELD said it seemed that the system of
subsidising private enterprise was the most successful, and
that, therefore, voluntary efforts should be encouraged.
They were the most conducive to the education of the
people. In Ireland education was not supplemented by
local aid, and the result was, that private benevolence was
insufficient for the pueposes of education in that country.
Ho was dispo;ed to think that the educational system of
the Privy Council should be introduced into Ireland.
After a few words from Mr. BRUCE,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he agreed with the Vice-Pre-
sident of the Council that the denominational system was
the best. He also agreed with the right hon. gentleman
behind him (Mr. Henley), that specific instruction was de-
sirable. He thought that no minority should be excluded
on religious grounds. This whole subject was in a provi-
sional state, for he was looking with great interest to the
report of the Royal Commission. He believed the existing
system left a large substratum of the people who were not
at all educated, and yet a cry was raised from both sides of
the house that more money was required. If they wished
to educate the people of England properly they must
change the present system altogether.
Mr. PULLER thought there could be no doubt that the
denominational system was an objectionable one, but still
the advocates of it had no confidence in the present system
of education.
Mr. AYRTON, complained that the vote was not divided
into general heads, so that the house might see what they
were about to grant. Besides, ho believed a great deal of
the money was wasted in building and decorating schools,
instead of providing for the proper education of the poor.
He denounced the principle of keeping up a toy like the

Kensington Museum, which cost £20,000 a year, and was

really of no use whatever to the poor.

The vote was them agreed to.

The next vote was £82,561 to complete the sum required
-- -

for the purpose of promoting science and art.

Mr. CONINGHAM complained of the money wasted on
he Kensington Museum, which was very properly deaig-

nated by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets as a toy.
Ho wished to know what were really the objects of this

museum. There was a rumour abroad that the National

Gallery was to be removed there, but he hoped there was
no foundation for it whatever. He was very sorry to see
such intrigues—for he could not call them anything else—
going on in these matters, and he should certainly keep a
watchful eye on those gentlemen of the Kensington Museum.
He believed that so far from being useful either to art or
science, it was nothing better than a great toy .shop for the
amusement of certain classes in the vicinity. Another
point was the salaries of the officials at Kensington. They
were paid much higher salaries than the officials of the Bri-
I tish Museum, who held much more responsible situations.

Mr. Cole, the manager, for instance, received £1,200 a year,
while Professor Owen, a man of worldwide celebrity, re-
ceived only £BOO a year at the British Museum, and Mr.
Panizzi, the librarian, only £BOO a year at the Museum,
while Mr. Redgrave had £7OO at Kensington. Taking all
the salaries together, the officials at Kensington were de-

cidedly overpaid, as compared with those at the Museum,
though ho admitted that bo wished the lattor to be better

paid. lie wished also to say that a more unsatisfactory
report than that of the committee on the Kensington Mu-
seum he had never read ; and though he would not, in the
pre,ent state of the house, move any amendment on the
vote, he hoped next session that the whole subject would
be thoroughly investigated.
Mr. ADDERLEY called attention to one item connected
with the National Gallery, and said that it appeared that

more pupils had been admitted into the life school than were
really students.

Mr. CARD WELL read, in reply, a communication from
Mr. Muheady, stating the classes of persons admitted to
the life school, and contended that such improper admis-
sions could not have taken place.

Sir J. SHELLEY said that as a member of the commit-
tee on the Kensington Museum he had gone into it in the
expectation that he would find it was a series of gross jobs;
but, on the contrary, he was bound to say, after a careful
examination of the evidence, that it was doing a great deal
of good, and that the complaints against it were without
foundation, and he should be sorry to see it done away with.
Its existence, however, was no reason why there should not
be a similar museum at the east end of the town, and so far
as he was concerned he should be very happy to see one or
snore established among tho working classes there. (Hear.)
As to Mr. Cole he thought that gentleman was a most able,
zealous, and hard-working public servant, and though he
was paid £1,200 a-year, that sum was less than he would
hare been entitled to had he simply remained in the Record
Office, where he was for 20 years, and taken his promotion.
As to the report of the committee he, as one of its members,
was not ashamed of it in any respect. (Hear, hear.)
Alderman SALOMONS moved that the estimate be re-
duced by the sum of £1,500 for photographic apparatus, and
£5OO fur advertisements. He thought there ought not to
bo a public department set up to compete against the private
trade.

Mr. LOWE read a portion of the report of the corn
mittee to show that there had been no competition what
ever between the British Museum and the Kensington
Museum at any sales of works of art or other articles.
With respect to the exclusion of the hon. member for
Brighton from the committee, the hon. gentleman had
made such grave and serious charges against the establish-
ment that he thought it was better he should appear—if
he appeared at all—as the-prosecutor rather than in a
judicial capacity. With respect to the vote for photo-
graphy, the subject had been very fully considered by the
committ ?e. The articles to be photographed belonged to
the national collections, and the question was in what way
these photographs should be produced. Three ways were
before them. Ono was to give the privilege to two or three
eminent firms, who would have had a monopoly that would
have caused general murmuring among all the others en-
gaged in the same profession. Another was to entrust the
task to one person only, such as Mr. Colnaghi, and that
would have been still more objectionable, besides enabling
in both cases those who were given the privilege to charge
a monopoly price to the public. The third plan, and that
agreed to by the committee, was to have a separate public
department for the purpose, and to sell the photographs to
the public at cost price. (Hear.)
Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR objected to having a public pho-
tographic department at so large an expense as that set
forth in the vote before the committee. Why not allow all
respectable photographers to take photographs of the pic-
tures in the museum ?
Sir J. V. SHELLEY defended the present system under
which the photographs were taken at the museum.
Mr. E. JAMES entered his protest against the reason
given by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) against not
nominating the hon. gentleman the member for Brighton as
a member of the committee referred to. The reason urged
was really an insult to the hon. gentleman.
The committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —6l
The item was accordingly agreed to.
Mr. AYRTON proposed to reduce this vote by the sum
of £20,000 in order to put an end to the extravagance—the
enormous extravagance that was being carried on. A
certain class of persons got up this South Kensington
Museum, which was nothing but a " toy" and a " play-
thing" for certain conspicuous people. The fact was, that
the East, and the North, and the South of London, and
Birmingham, and other places, were as much entitled to
have grants for museums as the class to whom he had re •
ferred in South Kensington. The museum was the museum
of the hon. member for Westminster J. Shelley), and
was " the Westminster Museum." He objected to the
constitution of the committee, which he considered a mos t
unfairly chosen and composed one. He therefore proposed
the omission from the vote of the sum of £20,000 for the
Kensington Museum.
The CHAIRMAN said the hon. member could not, ac-
cording to the standing orders, move the omission of the
whole vote.
Mr. AYRTON—Then I will move the reduction of the
vote, item after item, beginning with the first item—
(laughter)—namely, £3,515, fellowing the one which has
just been disposed of. (Laughter.)
The committee divided, the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority —66
In answer to a question, Mr. LOWE said he should
have stated that it was intended to take a supplemental
vote for buildings at the South Kensington Museum, of
which due notice would be given.
The vote was then agreed to, as was also the vote of
£641 to defray the salaries of the secretaries to the Com-
missioners of National Education in Ireland.
The next vote proposed was the sum of £4,820 to the
University of London.
After a short discussion the vote was agreed to.
The following votes were also taken :
£3,600 for the Queen's College in Ireland.
£5OO for the Royal Irish Academy.
£8,670 having been proposed to complete the sum for the
National Gallery,
Mr. CONINGHAM complained of the extravagant and
fruitless expenditure by the managers of that institution,
especially as regarded the purchase of spurious pictures,
and travelling expenses for parties who perpetrated such
mistakes. £6OO for travelling expenses were allowed to Mr.
Mundler, who, notwithstanding, former blunders, was still
engaged in Pramoofinn witlk Oalltny. lIC
thought the Royal Academy should be withdrawn from the
National Gallery. He proposed to reduce the vote by £6,000.
Mr. WILLIAMS said the vote of last year was £15,900.
Was that sum expended ?
Mr. LAING said it was. The balance in hand was the
balance of a previous year.
In answer to a question from Mr. AYRTON,
Lord PALMERSTON thought the accommodation of
the Royal Academy at the National Gallery was quite con-
sistent with the objects of the institution. At the same
time it was intended to provide for that body elsewhere as
soon as possible, so as to afford increased space for the ex-
hibition of works of art.
Mr. CONINGHAM said the Royal Academy was not a
public but a private institution. If a site were given to
that body, leaving them to find their own edifice, it would
be as great a favoir as they were entitled to.
The vote was then agreed to ; and also the following :
£4,790 was voted for scientific experiments, £5OO for the
Royal Geographical Society, and £l,OOO for the Royal
Society.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
resumed.
The Fortifications Bill was read a third time and passed.
STAMP DUTIES (No. 2) BILL.
The Lords' amendments on this bill were considered and
agreed,

DEFENCE OF THE REALM BILL.
The house then wont into committee on this bill, when
the several clauses were agreed to, and the house resumed.
CUSTOMS (No. 2) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND ACT) (18.5 G)
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered an i agreed to.
NEW ZEALAND BILL.
The order of the day for the second reading of this bill
was postponed.

CONJUGAL RIGIITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses up to 11 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 12,
Mr. HENNESSY objected to the clause, as he did not
think four years' desertion was a good ground to justify a
divorce.

The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it l6
Majority 1 ....
Clauses up to 16 were agreed to.
On clause 17,
Mr. CRAWFORD objected to the wording of the clause.