The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-05 00:00:00

THE EDUCATIONAL ESTIMATES.

Oa the motion for going into committee of supply on the
Civil Service Estimates,
Mr. DILLWYN called the attention of the house to the
annually ittcreasing amount of the educational estimates,
and to the principle upon which such votes should be
given ; and moved, " That, in the opinion of this house,
votes in aid of educational establishments should, so far
as may be consistent with existing arrangements, be
limited to those in which elementary instruction alone
is given, and to those for the training of schoolmasters."
He was aware of the strong feeling that prevailed in the
house in favour of the extension of education amongst the
humbler classes, and he was not in the slightest degree leas
desirous of that object than any other hon. member. He
considered that the tendency was to over-educate the lower
classes, and therefore it was necessary that the greatest
vigilance should be exercised in reference to these educa-
tion-11 votes. During .the last 20 years the votes for
public schools had risen, from £30,000 tope amount inthel

present estimates of no less than over 003,000, while for
schools of science and art it was now proposed to grant
£111,489. The whole amount proposed for educational pur-
poses was £915,278. He should not object to that amount,
if he was sure that it realised the benefit that it was
considered likely to effect, but the fact was that the educa-
tion given in Government schools was not only defective in
quality as regarded the higher branches, but failed to sup-
ply education of a class suited to the station in life of the
parties who were the recipients of it. The hon. member
then proceeded to point out what he considered the other
defects of the existing system.
Sir G. C. LEWIS considered that the question should
be brought forward at a later period of the estimates, when
the particular votes in question were under consideration.
VOLUNTEER INSPECTION IN THE PARKS.
Mr. B. OSBORNE begged to draw the attention of the
First Commissioner of the Board of Works to a circum-
stance that, in his opinion, was of some importance.
The volunteers were in the habit of being inspected in the
park at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when there was a large
number of equestrians and persons driving in the parks.
The firing commenced about half-past 6 o'clock, and con-
tinued 7 o'clock, much to the inconvenience of stout
gentlemen on horseback, and to the fright of ladies in car-
riages. There was an order at the Horse Guards by the late
Duke of Wellington that there should be no firing by the
soldiers except at a certain distance from the main road,
and he thought the same regulation should be enforced
with respect to the volunteers.
Mr. COWPER said that the subject would be considered,
and instructions would be given to prevent the annoyance
complained of being repeated.
TETUAN AND MOROCCO.
Sir R. PEEL asked the question of which he had given
notice in the early part of the evening.
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that, in consequence of the
Moorish Government having stated to the Spanish Govern-
ment that they would not carry out the treaty, arrange-
ments had been made by the latter Government, but they
were open to any overtures from the Moorish Government
that would lead to an amicable arrangement.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
Mr. SCULLY moved for a select committee to inquire
into the best mode of securing authorised or accurate re-
ports of the debates of the house. The hon. and learned
gentleman then proceeded, in a speech replete with humour,
to point out the practice that prevailed with news-
papers in reporting speeches according to their respective
interests. He read a letter NI hich he had received from
some anonymous writer, which commenced, " My dear
Scully,—Pray, do not make such an ass of yourself.
(Laughter.) We are all laughing at your absurd speech
here, and the only excuse we can make for you is, that you
are not right in your head." (Great laughter.) He did not
know whether the opinion of the writer was that of the
house, but it certainly was not his own. (Increased
laughter.)
Mr. BASS asked the hon. and learned gentleman whe-

ther he considered that the speech he had just made was
calculated to add to his own repute or to the dignity and
character of the house ? (Cheers.) Within the last week
the hon. and learned gentleman had been reported 15 times,
and he had actually spoken at least twice as often. If other
lion. members were to take the same liberties with the time
of the house it would be impossible to get through the busi-
ness of the session. It was absolutely necessary to curb
the present license of too much speaking.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD, referring to Lord J. Russell's
observations respecting Spain and Morocco, said he hoped to
hear from some colleague of the noble lord, that he had ad-
dressed a vigorous and earnest remonstrance to the Spanish
Government against any permanent occupation of any part
of the Moorish territory. This country ought not to permit
the permanent occupation by Spain of an inch of that ter-
ritory.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not think it would be be-
coming in the British Government to say that the Moorish
Government, having signed a treaty, were not bound by the

obligations of that treaty. It was ihe duty of the British

Government to endeavour to arrange terms between Spain
and Morocco, and not by dictation to bring on a renewal of
the war.
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into committee of

SUPPLY.

On the vote of £3,035 for British embassy houses abroad;

Mr. WILLIAMS denounced the wasteful and extrava-
gant expenditure in respect of the charges included in this
item.

Mr. COWPER defended the vote.
Col. SYKES said the British Legation at Pekin now
occupied a building extending over 4t acres, the whole of
which was in a state of dilapidation. He did not see any
charge for repairs there.
The sum of £2,982 was agreed to to defray tho expenses
of the consular offices, hospital, and prison at Constanti-
nople, and the sum of £53,000 for the formation of the ap-
proaches to the new bridge at Westminster.
£3,914 for the expenses connected with the building of
the new Westminster-bridge.

£8,200 for public offices in connection with the General
Register-house, Edinburgh.
£11,200 for the erection of an industrial museum, Edin-
burgh—were also agreed.

On the vote of £6,870 for the expenses of enlarging, re-
pairing and altering King's College and Marischal College,
Aberdeen,
Colonel SYKES and Mr. LESLIE spoke in favour of the
charge, but asked for further explanation.
Mr. CO WPER said the works to be proceeded with were
contemplated in ISM. They would consist of renovation
and repairs. The south wing of King's College was in a
dilapidated state, and would require to be rebuilt.
The vote was agreed to.
On the vote of £BOO for defraying the expenses of the
erection of a stained glass window in Glasgow Cathedral,
Lord DUNK ELLIN asked upon what ground the public
were called upon to supply an east window to Glasgow
Cathedral. The windows had, be understood, been erected
by voluntary subscription ; and to call upon the house to
give this sum would open up a very large question. Was it
intended to establish by this vote a principle for granting
sums for works of this kind ?

Mr. COWPER said Glasgow Cathedral was public pro-
perty. It was a portion of that property from which the
state derived a revenue; and her Majesty being in posses-
sion of the property, she joined other persons in a subscrip-
tion set on foot for the purpose of ornamenting the cathe-
dral. He had often heard that property had its duties as
well as its rights. The house had already agreed to expend
£4OO, but as that sum was found insufficient he now asked
for au additional £4OO, the former sum having been re-
' turned into the Exchequer. It would be a disgrace to the
Crown to be the only party connected with this cathedral
who did not subscribe in this work of ornamentation—in-
deed, he might say not only as regarded this cathedral, but
others in the kingdom. _ _

Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained of the lublic being
called upon to vote money for such a purpose. The right
hon. gentleman was not content with the former vote of
£4OO, but he now required it to be doubled.
Captain STAC POOLE asked how much revenue was de-
rived from the lands of Glasgow Cathedral ?
Mr. H. LEWIS thought that if her Majesty was anxious
to subscribe to this work of art she would do so without
coming to the House of Commons for the money.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked for the amount of the income
derived from this property and the source of it. (Hear.)

Mr. COW PER said that at the Reformation this
church property came into the hands of the state and re-
mained there, and the income was paid into the consolidation
fund. (Cries of—" How much ?") The amount was stated in
the annual report of the Woods and Forests. The revenue
did not go to the Sovereign. (Cries of—" How much is it ?")
The committee then divided—
For the vote

Against it..
Majority
The vote was consequently carried.
On the vote of £413 to defray the expenses of the main
drainage of the metropolis,
Alderman SALOMONS asked for an explanation of the
vote.

aexnreseallofcsatitroeport
Mr. COWPER said that this sum was put into the votes
made by two engineers,
Mr. Simpson
esfrtmaypstohne
Thel vote ought to have
03.85.8 ; but the two gentle-
been included in the estimate:l;o
claim until lately.
eiGn.rovernen.menTthhad not thought
Underme gentle-
men in
these question
circumstances
ha had not
sentth
it right to pay the whole of the claim.
jusi to pay those gentlemen the expenses theyey consideredhad it
to out of pocket, but not to allow them anything b been put
Lord J. MANNERS said he thought a moralemPignhd.
drawn from this vote. There was now a scheme relating b:
the Thames embankment before the public. He sincerely
hoped hoped the Government would not interfere with the Metro-
politan Board of Works in this matter, as they had done
formerly, thereby putting the country to an expense of which
this vote was the last item.

The vote was agreed to.
The vote of £3,000 for the National Gallery, Dublin, was
agreed to.
On the vote of £160,000 for harbours of refuge,

Mr. BAXTER said he rose to point out to the committee
what he considered to be the greatest blot on these esti-
mates. (Hear.) He alluded to the great and ridiculous ex-
penditure which was going on at Alderney—a work the
more humiliating because it was being carried on in the
sight of our neighbours across the Channel. It appeared
from a plan which he held in his hand, entitled "A Sketch
at Alderney," that in the year 1848 a plan had been pro •
posed involving a cost of £620,000 ; in 1850 it was increased
to £BBO,OOO. In 18.54 an extension was proposed at an esti-
mated cost of £1,300,000. In 1857 another scheme, marked
yellow in the plan, was proposed at a cost of £1,850,000;
and finally, in 1858, the most costly of all, a scheme, marked
red, was proposed at a cost of £2,000,000. He had been
further informed that a still more extensive plan, of which
the particulars were not yet known, had been proposed to
the Government. He wished to know whether it was true,
as he had been informed, that stones were thrown into the
sea at Alderney in 150 feet of water, without any measure-
ment or check being made. He should also like to be in-
formed whether an officer of great experience had not re-
ported to the Government that the best thing to be done
with Alderney, in the case of a war unfortunately breaking
out, would be to blow it up altogether. (Hear.) Was it
not the fact that we were in a position to render it probable

1!.11, ilowimmmok
We should never be able to spare trdops to man the fortifi-
cations at Alderney ? Then the committee were asked to
vote this sum in an estimate for harbours of refuge. Could
there possibly be a greater mistake? Every shipowner
knew that Alderney was perfectly useless as a harbour of
refuge ; that his ship would be safer in beating about in the
Bay of Biscay than in Alderney Harbour, and he was sure
his hon. friend the member for Sunderland would imme-
diately dismiss any captain of his who would attempt to
run his:vessel into Alderney. In this, as he must call it,'
gigantic folly, the country had already spent £862,000, and
they were now called upon to vote £363,000 more. He
asked the committee not to be deluded by any statement
that if this money was withheld, the money already ex-
pended on the works would be thrown away and the har-
bour would be useless. It was useless now, and no money
they could expend upon it would make it serviceable to
the public, and it was upon these grounds he asked the
committee to reduce the vote by £90,000, the whole of the
amount asked for the works at Alderney. He was confident
that if his motion were agreed to, the only sufferers would be
those who had been paid for a long series of years for
throwing stones into the English Channel. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL was glad that attention had been called to
the subject, but thought they must be guided by the answer
of the Government as to whether they should consent to
throw away £200,000 already expended upon the undertak-
ing. He did not at all approve of this expenditure, and he
complained that since the management and supervision of
these works had been handed over from the Treasury to the
Admiralty, there had been no adequate check upon the ex-
penditure. In support of this view he quoted the evidence
of the Accountant General and the Director-General of
Works of the] Admiralty given before a committee of the
house; and to show the checks provided in other similar
cases referred to the system adopted by the Tyne Commis-
sioners in the extensive works in which they were engaged
for the extension of the harbour. The noble lord had, he
said, denied in the first instance that this was a harbour of
refuge at Alderney, describing it as a work of public defence
undertaken upon the advice of the Duke of Welliagtonmany
years ago. But the original estimate was £620,000 ; the
Duke of Wellington gave his sanction to an expenditure of
that amount only, whereas the expenditure had already
grown to £1,300,000, and there was a prospective estimate of
no less than £2,000,000. The great destruction of life and
property at sea was a national discredit, and the First Lord of
the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty had been
addressed by petitions and deputations on the subject, but
they were invariably met with the stereotyped answer that
the Government had not got the money, and were not in a
position to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide
it. But how could the First Lord of the Treasury and the
First Lord of 'the Admiralty give this answer with a clear
conscience, when they asked the house to vote this enor-
mous sum of money for works which could never be of any
use as harbours of refuge. He trusted they should hear
before the debate closed that there was a definite plan
of construction upon which the Admiralty were determined
to act, and also that there were some probable prospect of
the completion of the works.
Sir J. GRAHAM said before the committee received an
official assurance with regard to the future, he was anxious
to give a short ex official explanation in respect to this matter
as far as he was cognisant of it. He did not regard this work
as a harbour of refuge, and he was sorry that it had ever
been so designated, because he thought that that designa-
tion was not consistent with the fact and tended to mislead.
(Hear, hear.) This work, if defensible—and he regarded it
as defensible—was a work of a naval and military charac-
ter. He had had on many occasions conversations with the
late Duke of Wellington on the subject, and it was a work
which was recommended by the Duke, who attached great
importance to it, and felt at the very close of his life the
greatest interest in regard to it. It was not to be denied
that Cherbourg had been a source of just jealousy to Eng-
land in reference to the maintenance of the supremacy of
the British navy. Inside the Channel Islands no hostile
movement of any fleet could take place from the westward.
Any hostile movement from the westward must take place
between Alderney and Portland, and by telegraphic cable
there was communication between Portland and Alderney.
It had been said that Alderney was not susceptible of de-
fence. As far as related to the military works at Alderney,
he believed that they were complete, and he spoke upon
the authority .of Sir John Burgoyne, who had conducted the
works, and who considered them so complete, that upon his
reputation he desired nothing more than to command a
small garrison of under 3,000 men, and was confident that
he could hold Alderney against any force that could be
brought against him. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the
harbour, he admitted at once that it was not a harbour
of refuge, and he then said that in the opinion of ad-
mirals and generals upon whose authority he relied, but
relying mainly upon the highest of all military authorities,
the late Duke of Wellington, he was persuaded that Alder-
ney fortified and with the means of accommodating ships
of war, steamers of war, iron cased steamers of war, pro•
bably as the science of naval architecture advanced, Port-
land and Alderney would form most important means of
checking any naval operations in the Channel. As related
to the expenditure, he had little to remark. While he was
at the Admiralty he held it to be his duty to examine these
works narrowly. These harbours were transferred from the
Treasury as a mixed service, partly military and partly
naval. The naval part of the work was under the imme-
diate superintendence of Mr. Walker, the engineer, a man
of the highest ability and the strictest integrity. Mr.
Walker was responsible to the Admiralty for the whole of
the outlay upon these works ; he appointed an engineer
quite apart from the contractor ; the engineer was responsi-
ble for the measurement ; he made quarterly reports to Mr.
Walker, and Mr. Walker laid the reports quarterly before
the Admiralty. That was the way this matter was conducted
during the two years he was at the Admiralty, and he was
quite satisfied that every security was taken both with re-
spect to measurement and superintendence. The executive
would give their views with respect to the progress of the
works and the future expenditure upon them. Upon the
strength of the past he said he did not regret that the
work had been executed. He was not an alarmist, and he
did not believe that at the present moment there was any
hostile intention on the part of France towards this coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) But it could not be denied that France
was making a vast outlay upon naval armaments, not with
the deliberate intention of hostility to England, but she
might very fairly look with something like jealousy to our
naval means, and might desire to be prepared for contin-
gencies by extending her naval armaments with a view to
balance our power by sea. It could not, however, be dis-
sembled, that whatever might be the present policy of
France, it was a policy which it became us by precautions
to anticipate. Therefore he thought that, within moderate
limits and without giving any just cause of offence to France
it did become this country to take reasonable precautions
for the maintenance of our naval supremacy. (Hear, hear.)
He did not regard this discussion as inopportune ; but en-
tertaining the opinion of these works which he did, cogni-
sant of the facts which he mentioned, and responsible, in
fact, for the outlay which had already taken place, he
shz-aild not have discharged his duty if he had not frankly,
in reference to the past, stated his opinion upon the subject,
and he was sure that her Majesty's Government would as
frankly state what their views were with regard to the out-
lay which they would recommend should be sanctioned for
the future.
Captain JERVIS said that he could bear testimony to the
fact that a ton of stone had not been put down in these works
which had not been carefully measured, and the accounts
since 1850 had, he believed, been regularly made out.
Mr. PEEL said that though the designs of the harbour
had undergone various alterations, owing principally to
the increased size of the ships now built, the total estimate
of the; works remained the same for the last five years,
namely, £1,300,000. The breakwater now extended
to the furthest extremity to which it was intended
to carry it. If the committee refused to pass the present
vote the whole past outlay would be wasted and cast away,
consisting not merely of the £BOO,OOO expended on the har-
bour itself, but of the large expenditure of the War Depart-
ment in the fortification of the island, and which he believed
would render it as impregnable as Gibraltar itself. The
opinion of the Duke of Wellington was in favour of the for-
tification of the island as a military defence and a refuge for
vessels of war. If the work were to be now abandoned, the
roll of the sea, in certain states of the weather, would be
such as to make it impossible for vessels to enter the har-
bour at all.
Mr. MONSELL asked whether the charges on armaments
would not render the further expenditure of money on this
harbour entirely useless ? (Hear.)
Mr. WHITBREAD explained the system of cheques, by
which the expenditure was controlled, and did not believe
ttheahxleoepnepanecublie could be defrauded, unless there existed a con-
spiracy between the contractor, the resident engineer, and
the engineer in London.
Sir
acHtheitu.?ceoanmfloLLOUGHßY observed that Sir R. Bromley,
hon. member accountant-general, -0
harboursgii t
committee
rooanult,
ought
didMontrose.
f r t
refuge
noTbt, considerThera
support
sufficient.
the
at hnaec
ncnhdeme
thatke n
ground
rnoof
utt
nhh
dee
voucher, no audit, and yet thousands
of the public money were expended on these
housaenrclas wasand tensn o
w oerfworks.
s.document,
Surelyn thousandso
that was not a satisfactory state of things. (Hear.)
Mr. A. SMITH did not think that a sufficient explanation
had been given with respect to the extent of the harbour. It
appeared to him from the reports that the foundation of the
harbour had been extended since last year, notwithstanding
the statements of the Secretary for the Treasury and the
civil lord of the Admiralty.
Mr. CONING HAM said he had great respect for the
opinion of the right honourable baronet (Sir J. Graham),
but he did not think the country could bear the cost of
making these works in various ports of the world. He
should vote with the hon. member for Montrose.
Lord C. PAGET said it was found by the committee
that it was impossible to stop the work at Alderney till
they got to a certain point. The breakwater was ofravederayt
peculiar nature, and the superstructure had to be c
ri
least as far as the foundation had been laid. It was found
necessary to blast certain rocks and to carry out the works
to certain islets, because if this was not done the value of
the harbour would be very little. With regard to the ques-
tion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Limerick,
it was quite true that naval armaments had much changed,
since the work had commenced, but the question assumed
that the enemy were masters at sea, which he hoped was
not likely to be the c,ase. It also ignored the consideration
that if the enemy's ships were outlicl9 !;toutazdhag there