vernment has avoided answering it. ["No, | troduced the subject, I will take the liberty no!" Is it not so? of doing what I presume will be not disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman; I will read over the words of the Duke of Richmond, and again ask the Government whether the Government avows them or not. Well, Sir, for the third and last time of asking, the Duke of Richmond said

"The result is that we still occupy the same position we did before, and intend to conduct the affairs of the country so long as we are able to do so; and in the event of any difficulties arising Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state that she would make no objection to a dissolution of Parliament. It, of course, will depend upon the state of affairs whether that dissolution shall be a dissolution under the existing constituency, or

whether it shall be a dissolution under the new

constituency to be formed under the Reform Act; that she would make no objection to either course but Her Majesty was graciously pleased to state being adopted by her Advisers whenever they should see fit to tender to Her Majesty a recommendation on that subject."-[3 Hansard, cxci. 1690.]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, are these words the words of the Government-Aye or No?

My right hon. Friend, quoting the speech of the Duke of Richmond, asked the First Minister of the Crown whether he disavowed or adopted that speech. That was a very simple question; but how was it answered? The right hon. Gentleman re-stated what he said last night as to his own communication with the Crown; but my right hon. Friend knew his duty far too well to ask the right hon. Gentleman to describe to the Ilouse what took place between him and the Sovereign. It is in the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, as First Minister of the Crown, to decide what portion of his communication with Her Majesty it is consistent with his duty, subject to Her Majesty's Royal permission, to lay before this House. He was not asked to enlarge upon his own statement; he was asked whether he avowed or disavowed the statement of the Duke of Richmond; not what took place between him and Her Majesty, but as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement made by a Member of his own Cabinet in another place." He was asked MR. DISRAELI: I address the House simply to say, "Do you endorse that state- for the second time; but under the cirment-aye or no? That question was cumstances perhaps they will allow me to in the first place evaded, and then followed do so. It has been stated that the name up by the rejoinder, "You had better ask of the Sovereign has been improperly inthe Duke of Richmond himself." That is troduced into these debates-not so by me. the whole answer given by the first Mini- I have introduced that august name in the ster of the Crown, and it is one on which spirit of our Constitution, with the permisI think I need not dilate. But not only sion of Her Majesty, and I know well, in a has the question been evaded; another has manner which cannot be impugned. A been substituted for it, because the right great many questions have been addressed hon. Gentleman was followed by his Se- to me, varying in terms, but probably havcretary of State for India. The right ing the same end, and when they have hon. Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. been answered, a new one has been proCardwell) read the speech of the Duke of posed, a new form of inquiry has been Richmond a second time, and added some made, and then we have been charged with words by way of a commentary, in which not replying. Now, I do not approve myhe characterized the speech as a menace. self the mode by which the inquiry as to The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary the conduct of the Government is made. for India jumps up and says, "The ques- It consists of bringing before the Housetion of menace is easily answered." But without any notice whatever-an extract that was not the question put by my right from a newspaper report of observations hon. Friend; he wanted to know whether alleged to have been made by one of my the construction put on the speech of the Colleagues in "another place, with whom Duke of Richmond was a right construction by no possibility can I have had any comor not; whether, in fact, that speech was munication on the subject, and then foundthe speech of the Government; whether ing upon that extract a variety of inferences the Government stood by it or not. Now, which have immediately been fixed upon Sir, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will me, as if I had committed myself to every allow that in stating the case I have done conclusion which every speaker has thought it with all due regard for the amenities of it right to make. I shall not address mydebate; and therefore, if I enjoy his good self to points like that, but to the great opinion, which I am sure I must have points of interest to the House. The adearned by the manner in which I have in-vice that I gave to Her Majesty to dissolve

the Parliament was confined solely to the with reference to that point in circumquestion of the Irish Church. And if stances of a peculiar and unprecedented any other difficulty arises in the conduct of character. In that situation it is for the affairs, upon which it occurred to me and public interest that we should endeavour my Colleagues that such advice should be to arrive at some understanding with the given with reference to any other subject, House, which, while it will facilitate the it would be our duty then again to repair progress of Public Business, will be of the to Her Majesty and give that advice. The greatest advantage to the country. It is consent of Her Majesty is solely to the from no unworthy motive, from no desire issue upon which Her Majesty's consent to shrink from the consequences of our own was required-namely, the question of the advice, that we necessarily pause for a disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. moment. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly That is my answer, and I hope a complete well the cause. But do not let the asanswer to those various forms of questions sumption remain for one moment longerwhich have been urged in this House. an assumption wholly unauthorized by anyThen the hon. Gentleman the Member for thing 1 have said that the permission Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) says-" You ac- which Her Majesty gave to dissolve the Parcepted the first and second divisions upon liament had reference to any other subject the question of the Irish Church, and you than the disestablishment of the Church. are no longer resisting our policy upon that MR. LIDDELL, speaking as an Inde question." I beg the hon. Gentleman's pendent Member, said, it was always a pardon. I am not going to assent at all, dangerous and hopeless task to attempt either to the second or the third Resolu- to carry on the Government in a minority tion. I said that for the sake of expediting of the House of Commons. The present Public Business, looking on these Reso- occasion was one of extreme gravity, if not lutions as corollaries of the first, I should of danger-great and deplorable events had not sanction any lengthened debates or or- before now resulted from smaller begin. ganized divisions, at the same time that nings; and, not being himself a strong I should urge against them my most de- partizan, he wished to make an appeal to cided negative. In making that admis- both sides of the House. He regretted exsion, for the sake of the convenience of the tremely that the resignation of Her Majesty's House and with a view of expediting pub- Ministers had not been accepted, because lic business, I did not for one moment he could not see how they could continue mean to say-and I am sure the right to occupy their present position with either hon. Gentleman the Member for South honour to themselves or advantage to the Lancashire never for a moment supposed country. They all knew the acceptance that I admitted-because I undertook in or rejection of a proposal depended matethe spirit which I have already described rially upon the shape in which the suggesnot to oppose the second or third Resolution was preferred; and he thought that tions in as peremptory a manner as I should otherwise have done that I was in consequence pledged in any way not to oppose the Bill that he is about to bring forward. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not for a moment pretend that he concluded I was not going to oppose his Bill. And therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Bedford is totally illusory, and founded upon an assumption for which there is no warrant whatever. I repeat, then, to the House that the advice which I tendered to Her Majesty respecting the dissolution, and the consent of Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, referred solely to the subject of the disestablishment of the Church, and was confined solely to that subject. Then I am taunted with this inquiry-"Why did you not immediately dissolve Parliament ?" Well, Sir, everyone must know that we are placed

the name of the Sovereign had been brought forward on recent occasions too prominently, and that the First Minister had sheltered himself under that august name more than he was justified in doing. He wished to point out the danger of the present position of affairs. The name of the Sovereign had been used to retain in Office a Government pledged to a particular line of policy, which appeared to have been condemned by the House of Commons. It might be doubted and possibly the result would prove that the doubt was well-foundedwhether the opinion of the country was really in accordance with the expressed opinion of the House of Commons. Consequently, he rejoiced that the advice was proffered by the First Minister to Her Majesty of a dissolution; and he apprebended now that it might be an immediate dissolution. That being so, ho wanted

MR. CRAWFORD said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that last year he said, in reference to the Reform Bill,

turn out the Ministry ;" and he now asked the right hon. Gentleman to keep his word.

MR. WHALLEY expressed his feeling that the circumstances before them, which were alleged as a difficulty, were in reality the reason why there should be an immediate dissolution of Parliament. The question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church involved the English Church as well, and the right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of obtaining an expression of the opinion of the country under the present constituencies on a larger scale than any Minister had enjoyed on any question upon record. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman to act upon the authority he had received from Her Majesty, by dissolving Parliament in spite of all consequences as soon as the immediate exigencies of Public Business could be provided for, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not adopt that course he (Mr. Whalley) should be prepared to support the right hon. Member for South Lancashire in a Vote of Want of Confidence, or in any other course he might pursue.

some further explanation from the First Minister. He believed, in common with many other Members of the House, that something in the nature of an in terrorem influence was being exercised by the Go-"Pass the Bill, and then, if you please, vernment over the House of Commons. What was the meaning to be attached to the words which had been used by the First Minister-"If, in the transaction of the necessary business, any difficulties should arise, &c.?" Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that, in the event of a collision, or opposition to any measure necessary to complete the business of the Session, the Government would use the power which they undoubtedly possessed of dissolving Parliament ? A doubt existed in his mind whether those words were not intended to control the free ac tion of that House, and he for one deprecated any such attempt. Having appealed to the Government for an explanation on that point, he would now appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House had unmistakably evinced its feeling on the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and they knew that the Government had obtained permission from Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament upon that question. Was it any use, then, to continue to battle upon this ground to the obstruction of all other business? Even if the Resolutions were all agreed to, no man in his senses believed that it would be practicable to pass a Bill founded upon them this Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire said he intended to bring in a Suspensory Bill. But, even if he succeeded in passing it through the House of Commons, he was hardly credulous enough to believe that it would succeed in the House of Lords. He therefore asked the House to set its face against any further waste of time. He had sat in that House for seventeen years, and he never remembered, and he did not suppose the oldest Member could recollect Public Business in such a state of arrear as at present. After the declaration of the Government, and knowing that a dissolution was to take place on the specific MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, referquestion of the disestablishment of the ences had been made in the course of the Irish Church, he would ask the House to discussion to noble Lords speaking in let them proceed to carry through the abso-" another place" by name, and there had lutely necessary business uncontrolled by any idea of menace or penalties. Let them proceed as quickly as possible to pass the measures necessary to complete the "Reform Programme," and then the country would respond to the appeal made to it.

MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to make an explanation with regard to an observation of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who found fault with me, not without some justice as far as the letter of the matter was concerned, for some words used by me this evening. I stated that it was not competent for me to speak last night after I had addressed the House once. That was not true in the letter, but it was true in the spirit. I followed the right hon. Gentleman last evening, and the Motion for the adjournment was not made till after I had spoken. I therefore thought I had lost my opportunity of speaking again, though, of course, I might have spoken again on the question of adjournment, as the right hon. Gentleman himself did.

been quotations from the ipsissima verba of the Earl of Malmesbury and the Duke of Richmond. He wished to know whether that was justified by the rules of the House. He did not desire to narrow the rules of the House in this particular; but he should

the case.

course, and he was so badly instructed in drill, especially sword drill, that it had to be learnt over again on his joining the regiment. At Sandhurst, almost as many subjects had to be mastered in eighteen or -deducting vacations-in thirteen months; and it used to be, and probably was still, proverbial that young officers coming thence. had to unlearn all their drill. Considering our East and West India experiences, it was strange that young officers were not

of Courts martial, and regimental economy, which included a knowledge of the weight, price, and quality of the soldier's arms, necessaries, and accoutrements - subjects of the utmost value to the officer. A colloquial knowledge of a foreign language was also exceedingly useful; but examinations being no longer vivâ voce, he believed it was not to be acquired at Woolwich or Sandhurst; and if a cadet were able to string two sentences together in a foreign tongue, it was to be attributed more to his previous training than to collegiate instruction. The students were assembled thirty or forty together in a hall and were expected, while other teaching was going on around them, to solve the most difficult problems in mathematics and na

The want of discipline was as much due to injudicious indulgence as to injudicious rigour. The cadets had uncomfortable dormitories and want of privacy; they were subjected to an irritating schoolboy treatment, and beyond all that they were exposed, by the very action of the authorities themselves, to every species of temptation. Until lately not only had the publichouses at Sandhurst been thrown open to them, but a canteen had been established within the College itself, where smok-instructed in military law, in the practice ing, drinking, and billiard playing went on; and the attractions of these places, as compared with the bare walls and sanded floors of their dormitories, led to a spirit of lawlessness which vented itself sometimes in petty acts of wanton mischief, such as smashing lamps and windows; and at other times into acts of more serious insubordination. The large and increasing class of cadets who came from "cramming" establishments, and who, possessing more money than brains, found it easier to spend a year at College and purchase a commission than to compete for one at Chelsea, exercised a prejudicial influence; and something was also due to the pernicious distinction between the executive officers and the professors of the College-and that applied to both Colleges by which the power of punish-tural science-private study being so much ment was maintained in one set of hands discouraged that it was difficult to get while that of imparting instruction was permission to read for examinations after placed in another. And that brought him the lights were put out. The consequence to what was, after all, the object for which of this Procrustean system, if he might these Colleges were founded-namely, the so call it, was that no cadet really had his nature of the education given them. He talents turned to advantage. Nobody admitted that the education given in the took care to ascertain what speciality he Military Colleges was good in some points; was fitted for, and it followed that many but the question was, whether it might not young officers of great parts and attainbe better. The right hon. Member for ments were completely lost to the State so Calne (Mr. Lowe), than whom there was far as their particular talents were conno better judge of education, objected cerned. He would next refer to the cost during the Recess, in one of those speeches of maintaining the Military Colleges -which all must admire, even though they a matter which the educational defects did not concur in them, to the unpractical of those institutions brought out only character of our University and public the more prominently. Without troubling school training. Now, the same remark the House with an array of figures, would apply to the Military Colleges; yet he might mention the fact that, excluthe military profession was one which ur- sive of all the expenses paid for education gently required a practical education. Too and maintenance by the parents and guarmany subjects had to be got up in too short dians of the cadets, the two Colleges a time, thus leading to cramming combined at Woolwich and Sandhurst cost over with the most absolute ignorance even of £35,000 a year to the State. The cost the elements of professional education. At of the maintenance of an individual cadet Woolwich a cadet had to perfect himself at Woolwich was £200 a year, or 30 or in two years and a half in at least a dozen 40 per cent higher than the cost of the subjects, including the higher mathematics education imparted at the most expensive and natural science, but he was not taught of our public schools, such as Eton and riding until the last year of his academical Harrow; 60 or 80 per cent higher than