VISCOUNT HARDINGE desired to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War, whether, under the new scheme of army reserve about to be submitted to Parliament, a militia officer bringing 100 men to that part of the militia which was to form a portion of the reserve would be entitled to a commission? If so, there would be a great inducement for the sons of country gentlemen to join the militia. At present they preferred the Volunteer force as being the more popular service. Complaints had been made to him by officers commanding militia regiments, and by captains of companies, that they had had to discharge all the duties of subalterns, and this was regarded as a great hardship. THE EARL OF LONGFORD said, the scheme for the army reserve was not yet before Parliament; and he hoped that he might be allowed to defer his answer to another opportunity.

of compulsory service in time of peace, of the lieutenants, and it is of the greatest not only on account of the expense and importance that the number should not loss of time which would be involved, fall below a certain minimum. I feel the but for the obvious reason that it would more responsibility upon this subject, bebe necessary for the Government which cause some years ago I was Chairman of would propose such a system to show a Committee of the House of Commons that there was an overwhelming necessity which, after hearing the evidence of Lord for it. Still, he thought that the power Auckland, then first Lord of the Admiof resorting to the ballot in times of war ralty, and of the Naval Lords, recomand emergency should be retained. It ap- mended the reduction of the number peared to him that the system of local of cadets; and the Admiralty not only taxation which the noble Marquess had acted on this view, but carried it out to a suggested would be neither practicable nor greater extent than the Committee conefficient. templated. The consequence was that as soon as the Russian war broke out, there was a serious want of lieutenants for the navy, and great complaints were made. On that account, feeling the responsibility of the opinion which I gave in connection with the Committee, even though that opinion was founded on the evidence which we took, I am now anxious to correct, at least as far as I can, any erroneous impression which may have been made by that Report, and to say that we increased the number of entries of cadets, because there were so few lieutenants in the navy. I have continually had complaints made to me that when lieutenants came home from foreign service or tropical climates, instead of being allowed a reasonable time to visit their friends, they were, in the course of a few weeks, appointed to a ship, and again sent to a distant part of the world. And that was the case even in time of peace. Such a system is not only injurious to the lieutenants themselves, but likewise detrimental to the interests of the service. I am not aware of the exact number of lieutenants in the navy at present, nor of the number now employed, and I have moved for these Returns in order to ascertain that, and to have the means of comparing the numbers now employed with the numbers in previous years, and I shall afterwards call the attention of the House to the subject. There are no complaints against the Board of Admiralty that I am aware of; and, in fact, in declining to appoint a larger number of cadets, they have given up a certain amount of patronage.

Motion agreed to.

ROYAL NAVY.-MOTION FOR RETURNS. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for a Return of the Number of Lieutenants on the Active List of the Navy in each Year from 1856 to 1867; and also for a Return showing the Number of Lieutenants employed in each Year from 1856 to 1867, said: My Lords, the object I have in view is this-it has been reported that the Board of Admiralty consider that the number of cadets entered of late years is too large, and that we have too many junior officers in the navy, and I desire to remove that impression. My experience in office teaches me that, instead of there being too many lieutenants, even during time of peace, we have lately had too few, and the Returns I move for will show that. Your Lordships are aware that the efficiency of the navy, especially during the next few years, will depend very much upon the efficiency

Motion agreed to. [Parl. Paper, No. 79.]

Return of the Number of Lieutenants on the

Active List of the Navy in each Year from 1856 to 1867: And also,

Return showing the Number of Lieutenants

employed in each Year from 1856 to 1867.—(The Duke of Somerset.)

House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.

THE PLANTAGENET STATUES AT

FONTEVRAULT.-QUESTION.

of time, and that he had no doubt there | and courtesy towards this country. We would be found to be no objection to the therefore advised Her Majesty-and Her production of those papers. Majesty was graciously pleased to accept the advice-that she should at once release the Emperor from his promise, and that that promise should be looked upon as if it had not been given. A communication to that effect has been conveyed to His Majesty; I have not yet received an answer to that communication; but I assume that the removal of the statues will not now take place, and that the matter may be looked upon as at an end. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, I may state that in the letter which, by Her Majesty's command, I wrote on the subject, I ventured to express a hope that, as we had waived whatever claim we might be supposed to possess on the French Government as to the removal

MR. OWEN STANLEY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the statement in the public papers is correct, that Her Majesty the Queen has declined to accept the offer of the Plantagenet Statues from Fontevrault, made by the Emperor of the French, in deference to the expressed feelings of the French people against their removal? He wished further to ask the noble Lord, whether he can, either through Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen or the Ambassador at Paris, convey to the Emperor of the French the earnest wish of many in this country that the effigies of our most illustrious Sovereigns and their consorts should be restored to their proper position in the Abbey of Fontevrault, and no longer be left in their present neglected state in a deserted vault?

LORD STANLEY: When, in answer, Sir, to a Question put to me by the hon. Member, I last gave some information to the House on this subject, I said that the Emperor of the French, with that courtesy which he had invariably shown towards this country, had offered those statues to Her Majesty, and that that offer had been accepted by Her Majesty with gratitude. Since that time the state of the case has altered. Information reached us from various quarters to the effect that the Emperor in his anxiety to meet what he supposed to be the wishes of the people of England-an anxiety for which we owe him a debt of gratitude-had placed himself in a position of some little difficulty. We learnt that legal objections were taken to the removal of those statues, which it was thought could be overcome only by legislative action on the part of the French. Chambers. Independent of that consideration, there is no doubt that in the locality where those memorials of antiquity are preserved there arose-however little care might up to the present time have been taken of them-a very strong feeling against their removal. Now, we felt that it could not be the wish of Her Majesty, or the Government, or of this House, or the English public that any misunderstanding should spring up between the Emperor and his own subjects out of a matter in which he acted solely out of a feeling of kindness

of those memorials, some means would be taken-seeing that their value seemed now to be known and appreciated in the locality to which they belonged-to preserve them, and that they would not be allowed to remain in the neglected state in which they were now understood to be.

Home Department, Whether it is his in- | the subject before the House. The history tention to introduce any Compulsory Edu- of the proceedings was shortly this. In cational Clauses in the Bill for regulating the month of February, 1866, twelve arthe hours of labour in workshops? He should also be glad to know whether, if such Clauses are to be proposed, they will be laid upon the table of the House before the Easter recess?

stated that a large number of rooms would be required, such as packing rooms, lumber rooms, and the like; but still, there was not a single word about the wall space or the number of rooms required as galleries. This omission, taken in connection with the difficulties of the site for the Nelson Column would cut the building to be constructed into two halves-increased tenfold the trouble which the architects must have had in preparing their designs. Here, then, was the explanation of the fact that the judges in their Report had given a list of requirements for the new Gallery. They did so, because the late First Commissioner (Mr. Cowper) had not given them. And it was owing to this fact that the designs were not as satisfactory as they would otherwise have been. The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was the conditions under which the architects were to engage in that competition. It was stated in the instructions that each architect was to be paid £200 for his drawings, which were to become the property of Her Majesty's Commissioner of Works. The First Commissioner did not engage himself to adopt any of the designs that might be sent in; but if one of the designs should be adopted the author of it would be employed to carry it into effect, and would be paid the usual commission of 5 per cent on the outlay. That was the only statement of the conditions of the competition contained in the papers presented to the House. But it appeared that there had been, not only written conditions but spoken conditions addressed to the architects. A distinct reference was, as he understood, made to the latter communications in the letter of the competing architects to the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works. Those gentlemen there stated that they

"Had entered the competition on the distinct understanding with his Lordship's predecessor that one of the competing architects would be selected for employment, and they most respectfully represented to his Lordship that a contrary course would be a breach of faith with them, and would confer a lasting injury upon every one of the competitors."

The right hon. Gentleman the late First Commissioner of Works seemed to share the opinion of the architects; because on the 15th of February he had forwarded a letter to Mr. Austin, the Secretary to the Commissioner of Works, in which he stated that

"The expectation held out to the architects to induce them to compete had always been that lished between the competing designs, and that an impartial decision would be made and pubthe successful competitor would be engaged as the architect of the building, even though the identical design was not adopted." The very nature of the competition naturally led to the same conclusion. It was a limited competition; and that circumstance of itself afforded a prima facie presumption that the author of the best design was to be selected as the architect of the building. As there were two sets of conditions, one printed and published, and the other spoken, it was utterly impossible for the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works to know, when he entered office, what the conditions really were, and therefore the noble Lord and the architects were placed in an awkward position. He had pointed out why the judges had stated in their Report what they considered would be the true requirements of the National Gallery. Now, had the late First Commissioner only proceeded on the plan he himself had adopted in the competition for the new Law Courts, these difficulties would never have occurred. There, both instructions and conditions were precise and accurate; here they were very much the reverse. It was owing to this that the want of success of the architects in the present instance must be attributed, and not to any real difference in their professional capacity. That being the case, the course the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) ought to pursue was plain and simple. He ought to consult the Trustees of the National Gallery and its director, Mr. Boxall-an artist of the highest reputation-as to the requirements. He should thereupon draw up a clear, definite, and accurate code of instructions, and request Mr. Barry, or Mr. Barry and Mr. Murray, to prepare from these instructions fresh plans and designs, which should then be submitted to the judges for their approval. There would thus be still a fair probability of obtaining a suitable building-one which might be a cre