Commons Sitting of 5 August 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second tine:—Rogue Money (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Constabulary Force (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Grimsditch, from Stoke, Staffordshire, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir Eardley Wilmot, from Nun Eaton, for Amendment in the Poor-Laws.

NEW SOUTH WALES.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved the third reading of the New South Wales Bill.
Mr. C. Bullerconcurred with the Government in thinking that it was expedient and prudent to renew this bill from year to year, but he thought it would be still wiser and much more expedient to give the people some chance, at no very distant period, of exercising that self-control in the affairs of the Government without which civilization could never be efficiently advanced, nor any thing like rational freedom established. He felt assured, that the least prospect of this control could not fail to occasion the greatest satisfaction among all classes of the colonists. The Act now proposed to be renewed, was a measure which originally had been introduced in 1827. It was no matter of surprise that the circumstance of the Executive Council not being of popular choice should occasion loud and angry complaints, and should give rise to feelings of more bitterness in the Australian colonies than were to be found in any other possessions of the British Crown. The revenue of these colonies was produced from the largest amount of direct taxation with which any country on the face of the earth had ever been burthened. It was thought that the English people enjoyed exclusively the privilege of being the heaviest-taxed people who had ever pos-
1240
sessed an independent and regular Government. The population of New South Wales was about 100,000 souls—that of Van Dieman's Land about 50,000. Concerning the revenue derived from the sale of land, it would not be correct fir him to introduce that species of property into the calculation which he purposed submitting to the House; for it was a species of fixed and permanent property that ought to be applied to objects of a permanent nature, such as the formation of roads or other works of that description, as well as fur the encouragement of immigration; but that with which he now proposed to deal more particularly was the ordinary revenue and the ordinary expenditure of the; colony. In tile year 1837 the ordinary revenue, strictly exclusive of the sale of land, amounted in New South Wales to 226,900 l., and in Van Dieman's Land to 127,666 l. The total revenue disbursed by the Government of New South Wales was little less than half a million of motley, while the population of our Australian colonies was something between 150,000 and 200,000. Now, in this application of their own ordinary revenue the people had no voice whatever. There was usually an expenditure of 326,000 l. for the use of a population, of whom only 45,000 were not convicts. Thus, their expenditure was 2l. 3s. a-head, while the expenditure in England only amounted to 2l. a-bead; yet the Australian colonists had not the interest of any debt to discharge, whereas half the expenditure of the mother country went not for the maintenance of any efficient force, but for paying the interest of a debt incurred long since. He knew he might be told that the Government of a colony frequently found itself under the necessity of disbursing a much larger amount of revenue in public works than was at all necessary in an old civilized country. Looking at the expenditure of New South Wales, he ventured to say, that it was the largest and most lavish expenditure in the known world. In the year 1839, the ordinary revenue of New South Wales was 226,000 l.; and this for a population of 100,000, while the actual expenditure was 346,000, the difference being made up from that which ought never to enter into ordinary expenditure—namely, the funds derived from the sale of lands. Thus the expenses of New South Wales imposed an average payment of 3l, 10 s.

1241
per head. Now, if the interest of the national debt were not taken into consideration, it would be found that the actual expense of this country did not exceed one-third for each individual of that expended in New South Wales. He certainly did not lose sight of the great expenditure necessary in that colony for a church establishment and the formation of roads, bridges, streets, &c. Deducting 70,000 l. expended on objects not required in England, it left a balance of 276,000 l., the whole expenditure being 346,000 l. Now, in comparing the expenditure of the colony with that of the mother country, hon. Members should recollect that the Australians had nothing analogous to our establishments of the army, navy, and ordnance, and yet these three sources of expense swallowed up 11,000,000 l. annually of our ordinary revenue. The inference from all these statements was, that however great the extravagance of our Government might be in England, it was three times as great in Australia. It was curious to observe with what cool indifference any addition was made to the expenditure of such a colony. Here, if there were a proposition for adding 5,000 men to the army, it became a matter of very grave and patient investigation; but 80,000 l. additional were laid upon the Australians with as little ceremony as if money were not an object of difficult and rare acquisition. Neither was there the least scrupulousness practised in reference to the source whence the means of this additional expenditure was to be obtained. The Government, unhesitatingly, broke its pledge on the subject of immigration. Let the House only look at the difference between our Australian and our North American colonies. In the latter, the population was ten times as great as in Australia, and yet their direct taxation did not exceed the direct taxation of New South Wales. There existed in Australia a certain kind of slavery, but it was the richest slave colony under the British Crown, not even excepting Jamaica. The population of Jamaica was 500,000, while the expenditure was only 300,000 l., being one-third part of the expenditure of New South Wales; yet there existed no sort of popular control in the latter colony. The conclusion to which he wished to lead the House was, that the people of Australia ought to have some control over the administration of their own govern-
1242
ment. If they were not indulged to this extent at least, it would be quite unreasonable to suppose that any people would endure such treatment patiently. He had not forgotten that many people were of opinion that the Australians were wholly unfit for self-government. That was certainly not the opinion of persons best acquainted with their habits and circumstances. They were faulty in many respects, but one obvious mode of improving them would be to grant them some small control in the management of their own affairs. He was not singular in holding this opinion, nay, he was supported by the judgment of the highest authorities, not only in the colony, but in Europe. The hon. Member referred to the testimony of Mr. M'Arthur, a gentleman of the largest landed property in the colony, Sir Edward Parry, Sir Robert Mitchell, and Sir Richard Bourke. He had himself presented a petition last year signed by 9,000 persons, including all the magistrates. Mr. Henry Bulwer, when he had a seat in that House, presented a similar petition, praying for popular control over the Government, and being very numerously and respectably signed. At present there was a similar petition coming from Van Dieman's Land, signed by 1,942 persons, amongst whom were 125 magistrates out of 198. He felt, then, that the House would abandon its duty if it delayed much longer to do that which all parties earnestly demanded. He did not doubt the wish to grant the inhabitants of New South Wales free institutions, but it was the duty of the Imperial Government to take measures for fitting them to receive the advantages of being represented. Moreover, it was the duty of Parliament not to legislate without reference to the feelings of the people. He should not then enter into the general question of the wisdom or expediency of possessing penal colonies, but of this he entertained no doubt, that the practice of transporting the refuse of our population to New South Wales ought long since to have been discontinued. In a colony yielding so much valuable produce for export—looking at the immense tracts of fine land which it contained—he had no hesitation in saying that a wise Government would never have converted that into an abode for criminals which nature had so admirably adapted for the residence of industrious and civilized men. He would impress upon the

1243
Government the necessity of encouraging the free emigration to our Australian colonies of persons willing to leave this country. Five years of well-conducted emigration would place these colonies in the condition of being fully capable of taking care of themselves, and of enjoying those free institutions without which Englishmen, no matter in what part of the globe, or under what circumstances, would never be content.
Mr. Labouchereconceived that no practical result could follow from the discussion in which his hon. Friend had embarked, even if the House were to come to an opinion upon the several topics it involved. Although there was little of inaccuracy in the statements which his hon. Friend had made, yet they presented so fallacious a picture to the House from the circumstance of his having omitted to advert to other matters intimately connected with the subject, that he (Mr. Labouchere) felt it necessary in some degree to supply the deficiency. His hon. Friend had begun by stating, that he hoped the day was not very distant when he should see institutions of a liberal character, and more consonant to the feelings of Englishmen, substituted for the present system of government in New South Wales. He could assure his hon. Friend, that he was far from differing from the general principles he had expressed upon that subject. He agreed with him, that whatever might be the difficulty of introducing free institutions into a colony, there was much disadvantage in requiring Englishmen to live under a government in the conduct and control of which they had no share. He had always entertained the greatest doubt upon the propriety of making those colonies convict colonies—of spreading a seed so bad upon a soil where the produce was sure to be so great. He had always regarded that policy as open to the greatest objection, and he was glad to be able to state, that the Government had taken decided steps to put a stop to the system. His noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he regretted to say, was unable to attend the House that day, had, in conjunction with the Colonial-office, taken steps to put a stop to the exportation of convicts to New South Wales. This year only 2,000, being but half the usual number, would be sent to that colony, the greater portion of whom would not be long
1244
allowed to remain there, but be taken to Norfolk Island, and placed under control a recommended by the committee to which his hon. Friend had referred. His hon. Friend would see, therefore, that the Government were not open to the charge of neglect upon that part of the subject. Directions had also been sent out to New South Wales at once to put an end to the assignment of convicts for domestic service, and in as short a time as possible to discontinue the assignment of labourers, without bringing immediate ruin or injury upon those accustomed to that supply. Such being the case with respect to the exportation of convicts, it was the more incumbent on the Government, by every practical means, to encourage the exportation of free labour, to supply the deficiency, and enable those colonies to continue in that course—of prosperity he would call it, in spite of the speech of his hon. Friend—in which they had hitherto been progressing, but which they could no longer expect them to continue in unless by the immigration into the colony of free labour. Neither could he allow, that upon this part of time subject the Government had abandoned its duty. He begged attention to the single fact—that in 1828 10,000 emigrants had gone from this country alone to New South Wales, which must evidently produce not only a considerable effect upon the supply of labour, but also in improving the general mass of the inhabitants, by the infusion of persons who might fairly be said to be persons, generally speaking, of industrious and moral habits. So deeply impressed were the Government with the advantage of it, that they had resolved to continue a system of emigration upon the same scale, and there would emigrate this year also, under the auspices of the Government, 10,000 persons, but at the expense of the colony. If the colony were to derive important benefits, even in a financial point of view, from that circumstance, it was only just that it should bear the expense. His hon. Friend had accused the Government with having invaded the land fund, and applied it to other purposes than that for which it was intended. He believed he had gone so far as to charge the Government with a breach of faith in having violated their pledge—at what time made, however, his hon. Friend did not say. He (Mr. Labouchere) denied that the Government had pledged itself,

1245
or that it would be judicious to pledge itself, come what might, to apply those funds derived from a source which of course would be always available, wholly or in part, to the purposes of emigration. It was evident, from the address of Sir George Gipps, that at this moment the finances of New South Wales were not in a satisfactory condition; that there was an excess of expenditure over income, which, if allowed to continue, could not but involve the colony in difficulty and distress. At the same time his hon. Friend, in commenting upon that fact, should have adverted to those temporary circumstances which, to a considerable extent, had given it existence. Last year had been a year of severe drought, so severe, that Sir George Gipps had stated, that instead of there having been a demand for labour, labourers were actually standing idle in the streets of Sydney, who willing to be hired, could not find employment. This calamity had moreover in another way a direct effect upon the revenue, the prices of all contracts were raised immensely, upon which the House was aware how much expenditure depended. All provisions had likewise risen in price, and added greatly to the difficulties of the year. At the same time, Sir G. Gipps, in laying this statement before the Council of New South Wales, ended by saying, that he, for one, was of opinion, that by meeting those difficulties openly and boldly, and by a strict and unflinching system of economy in every part of the service where economy could be applied, those difficulties would be surmounted, and those colonies would continue prosperous. That was an expectation in which he heartily shared. He considered it most fortunate for those colonies that they had presiding over their councils at this moment a person of the courage, ability, and integrity of that gallant Officer, by whom, with the assistance of the council, he had no doubt that those difficulties would shortly be removed, and those colonies continue to be a source of strength to to the empire. The bill before the House merely provided for the continuance of the temporary government of New South Wales. The whole subject must necessarily come before them next year. He did not think it would be wise or prudent now to hold out expectations which it might not, upon deliberation, be in the power of Government to fulfil; but he
1246
fully agreed with his right hon. Friend, that it was desirable as soon as possible to give a more free form of government to those colonies, the state of which next year would, he trusted, enable them to submit to the House some measure upon the subject.
Mr. Wardsaid, that since he had given notice of his motion upon this subject, he had seen a Treasury minute, which, instead of appropriating the proceeds of land sales to emigration, distinctly declared, that until the difference which existed between the ordinary revenue and the expenditure in New South Wales should be completely covered by the colonial resources, no further portion of those proceeds should be employed in emigration. The right hon. Gentleman had not pushed that part of the question to its full extent. He stated that 10,000 emigrants had gone out last year to New South Wales, and that a similar number would go out this year under the auspices of the Government. But how was that to be reconciled with this Treasury minute, and the different appropriation of the land-fund for which the right hon. Gentleman claimed credit. He said it was to be done out of the colonial resources. But he had shown, that in those resources there was a great deficit. That being the case he (Mr. Ward) did not see how it was to be done without the interposition of Parliament. He implored his right hon. Friend not to encourage a spirit of jobbing and lavish expenditure in the colony, by throwing the whole proceeds of land-sales into a revenue over which they had no control. If he did so, he might depend upon seeing, as the result, the employment of a number of unnecessary officers, the building of new streets, and a lavish outlay for such purposes, which, while it might create a temporary popularity, would have the effect of retarding the permanent government of the colony itself. He contended, that it was unfair to deduct from the amount of land-sales the expences of the system of colonial police. The necessity for that force entirely arose from our sending so many convicts into New South Wales; and he did not think the colony should be charged with the expense of its maintenance.
Viscount Howickvindicated the application of the land-fund to the support of the police force. No doubt, the necessity for that force arose, as had been observed by

1247
the hon. Member for Sheffield, from the number of convicts sent into New South Wales; but as convict labour had been mainly the cause of its prosperity, the colony could not object to defray the expense of those establishments which were absolutely necessary to maintain public tranquillity.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

METROPOLIS POLICE COURTS.
On the motion of Mr. F. Maule, the report of the Metropolis Police Courts Bill was brought up.
On the 54th Clause,
Mr. Hodges Mr. Hodges moved, that so much of it as limits appeals to certain cases only be struck out. He wished appeals to be general.
Mr. F. Mauledefended the clause, as in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
Report, with amendments, agreed to.

SUPPLY.
On the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Fieldenrose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, and he had been induced to take this course, in consequence of the determination which this House had thought it right, in its wisdom, to come to, not to allow any further extension of the suffrage, and those other reforms prayed for in the National Petition. One of two things, it appeared to him, it was imperative on the House to do—either to give the labouring people a voice in this House, which they now had not; or to redress their sufferings, and to relieve them from that poverty of which they had so long and so justly complained. Be had had many opportunities, since he became a Member of that House, of inquiring into the condition of the labouring people, and had diligently attended to the investigation of their circumstances in the Committees on which he had sat. That condition, as it had been proved over and over again in his presence, it was his duty to make known to the House. He spent two years in inquiring into the state of the unfortunate handloom weavers, and he had made statements to the House previous to this inquiry, that a very great proportion of these honest and industrious citizens had not more than 2½d. per head per day to provide themselves and their families with food, clothing, soap, candles, and other
1248
necessaries. In the Committee to inquire into their condition, it was proved, and the Committee reported to this House, that their poverty surpassed what he had described, that their means of living was less, and that they had borne up under these sufferings for a number of years with a degree of patience unexampled. The state of the labourers on the land—the most important and the most numerous class of workmen—was proved before the Poor-law Committee, on which he sat in the latter end of 1837, and up to July, 1838, to be little, if at all, better than the state of the destitute handloom weavers. In that Committee a minute investigation was made into the condition and income of the labourers of Westoning, in the Ampthill union, in Bedfordshire, in which union the labourers, in consequence of having straw-platting, from which their wives and children derived employment, and added to the income of the family as a whole, were not so poor as they necessarily must be in many rural districts where employment for the wives and children could not be obtained. But, possessing those advantages over some of the labourers on the land, he would state to the House what the income of six families, numbering forty-four persons, in the parish of Westoning, was proved to be; and from a stanch supporter of the New Poor-law, Mr. Pease, late high sheriff of the county of Bedford. He spoke to the excellent character of those six labourers, and he collected every source of income which they possessed; first, the weekly wages that they had, the benefits which they derived from the harvest months, the benefits that some derived from the cultivation of small plots of garden ground, and the income from the earning of their wives and children; and after having made the most favourable statement he could as to the income of the forty-four persons, he proved that their united incomes only amounted to 4l. 7s. 0¼d. per head per annum—that is, 1s. 8d. per head per week, or less, on the average, than 3d. per head per day, for food, clothing, soap, candles, and other necessaries, for the year 1837. The lowest income per head for his family of these honest labourers was 2d. per day for each person. The names of these labourers and their incomes would be found stated in Appendix No. 2, in the reports 27, 38, and 39 of the Poor-law Committee ordered by this House to be printed, June

1249
These labourers were men of good repute, receiving no parish relief whatever; the number of weeks they were employed during the year averaged 256, the lowest number of weeks' employment for any one of them was 40; the highest number that any one had was 45; the average number of weeks' employment for each was 42 weeks and 4 days; and the average wages which they received for their own labour exceeded 10 s. per week. And yet they were in the lamentable condition that he had described. It was impossible for him to understand how the best paid of the labourers could honestly support themselves and their families with a sufficiency of food and clothing, and other necessaries, at the prices they had to pay for these things, taxed as they now are. But if the man with 4d. per bead (and there is only one of the six that had so much) could not maintain his family as a labourer ought to be maintained, what was to become of poor Richard Pedder, an honest industrious labourer with only 2d. per head per day for each member of his family? What was he required to do to prove that he was destitute? Why, he must submit to the workhouse test, be separated from his wife and his children, or otherwise he must beg, or steal, or starve. Now, was that dealing fairly or honestly with this labouring man? Could any man lay his hand upon his heart and say that it was just? Nay, must not every man say, that it was wicked to make this honest labourer, out of the small earnings of himself and family, pay one-half of those scanty means in taxes upon the necessaries of life which he ought to consume? Having stated to the House the condition of these two classes of labouring people, he felt it incumbent on him to state what is the condition of those employed in the factories. It was well known, and had been often urged on that House, that when they are in full employment their labour is excessive, and as they have long prayed this House to lessen, but without effect. But these unfortunate individuals are now suffering from only having partial employment. In the cotton manufacture, which employs more hands than all the other branches of manufactures put together, and with which he was more particularly acquainted, the consumption of cotton for this year proved to demonstration, that they had not had an average of four days' work per week.
1250
Some are thrown out of employment altogether, and are suffering the most severe distress; a much larger number are suffering from partial employment, and a very few are in a state to provide themselves with a sufficiency of the commonest necessaries of life. He had now shown as briefly as he could the state of the labourers on the land, at the handloom, and in the factories. With regard to the first, he had taken his example from a part of the country where the nominal amount of wages is high, and where the families of labourers have a peculiarly advantageous means of employment. What must it be where the wages are only 7s. a-week, as had been affirmed by many hon. Gentlemen of that House, and where the wives and children have scarcely any employment at all? As to those at the hand-loom, they may be outcasts of society. The fact of their distress has been made known to the House by Committees of the House, and by commissioners. It had had petitions from all parts, praying the House to do something to relieve them from their poverty; the House had refused to allow a bill to be introduced having that object, and all that it had done for them notwithstanding their destitute condition, had been to pass the New Poor-law, and to throw them helpless on their own resources. Those in the factories had received the same want of attention to their repeated petitions, and what the House had done for them has been under the operation of the New Poor-law, to swell the number of applicants for that employment by causing what was called the surplus population on the land to migrate to the manufacturing districts in the north; to bring down the wages of that class, to the same level as those who are suffering on the land and at the hand-loom, which migration had been attended by the most deplorable suffering on the part of many, and the termination of the existence of not a few. For this state of things there must be a cause, and that cause, notwithstanding all he had heard said in that House to the contrary, was taxation on every article of consumption which the people are called upon to pay. There was the corn tax, malt tax, soap tax, hop tax, candle tax, coal tax, sugar tax, tea tax, coffee tax, butter tax, cheese tax, fruit tax, taxes upon raw materials for manufactures, amounting together to upwards of 17,000,000 l. annually. These

1251
press peculiarly upon the labouring classes and deprive those who endeavour to employ them, of the means of doing so to the extent which they would do if these taxes did not exist. There are the other taxes amounting in the whole to more than 35,000,000 l., which have the same tendency to prevent employment, and to lessen consumption, although some of them being taxes upon luxuries and direct taxes, may not perhaps operate to the same extent injuriously to the poor. Three great mistakes had been made by that House since the return of peace. It passed the corn-law to make food dear, and it repealed the property tax to exempt the rich from paying their fair proportion, in about one year from the close of the war; and in 1819, it passed the bill which bears the name of the right bon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, to double the value of money, by which it doubled the pressure of taxation, unjust as the mode of levying it then was, and still is. In proof of this, he had looked at what was the average price of the quarter of wheat for 19 years previous to 1819, and which he found to be 86 s. 1d. per quarter, and the average price of wheat for the 19 years that have elapsed since 1819 has been 56 s. 10 d. per quarter, and this showed that every man engaged in raising wheat, to raise 3l. for taxes in the first 19 years, had to give five bushels and a half of wheat, whereas, in the latter 19 years, he has had to give eight bushels and a half of wheat to raise the same sum. But the evil is still going on; for if he took ten years preceding 1819, he found the quarter of wheat was 90 s. 10½d. a-quarter, and the average price for ten years ending 31st January, 1839, was only 56 s. 3½d. per quarter. In the first of these ten years, 3l. would buy nearly nine bushels of wheat. This showed that the taxes were nearly doubled, as applied to the produce of the land. With regard to those engaged in manufactures, they have to give the labour of manufacturing four things to raise the same amount of taxes which the labour of manufacturing one thing would command at the close of the war; that is, in the cotton manufacturing branches he knew, that they had 75 per cent. less now for manufacturing than they had during, and at the close, of the war. The 53,000,000 l. of taxes, raised last year would purchase as much wheat as 90,000,000 l. of taxes would have pur-
1252
chased at the average price of wheat for ten years preceding 1819: and in the cotton manufactures four times the quantity may be purchased with the same amount of money that it would purchase in 1815. It is this increase of taxation that caused the increase of distress. It takes away from those who employ labour, the means of doing so to the extent they would do if they had not these taxes to pay, and it causes them to reduce the labour of the people, and to prevent their consumption of the necessaries of life which they create. It could not be denied by any one that this two-fold operation must be exceedingly injurious to both the employers and the employed. He might he told that the taxes have not this effect, for that they are expended again by those who receive them, in affording employment and the means of living to all engaged in productive industry; but this he denied. Look at the amount that had since the war gone out of this country in foreign loans. Mr. Marshall, in his evidence before the hand-loom committee stated it to exceed 100,000,000 l., and this sum had been augmented since. This had gone to raise up manufacturing competitors in other countries, and thus had deprived us of the power of giving to the people the same employment that we otherwise could have done, and haddeprived us of the means of obtaining that profit which we should have obtained if these loans had not been contracted; and we are now arrived at that state as regards our manufacturing industry, that, notwithstanding all the ingenuity that had been brought into practice, and all the improvements in machinery, we cannot profitably employ our manufacturing people. Another mode of spending the taxes is on luxuries imported from foreign countries in return for our exports, and used here by the rich only, because the great body of the people cannot command these things. This is no better than giving the labour of our people for that which is not bread, and their strength for nought. The labourer being circumstanced as he had described, has a right to complain. Others have described their condition, and shown that they are cruelly treated. Dr. Price, in his day, in his tables on reversionary payments, says,
"The nominal price of day-labour is at present no more than four times, or at most, five times, what it was in 1514; but the price of corn is seven times, and of flesh and raiment

1253
about fifteen times higher. So far, therefore, has the price of labour been from advancing in proportion to the increase in the expences of living, that it does not appear that it bears now half the proportion to those expences that it did bear formerly."
The labourer he believed to be worse off now than he was when Dr. Price wrote; and, in addition to the sufferings from in. adequate wages, the Legislature had robbed him of his charter, and thrown great difficulties in the way of his obtaining relief. He, therefore, does, and will, continue to complain of his social condition, however the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, may dislike it; and every well-wisher to society ought, he thought, to urge him to repeat his complaints again and again by petitions to this House until he obtained redress. It was to get an improvement of their social condition that the working people joined in the cry for reform in 1831–2. It was because the reformed Parliament has not reduced the taxes, nor improved the social condition of the people, that they now sought for a further reform. This reform, or an improvement of the social condition of the people, the House must concede, or its doom and the fate of the country is sealed. A change would be made, peaceably or violently, and all the additional force this House was voting would not prevent it, but might accelerate the end. This country was in the condition that the Roman empire was in just before its fall, and that France was in just before the breaking out of the first revolution, as described by Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Arthur Young. Mr. Gibbon, in describing the cause of the fall of Rome, says—
"The horrid practice of murdering their new-born infants was become every day more frequent in the provinces. It was the effect of distress, and the distress was principally occasioned by the intolerable burden of taxes, and by the vexatious, as well as cruel, persecutions of the officers of the revenue against the insolvent debtors. The less opulent or less industrious part of mankind, instead of rejoicing at an increase of family, deemed it an act of paternal tenderness to release the children from the impending miseries of a life which they themselves were unable to support."
Mr. Arthur Young,who was a resident in France at the outbreak of the revolution, which shook that country to atoms, and scattered its nobility and gentry to
1254
wander over the earth—he who saw it, and examined its cause, wrote these words:—
"It is impossible to justify the excesses of the people on their taking up arms; they were certainly guilty of cruelties; it is idle to deny the facts, for they have been proved too clearly to admit of doubt. But is it really the people to whom we are to impute the whole—or to their oppressors, who had kept them so long in a state of bondage? He who chooses to be served by slaves, and by ill-treated slaves, must know that he holds both his property and his life by a tenure far different from those who prefer the service of well-treated freemen; and he who dines to the music of groaning sufferers, must not, in the moment of insurrection, complain that his daughters are ravished and then destroyed, and that his sons' throats are cut. When such evils happen, they surely are more imputable to the tyranny than to the cruelty of the servant. The analogy holds with the French peasants. The murder of a seigneur (a lord), or a country seat in flames, is recorded in every newspaper; the rank of the person who suffers attracts notice; but where do we find the registers of the seigneur's oppressions of his peasantry, and his exactions of feudal services from those whose children were dying around them for want of bread? Where do we find the minutes that assigned these starving wretches to some vile pettifogger, to be fleeced by impositions and mockery of justice in the seigneur's courts (petty courts of justice?) Who gives us the awards of the intendant (head tax-collector) and his sub délégués, which took off the taxes of a man of fashion, and laid them with accumulated weight on the poor who were so unfortunate as to be his neighbours? Who has dwelt sufficiently upon explaining all the ramifications of despotism, regal, aristocratical, and ecclesiastical, pervading the whole mass of the people; reaching, like a circulating fluid, the most distant capillary tubes of poverty and wretchedness? In these cases the sufferers are too ignoble to be known, and the mass too indiscriminate to be pitied. But should a philosopher feel and reason thus? Should he mistake the cause for the effect? and, giving all his pity to the few, feel no compassion for the many, because they suffer, in his eyes, not individually, but by millions? The excesses of the people cannot, I repeat, be justified; it would undoubtedly have done them credit, both as men and as Christians, if they had possessed their new-acquired power with moderation. But, let it be remembered, that the populace in no country ever use power with moderation; excess is inherent in their aggregate constitution. And as every government in the world knows, that violence infallibly attends power in their hands, it is doubly bound in common sense, and for common safety, so to conduct itself that the people may not find an intetest in public confusion. They will always suffer much and long before they are effec-

1255
tually roused; nothing, therefore, can kindle the flame but such oppressions of some classes or order in society as give able men the opportunity of seconding the general mass; discontent will diffuse itself around; and if the Government take not warning in time, it is alone answerable for all the burnings, and all the plunderings, and all the devastation, and all the blood that follow."
It appeared to him that we were in the state which Mr. Arthur Young had described, in words applied to other countries and other times. We have all the weight of taxes here complained of, and all the consequences described as resulting from them. That, indeed, described by Gibbon, as the "horrid practice of murdering new-born infants," might be supposed, by those unacquainted with the real state of society, not yet to have taken root amongst us. But the country has its eye upon the numerous cases of infanticide resulting from poverty and the operation of the New Poor-law; and it does not forget, that since that law was passed, there has issued from the shop of a respectable bookseller in London, a publication recommending to parents a systematic and wholesale murder of infant children the moment they are ushered into the world, as a wholesome piece of domestic as well as state policy, the means being pointed out with minuteness under the term of "painless extinction." The question is, what should now be done? What he would recommend the House to do to ameliorate the condition of the people, he had stated in a resolution which he should move, and take a division of the House upon. The resolution itself contains the reasons for such a course, and the mode of carrying it out. Its object is to reduce the taxes upon the necessaries of life, in order to bring down the price of the necessaries, and to give the poor people a larger command over them in return for their labour, and he thought its operation would be fair towards those engaged in the cultivation of the soil, and towards those engaged in manufactures, shipping, and commerce. It was not necessary for him to go into any details on the equitable assessment of property which he suggested in his resolution; but he had read "an argument for the general relief of the country from taxation, and eventually front the corn-laws, by an assessment on property," by Mr. Heathfield, an actuary in the city. The argument and the observations with which Mr. Heathfield accompanies it, squared in the
1256
main, with his opinions of the course which should be pursued to carry out what he recommends, and what his resolution proposed. Mr. Heathfield gives an estimate of the assumed value of all descriptions of property, which he was inclined to think somewhat overvalued; but that does not invalidate the principle that ought to be adopted. Mr. Heathfield's proposition is to throw the taxes on the owners of accumulated property, and to do away with the taxes raised through the medium of excise and customs on those articles which he had enumerated in his resolutions. He was a man of property himself, and would very willingly acquiesce in giving up that part which would be required of him to carry out his proposition, with a view to secure peace to the mansion and the homestead, and more comfort and contentment to the inhabitants of the cottage than now existed. He, therefore, begged leave to move the resolution of which he had given notice:—
"That the taxes imposed on the necessaries of life in this country render them so dear, that the working people cannot command a sufficiency to supply their daily wants; that the taxes imposed on raw material are an obstruction to the productive industry of the country; and that the inability of the people to purchase a sufficiency of the things which their labour would produce, acts injuriously upon those who employ the people, and compels them, from want of a market at remunerating prices, to limit the employment of many, and to refuse employment altogether to others, who are anxious to earn their bread by the labour of their hands, and who, from being denied employment, are compelled to accept relief from the parish in any way that they can obtain it, or starve. That such a state of things is detrimental to the productive classes, and dangerous to all other classes. That, according to the return ordered to be printed by this House on the 10th day of June last, the taxes raised by the Excise and Customs on the following articles amounted, in the year ending the 5th day of January, 1839, to the sum of 17,614,543 l. —viz. on malt, 4,932,080 l.; hops, 302,906 l.; soap, 810,813 l.; candles and tallow, 183,669 l.; coals, sea-borne, 7,632 l.; sugar and molasses, 4,893,684 l,; tea, 3,362,035 l.; coffee, 684,970 l; butter, 251,665 l; cheese, 113,907 l.; currants and raisins, 300,828 l.; corn, 186,760 l.; cotton-wool and sheeps', imported, 725,445 l.; silk, 254,874 l.; hides and skins, 61,478 l.; and on paper, 541,788 l. That justice, sound policy, and humanity, require that the laws imposing these taxes should be repealed, the corn-laws abolished, and that the revenue should in future be raised by an equitable assessment on property."
Mr. Williamsseconded the motion. He felt great regret that his hon. Friend had not brought forward a motion of this important nature at an earlier period of the Session. His hon. Friend had given a most lamentable description of the state of the productive classes; but he was fully borne out in his tale of woe by their real condition. It had often been his lot to offer all the opposition in his power to acts of extravagance committed. by the government, but he felt convinced that this House would never stop in its career of profuse expenditure, that it would never show any regard for economising the revenues of the country, until the taxes were fairly borne by themselves. In the present state of taxation the poorer and middle classes were burdened much more heavily than the rich. Hence arose the indifference of Members of that house to every proposition for reducing the taxation of the country. He held in his hand a list of eleven articles, the amount arising to the revenue from which was 30,000,000 l. out of the 51,000,000 l. of annual taxation. All these taxes fell as heavily on the middle and lower classes as on the rich; but there were some of them, consisting of sums levied on the necessaries of life, which pressed with four or five times more weight on the poor than they did on the rich. The tax on British and foreign spirits was 8,000,000 l., that on malt 5,000,000 l., that on sugar 4,000,000 l. Would any hon. Member deny that these taxes fell as heavily on the poor as on the rich? But how stood the case as regarded the indispensable necessaries of life, particularly to those engaged in manufactures? Malt and hops, he need not say, were the ingredients out of which the poor man's beer was made. The profits received by the brewer and seller of this article served to raise the tax on it to 130 per cent. How was the rich man's wine taxed? Why, claret and champagne not 20 per cent.; but taking all wines together, the impost laid on them did not exceed 25 per cent. Let it he recollected, too, that wine to the rich man was a luxury; beer to the poor man was an indispensable necessary. The poor man's tea, was taxed 200 per cent., whilst the rich man did not contribute more than 30 per cent. to the revenue. Tobacco was no doubt a luxury, but he believed there were many poor men who would give up their meals rather than do without tobacco. This article was taxed probably not less
1258
than 800 per cent. Now would they do what his hon. Friend recommended, and place those taxes, which now pressed so heavily and unjustly on the poor, in a fair porportion to their wealth, on the rich? No, they would do nothing of the sort. They would never tax themselves so long as the poor man was shut out from the right of electing Members to that House. Could any man wonder at the dissatisfaction which now existed? Those were the grievances which called it forth, and they were enough to cause it. His hon. Friend had made out a case so strong, that, if any feeling existed in that House for the sufferings of the poor, it would be the means of obtaining for them some relief. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had proved that the tax on corn cost the country eighteen millions annually. This should be called a tax payable by the poor man through the rich. This unequal system of taxation was producing its natural effects. The diminished means of consumption was proved by the fact that the difference between the amount received for the tax on malt in the year 1836 and in the last year was upwards of a million sterling.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 58; Noes 15: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Lowther, J. H.

Bernal, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Blackburn, I.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blair, J.

Norreys, Lord

Blake, W. J.

Paget, F.

Broadley, H.

Palmer, G.

Brownrigg, S.

Parker, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Parker, R. T.

Callaghan, D.

Pigot, D. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pryme, G.

Craig, W. G.

Rediugton, T. N.

Divett, E.

Rice, right hon. T. S

East, J. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Russell, Lord J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Russell, Lord

Farnham, E. B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Seymour, Lord

Gordon, R.

Shell, R. L.

Grattan, J.

Sheppard, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, G. R.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Somerville, Sir W. M

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hodgson, F.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Mope, hon. C.

Stock, Dr.

Hope, G. W.

Surrey, Earl of

Hoskins, K.

Thomson, rt. C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hutton, R,

Waddington, H, S.

1259

TELLERS.

Wilde, Mr. Serjeant

Baring, F. T.

Wood, C.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES

Aglionby, H. A.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Humphery, J.

Browne, R. D.

O'Connell, D.

Duncombe, T.

Scholefield, J.

Ewart, W.

Williams, W.

Finch, F.

Yates, J. A.

Harvey, D. W.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Attwood, T.

Hindley, C.

Fielden, J.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
On the question being again put,
Mr. Dillon Brownefelt sorry that he had not a different opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the motion which he rose to bring forward, but the fact was, that it was grounded upon a petition which was not received by the House, and which was presented so late in the Session that he could find no certain opportunity except the present for bringing the matter forward. He felt that he was about to give expressions to sentiments which would place him in no very desirable position. He felt he should be opposed on the opposite side of the House, because hon. Gentlemen might suppose that the object of his motion was to maintain the stability of the Catholic Church by civil enactments, when he only desired to assert its religious independence, and he did not expect a more favourable reception from the varied sections that compose the ministerial side of the House. Her Majesty's Government would oppose him, some because they were as hostile to the progress of the Catholic faith as the most orthodox hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they expressed themselves in different terms; and others because his proposition was opposed to the present system of national education in Ireland, of which the present Government were sponsors. He should be opposed also by another section at this side of the House, the English and Irish Protestant movement party. Deriving their belief from private interpretation, they had in common no definite principles of faith, and consequently thought it was impossible (and under the circumstances he agreed with them), to adopt any religious instruction agreeable to all. Others who wished to unite with secular instruction certain moral instruction, based upon a vague, abstract, indefinite principle,
1260
which he could not comprehend, a species of compound extract of all religions, a sort of ethical quintessence, which they declared to be common to every creed, hut which he feared would be recognised by none. And he felt he should be opposed by another section on his own side of the House, which gave him much cause of regret, many of whom were his friends, most of whom were his fellow-countrymen, and all of whom were his fellow-believers. They would oppose him, not because they did not wish as sincerely as he did to maintain the religious independence of the Roman Catholic Church, not because they did not acknowledge as fully as he did, that no religious instruction can be received by Roman Catholic children incompatible with Ecclesiastical authority, and not because they did not see as clearly as he did that the time was fast approaching, when, arising out of very potent reasons, the whole Catholic hierarchy of Ireland would repudiate the present system of national education in Ireland, but they would oppose him because they might think that dwelling upon a subject of this peculiar nature was imprudent in a Roman Catholic. The member of that Church who did as he was doing might be designated by those who confounded civil with religious duties, as a political bigot, when he was only maintaining the religious rights and privileges of his Church. Those Gentlemen might censure him too because they saw him in opposition to a favourite Government upon a favourite scheme, and saw him assailing her Majesty's Government in Ireland in a quarter in which they were found very vulnerable in this country. Indeed it had been said, as he had been informed by an hon. Member, a particular friend of his, that in consequence of his having held peculiar opinions upon this subject, that he risked his seat. However the hon. Gentleman might have used the expression, he could not so far forget early associations as to reciprocate the wish. It had also been stated, that whatever might be his private opinions, he had no right to act in opposition to his party, this was a system of political philosophy he could never adopt, because it resolved itself to this, that a supporter of Government should never have an opinion of his own. In fact, in political matters, the doctrine of the barbarian who burned the library of Alexandria should

1261
be established—that we should seek all wisdom and principle in the Koran given from the Treasury benches, and it ought to be esteemed profanation to look beyond it—that a man was not to think or act for himself, or to propound any scheme emanating from his own mind—that he was never to vindicate his own principles, though, at the present time, whatever might be a man's opinions, and however they might be opposed to his party, and however slavishly and mechanically he may serve that party, he need not, in the great vacillation of parties, despair of seeing those opinions vindicated. Therefore, he saw that he should meet with considerable resistance from all sides, and sympathy from none, but he hoped that the House, which was always inclined to act generously, would accord to him its attention, particularly because he stood alone, and did not hearken to the voice that would whisper to him
"For party give up what is due to mankind."
In treating this important subject he would indulge as little as possible in any polemical matter; he would only introduce it as far as it was necessary for the illustration of his argument. He knew that religious discussion was displeasing to the House, but it was anomalous to expect the entire rejection of it, when the House legislated upon religious matters. They were to consider this subject, first as regarded the combination of religious and secular instruction, and, secondly, how that combination should be made so as to sink the sectarian prejudices of all parties, and, as far as his motion extended, the peculiar state of society in Ireland. He begged to be understood, that he did not wish to press upon the consideration of the House any peculiar religious opinions of his own, he did not wish to maintain that one set of religious opinions were right, and another wrong, but that such being the notions of the majority, that we should to a great extent legislate accordingly. He did not wish to attach any peculiar importance to any peculiar opinions, but he wished to maintain, that whatever were the opinions of the masses, their laws should bear a necessary reference to them. Whatever might be his private opinions, he would not in that place declare, that the Irish people were right in submitting the religious instruction of their children to the pastors of
1262
their Church; but that such being the feelings of the Irish people, we could not establish a system of national education repugnant to those feelings. He was of opinion, that secular and religious education should be combined. He held this opinion simply as a citizen, without even referring to higher considerations, for if he had been an unbeliever, he would maintain, that religion was the best engine which could be used to promote the prosperity and happiness of the State. For he always thought, that those moral fears excited in the youthful mind by early instruction, did more in after life to deter men from the commission of the greater crimes than all the penal enactments with which you could crowd your statute-book. Many a man, instigated by bad passions to take away the life of his fellow, would despise the authority of the law, and, perhaps, anticipate its judgment with his own hand, did he not, in consequence of early impressions, fear a tribunal which is not of this world, and an inevitable justice whose vigilance never sleeps, and whose course cannot be diverted. Religious instruction being combined with secular, the next consideration was, how could that combination be best made to suit the sectarian prejudices of all parties. Could it be done under a lay supervision? The Government say they will adopt a Committee on authority common to all, and communicate religious instruction common to all. Could this be done in a community composed like this, of multitudinous sects, some of whom acknowledged Church authority, and some of whom did not; and many of whom differed in essentials? Those who did not recognize any Church authority, might receive religious instruction however it came; but those who did acknowledge it, would repudiate this joint-stock company in religion. Where they differed in essentials, could you find any religious instruction common to all? To achieve that desirable undertaking, you should discover some resting place so elevated above all sectarian prejudices, that each could find a neutral ground to join in bonds of amity. Could you find this neutral ground between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England? Could you find for them any principle common to both, which they consider so paramount above all others, that they will reject the consideration of

1263
all others to obtain instruction upon this? You will, perhaps, say this principle is the abstract question of redemption. But the Roman Catholic was bound to consider a belief in the sacrifice of the mass, and in the seven sacraments, as essential to salvation as a belief in the redemption; and any Catholic teacher who is conscientious, would be obliged to inculcate this principle. Therefore, you would exclude Catholic teachers from giving religious instruction, or you would employ men who ought not to be trusted. Amongst the other Dissenters, are there any brighter hopes of coming to an understanding? Suppose there were established in this town, a school upon your joint-stock principle amongst a community which comprehends different sects—members of the Established Church, Presbyterians, Socinians, and Unitarians—and that the majority (and it is no very remote contingency) were Unitarians; suppose Mr. Fox, the Unitarian preacher, were chosen as the spiritual instructor. Now, Sir, Mr. Fox declared—he, (the hon. Member) used the expression with the greatest reverence—speaking of the godhead of the Saviour, "that our Saviour was merely a prophet; that he was the first radical Reformer of his time; and that if he were incarnate in those days, he would be taken up as a Chartist!"* Could any Protestant, could any Roman Catholic, could any Christian parent submit his child to receive religious instruction from this man? And Mr. Fox would have as good a right as any member of the Established Church to lay claim to be made religious instructor under the joint-stock company in religion. Therefore, he thought, that secular and religious instruction could not be combined under a lay supervision. And then he came to the peculiar state of society in Ireland; he was not cognizant of any country less calculated from its social condition to receive a combined system of religious education. There had been two parties in Ireland long contending, the one for equality, the other for domination; and religion was the weapon they most constantly made use of in their conflicts. When civil concessions were granted on the one side, and when licen-
* It seems proper to state, that the gentleman alluded to in the text, denied ever having used any such word or words bearing any such interpretation as Mr. D. Browne assigned to the language of Mr. Fox.
1264
tious power was bridled upon the Other, the state of things was not much improved. Catholic emancipation, and the suppression of Orange societies, did not much improve the moral condition of the country; for afterwards two evil passions raged, the least calculated to promote that object, and the most to disturb the social order—on one side the keen memory of wrong, and on the other, the sullen mortification engendered by the loss of power. Those passions are ever fermenting, being kneaded by the vigilance of one party or another, and however they may assume today the aspect of tranquillity, like the yeast of the housewife, a small portion is always laid by to feed the excitement of to-morrow. Under those circumstances, how can you adopt a system of religious education, common to all, and acceptable to all? Will those who have lost power receive religious instruction from their Helots, or will those who have gained equality allow their former tyrants to minister to them? No more than will the emancipated negroes of Jamaica (and we know this from sad experience) receive their laws prescribed to them by their former task-, masters. There could not be adopted a joint system of education in Ireland. Any system of education adopted in Ireland must have respect to the Roman Catholic religion. There are 7,000,000, forming the majority of the population of that country; any national education must respect the feelings of that majority, or as far as they are concerned, it will be inoperative. They cannot receive religious instruction, except from their pastors or persons accredited by them, because every Roman Catholic is obliged to submit, with implicit obedience, to the authority of his Church. That implicit obedience has procured for the Church its most distinguishing mark, its unity, which has been undisturbed by time, and space, and clime, and taste, and language; which had adapted it to flourish under every Constitution, while it could be affected by none. Let the House, however, take those opinions from the Catholic hierarchy themselves. In 1826, the Catholic Bishops in Ireland assembled in synod, and after frequent conferences with Government, promulgated certain resolutions as the analysis of their aggregate opinions, and as an example to their flocks. He would read a short extract from those resolutions;—

1265
"That the admission of Protestants and Roman Catholics into the same schools for the purpose of literary instruction, may, under existing circumstances, be allowed, provided sufficient care be taken to protect the religion of Roman Catholic children, and to furnish them with adequate means of instruction. That in order to secure sufficient protection to the religion of Roman Catholic children, under such a system of education, we deem it necessary that the master of each school in which the majority of the pupils profess the Roman Catholic faith, be a Roman Catholic; and that in schools in which the Roman Catholic children form only a minority, a permanent Roman Catholic assistant be employed, and that such master and assistant be appointed upon the recommendation, or with the express approval, of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which they are to be employed; and further, that they, or either of them, be removed upon the representation of such Bishop. The same rule to be observed for the appointment or dismissal of mistresses and assistants in female schools. That in conformity with the principle of protecting the religion of Roman Catholic children, the books intended for their particular instruction in religion shall be selected or approved of by the Roman Catholic Prelates, and that no book or tract for common instruction in literature, shall be introduced into any school in which Roman Catholic children are educated, which book or tract may be objected to on religious grounds by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which such school is established. That appointed as we have been by Divine Providence to watch over and preserve the Catholic faith in Ireland; and, responsible as we are to God for the souls of our Hocks, we will, in our respective dioceses, withhold our concurrence and support from any system of education which will not fully accord with the principles expressed in the foregoing resolutions."
Such were the resolutions passed in the year 1826, by the Irish Bishops assembled in Synod; their opinions are there given distinctly upon the terms upon which they are willing to receive Government assistance for the purposes of national education. These opinions have not since been altered, and they are not to be mistaken. They declare that they will not recognize any system of education, except with the following provisions:—That they will not allow Catholics to be educated in the same schools with Protestants, unless that there is a Catholic teacher appointed where the majority are Roman Catholics, and that when Roman Catholics only form the minority, that there is appointed a permanent Catholic teacher, approved of by the Bishop of the diocese, and subject to removal upon his recommendation. These
1266
principles are as distinctly opposed to the regulations of the Board of National Education in Ireland as principles can be; but it may be said, that the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland have altered their opinions, and that when, on a late occasion, certain resolutions hostile to the Board were proposed by the Archbishop of Tuam, that these resolutions were negatived by a majority. This is a fact. But a minority of eight supported the propositions of Dr. M'Hale, which would, independently of other considerations, be a sufficient reason to prove, that the national system of education could not be generally efficacious, for those Bishops superintend districts which comprehend one-third of the population of Ireland, and they have concurrent with them in opinion, a large majority of the members of the Established Church; and the majority of Bishops, in approving of it, gave but a qualified approval, and subject to a reservation which must be ultimately fatal to the system. They said,
"We will not disapprove of the Board, however it may lay down principles discordant; for as its regulations depend upon civil enactments, we are not ecclesiastically responsible for it; but it will be our duty to see that practically it does not operate incompatibly with the authority of our Church. We do not wish to destroy it, because we wish to make use of it; but we shall only make use of it in strict accordance with our own principles. We will assert, primarily, our own authority, and stand in a position as if it never existed. In our clerical capacities, it is not necessary we should be cognizant of its existence. We will resolve that the children of our Church shall be educated in our faith after that fashion which their Bishops will approve of. We will receive pecuniary assistance if, under the circumstances, it is offered to us, we care not from what quarter it comes, or from what Board, however constituted, as to its fundamental principles, provided it does not interfere with us in its practical operations."
Therefore the Board stands in this position: it has eight Bishops separating from it because it is not established upon certain principles, and the remainder of the Bishops will hold no connexion with it unless those principles are put into operation. Unless the House adopted the suggestion in this resolution which he proposed, it would exclude more than one-third of the population of Ireland from the benefits of the system, and unless in practice it followed the spirit of this resolution, it would exclude almost the whole of the population. But he had strong

1267
reason to believe, that that approval had been given by the majority of the Bishops to the Board, with a reservation which would prove fatal to the system. The matter was referred to a higher authority, and to one which must necessarily be omnipotent with the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church, and he believed that the decision, though it was not yet officially announced, was in accordance with the opinions of Dr. M'Hale. But whatever might have been the peculiar decision upon that peculiar case, there were recent circumstances connected with the ecclesiastical history of Europe which rendered it a matter of little doubt. In fact, every day the opponents to the Board of National Education were increasing. It was but a short time since Dr. M'Hale stood alone; it was found that eight Bishops adopted his principles when suggested, and when it was generally supposed he would not have had one to support him; in fact, Catholic hostility to the Board was spreading rapidly over Ireland. He would take the liberty of reading an extract from a letter received from a divine of the highest character, and of acknowledged talents; he was not at liberty to mention the name, as the letter was only just put into his hands by a party who was not authorised to give it publicity, but it came from an individual not connected with the eight Bishops who were allied to Dr. M'Hale, and it comprehended what he conceived to be the principal objections to the Board of Education, and given in language better than he could adopt:—
"The chief objections to the existing system, as far as I can recollect, are the following:—1st. A combined system of education on the basis of religion, and yet excluding religious peculiarities, must either exclude the Catholic religion altogether, or give offence to some party. 2nd. Government interference is bad. 3rd. Structure of the Board is vicious and sectarian, because a Board, in which there are only three Catholics, does not represent in due proportion the Catholic population; because, as is notorious from the errors of the scripture lessons and fifth book of lessons, it affords not a sufficient security for our faith; because the composition of these books was entrusted to Carlisle, a Presbyterian; and because the structure of that Board is a formal recognition of Protestant ascendancy in a Catholic country and national concern. 4th. The system of district inspectors has been objected to. 5th. Training school also objectionable, 6th, Scripture lessons have been
1268
proved to contain heresy and error almost in every page. The questions appended to them embrace all existing controversies, The notes are saturated with the Calvanistic errors. The text is faithless, corrupt, and unauthorized. And the uncontrolled power of the masters in expounding these books, makes the thing still more dangerous. 7th. The 5th book of lessons contains theories at variance with Moses, and has been strongly objected to. 8th. The provisions of the existing system have been proved to be at variance with the resolutions of the episcopal body in 1826. 9th. It has been urged also that the fundamental principle of the system is vicious and anti-Catholic. As the primary object of the system is to unite all in a forgetfulness of religious destinations, to impart education upon neutral grounds, and to thrust peculiar tenets into the contemptuous obscurity of separate instruction. Finally, it has been contended, and it is my impression, that nothing but a separate grant will ever satisfy the people of Ireland."
Those were the sentiments of a learned divine, with which he perfectly coincided. He would not allude to the opinions of Dr. M'Hale—they were well known to the House and to the country; and they were opinions which would be respected by every Catholic and every Irishman, as emanating from a man who was an ornament to his Church and to his country, who shone brightest amongst the Catholic hierarchy, and who filled the vacancy left in it by Dr. Doyle; indeed, the people of Ireland, in mourning for the loss of that great polemical champion, might turn to Dr. M'Hale, applying the quotation made use of on a late occasion by the noble Lord the Member fur North Lancashire, and when they saw one golden fruit fallen from the parent stem, might exclaim in truth—
"Primo avulso non deficit alter Aureus et simili frondescit virga metallo."
He thought that the present system of national education could never work, that no power or no art could force it upon the consideration of the people of Ireland. The desire of a favourite Government could not do it. Even the support to it, if given by the great champion of the liberties of his country, would not do it. Nor would it be effected by the bland temporizing of Dr. Murray. The policy of England had ever been to force upon the Irish people the religion of their conquerors, to Anglo Saxonize the country in every respect. And the people had shown, under circumstances the most trying, the most unexampled fidelity to their religion,

1269
The history of Ireland proves how assiduously her persecutors pursued their object, and how faithfully the persecuted clung to their altars. In every age and under every circumstance, the history of Ireland is sadly connected with religious persecution, and is brightly illustrative of national fidelity to religion. We may revert to the remotest period, whether our liberties were trampled by the hoof of the heathen, or under the banners of the cross. There is an evidence of the same object an the one side, and the same resolution upon the other. We may look back from Turgesius to Cromwell, and from Cromwell to the present time, and while invariably we see the frequent brand cast into the Temple, as we trace the ravages of the barbarian up the steep of time, we at the same time, mark in our progress how, still undismayed, the Catholic clung to the sanctuary. tuary. Do you think, now, that that people who have been so faithful to their creed, will permit a proseletysing Government Board, coming with a smiling face, to undermine their principles? What they refused to persecution, will they yield to sophistry and intrigue? The wolf which they repelled, will they now admit into the fold, because it approaches under sheep's clothing? Will they desert their Priesthood? When you passed every law that bigotry could suggest and tyranny enforce, to shut the people of Ireland out from religious instruction, did their priesthood desert them? When you endeavoured to put out the mind of Ireland, and when you rendered it penal not alone to educate its Catholic population, but when you declared it to be crime of peculiar atrocity to educate a minister of religion, did the people then want religious instruction? They then obtained it—they now will draw it from the same source, and they will not forget that in the days of persecution that that priesthood sought abroad, for their sakes alone, that education which was denied them at home, and collected, even amid the convulsions that agitated England, those seeds which they have scattered in their native land, the glorious harvest of which Ireland now exhibits in her seven millions of Roman Catholic population. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That, to satisfy the conscientious scruples of a large proportion of the Protestant, as well as Roman Catholic population of Ireland,
1270
and conciliate to the Board of National Education in that country the general confidence of the community, it is expedient that this House do recommend to the Commissioners the discontinuance of the use of the "Scripture Lessons," which are equally offensive to persons of all religious persuasions, as a mutilation of the Word of God; that it be a further recommendation to the Commissioners to adopt in practice the principle of setting apart an hour of each day for the religious instruction of children of different creeds, to be communicated in separate sections of the schools connected with the Board either by the spiritual pastors of the children respectively, or by other competent persons duly accredited by them, and subject to their supervision and control; that no religious instruction be communicated to the children in such schools except by their pastors, or by persons so accredited; and that, there being but two Roman Catholics amongst the seven Members of whom the Board consists, it is desirable, in order to secure the confidence of seven-eighths of the Irish people, both with reference to religious instruction, and to the impartial distribution of the funds at the disposal of the Board, that a Roman Catholic Divine, approved of by the body of Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland, should be added to the Board of Commissioners."
Motion not seconded.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY-MAYNOOTH.
On the proposal to grant 8,928 l. for defraying the expenses of Maynooth,
Colonel Percivalregretted that Government had not given the Irish Members an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this vote, by bringing forward the estimates at an earlier period, and he believed that the delay was purposely made; but at that late period of the Session it was useless to take a division against the vote, although if his friends chose to divide they should have his vote.
ViscountCole would certainly divide the House upon the question.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, that the reason why the inquiry into this grant was not brought forward at an earlier period, did not rest with hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; but a want of determination on the part of hon. Members opposite, one of whom, the noble Lord, the Member for Durham, having had a notice on the book for a long time.
Viscount Castlereaghbelieved that the opposition to this vote was daily increasing and he could no longer be a silent instru-

1271
ment in supporting a vote which went to oppose the Established Church.
Viscount Morpethsaid that as this was an annual skirmish be would not prolong the discussion, but he must say that his only objection to the vote was that it was too scanty. He did not deny that, after they had left Maynooth, the Catholic clergy, like every other class of religious teachers, did take part in politics, but politics did not form part of the system of instruction; on the contrary, he believed that they were carefully kept out of the system.
Mr. Finchwould regret to sec the day when the House should refuse to come to a vote for the support of the education of the Catholic clergy. As a Dissenter he was sure he spoke the language of Dissenters, when he said that they were quite willing to accord to Catholics the right of worshipping their Maker after their own mode, and after their own creed, and if they did this it was but right to grant to a large majority of the Irish nation the means of educating their clergy. If the vote should come forward in another Session he trusted it would be recollected that a portion of the money of all classes, as well in England as in Ireland, was appropriated to professors in the English Universities, whilst a great part of the people of this country was shut out from those Universities by the test established by them.
The House divided: Ayes 53; Noes 9: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Attwood, T.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Baring, F. T.

Maule, hon. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Barry, G. S.

Muskett, G. A.

Blake, W. J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Callaghan, D.

Redington, T. N.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Russell, Lord J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Finch, F.

Scholefield, J.

Grattan, J.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, B.

Hawes, B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hector, C. J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hodges, T. L.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hoskins, K.

Steuart, R.

Howard, P. H.

Stock, Dr.

Howick, Visct.

Surrey, Earl of

Hume, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hutton, R,

Vigors, N. A.

1272

Wallace, R.

Wyse, T.

Warburton, H.

Yates, J. A.

Wilde, Mr. Serjeant

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

O'Ferrall, M.

Wood, C.

Gordon, R.

List of the NOES.

Blair, J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Burroughes, H. N.

Palmer, G.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Perceval, Colonel

Freshfield, J. W.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Cole, Viscount

Hodgson, R.

Round, J.

The House resumed. The Chairman reported the resolutions of the House, and obtained leave to sit again.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
The Admiralty Court Bill was read a third time on the Motion of Mr. C. Wood.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved as an amendment to the first clause, that instead of the sum of 4,000 l. being the salary to be paid to the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, the sum of 3,000 l. be inserted. He bad the authority of Sir John Nicholl for this proposition, who had declared that 3,000 l. was an adequate salary.
Mr. C. Woodthought, that after the two long discussions, and the two divisions that had taken place in a much fuller House than now, on this question, and which had been carried by a majority of two to one in favour of the larger sum, it was not necessary that he should trouble the house with any observations.
The House divided on the question that 4,000 l. stand in the Bill: Ayes 47; Noes 16: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, hon. Col.

Muskett, G. A.

Baring, F. T.

O'Connell, D.

Bowes, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clements, Visct.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Craig, W. G.

Palmer, G.

Dalmeny, Lord.

Parker, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Pechell, Captain

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pigot, D. R.

Ewart, W.

Price, Sir R.

Finch, F.

Pryme, G.

Gordon, R.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Grattan, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hawes, B.

Russell, Lord J.

Hinde, J. H.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Hoskins, K.

Sheil, R. L.

Howick, Viscount

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Lowther, J. H.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Macaulay, T. B.

Steuart, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Stock, Dr.

1273

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

TELLERS.

Wilbraham, G.

Wood, C.

Wood, G. W.

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hector, C. J.

Blair, J.

Hodgson, R.

Broadley, H.

Hotharn, Lord

Brotherton, J.

Parker, R. T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Vigors, N. A.

D'Israeli, B.

Williams, W.

Duncombe, T.

Forester, hon. G.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Hume, J.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Wallace, R.

Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved that a proviso be added to the end of the first clause, enacting that the judge of the Admiralty Court, after the present Parliament, should, during his continuance in office, be incapable of being elected and sitting as a Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. C. Woodmust again say, that after the full discussion this question had undergone, it was unnecessary for him to say a word upon it.
Mr. Finchwould support the hon. Member's motion as it did not apply to Dr. Lushington.
Lord Hothamsaid that the proviso of the hon. Member of Kilkenny made no personal application to Dr. Lushington, and he saw no reason why the report of the committee on this subject should not be acted upon.
Captain Pechellopposed the proviso on principle, having voted against the hon. Member for Southwark on a similar question.
Mr. Wallaceshould vote for the proviso from sheer and positive principle.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was certainly purely a question of principle. There was now no apprehension of the abuse of the prerogative of the Crown; he was therefore exceedingly happy to vote againt the motion of his hon. Friend.
The House divided on the proviso. Ayes 20; Noes 41: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Blair, J.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Broadley, H.

Hawes, B.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hinde, J. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Hodgson, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hotharn, Lord

Duncombe, T.

Lowther, J. H.

Ewart, W.

Palmer, G.

Forester, hon. G.

Parker, R. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Perceval, Colonel

1274

TELLERS.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Wallace, R.

Bill passed.

SALE OF SPIRITS (IRELAND).
The Sale of Spirits (Ireland) Bill was read a third time.
Mr. O'Connellmoved to add a clause, the object of which was to put the grocers in Ireland in the same condition with respect to the sale of Spirits as they were before the passing of the 6th and 7th of William 4th. By that Act grocers in Ireland were prevented from retailing spirits. The operation of the prohibition had been found most injurious, and had caused a great derangement of capital. Besides this, it had thrown the trade in the sale of spirits into the hands of an inferior and less respectable class of persons. The clause which he had to propose was limited in its operation to those grocers who were in business at the time of the passing of the act to which he had alluded.
Mr. Shawobjected to the clause. From the experience which he had in his judicial capacity, he thought it was most important to prevent grocers selling drams of spirits in their shops.
Mr. Sheilhad two petitions to present, praying that the grocers might be placed in the same situation in Ireland as in Scotland, and would vote for the clause.
Colonel Percevalhad opposed the bill of last year, and would certainly vote against the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Humehad presented a most numerously signed petition from Kilkenny, praying for such an alteration in the law as was now proposed, and he would therefore support the introduction of the clause.
The House divided on the question that the clause be brought up. Ayes 36; Noes 9: Majority 27.
The House again divided on the question that the clause be read a second time. Ayes 33; Noes 9: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Gordon, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Baring, F. T.

Hoskins, K.

Craig, W. G.

Hume, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Ewart, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Finch, F.

Muskett, G. A.

1275

O'Connell, M. J.

Steuart, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stock, Dr.

Parker, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wallace, R.

Pechell, Captain

Wilbraham, G.

Pigot, D. R.

Wood, G. W.

Price, Sir R.

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

O'Connell, D.

Sheil, R. L.

Redlngton, T. N.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

List of the NOES.

Broadley, H.

Palmer, G.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, R. T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Perceval, Colonel

Forester, hon. G.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lowther, J. H.

Hodgson, F.

Clause read a second and third time, and added to the Bill by way of rider.
Bill passed.