HC Deb 15 July 1842 vol 65 cc206-22

On the question that a sum not exceeding 50,000l. be granted to her Majesty, to enable the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advancement of education in that country.

Mr. Plumptre

objected to the grant. Very few Protestants could feel themselves justified in sending their children to schools under the present system, and he Las, therefore, strongly opposed to the vote, the would not press it to a division.

Mr. Lefroy

concurred in the view of the hon. Member for East Kent. The petitions from the clergy of Ireland showed, that they were desirous to obtain a share of this grant, for the purpose of giving an education, founded on such principles as would make those receiving it honest men and good citizens.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

could not really see what the hon. Gentlemen opposite were looking for, except that those public funds should be devoted to the education of a peculiar sect. He should be the last man to disturb the harmony, which happily prevailed at present in both countries (with the exception of a small section of hon. Members opposite), and between both parties in the State, on the subject of edution. He believed experience had proved in both countries, that religion was not promoted by enforcing peculiar religious opinions in a system of education, but that it was far preferable to impart sound knowledge indiscriminately, leaving religious instruction to be conveyed through the tenets of each persuasion. The man who doubted the efficacy of this plan, must doubt the soundness of his own views on religion.

Mr. Campbell

contended, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell) was quite wrong in supposing that any change had taken place in the views of Gentlemen on his side. If he thought it necessary to divide the House, he was sure he should have a large number voting against this grant, on the ground, that the Scriptures were garbled in the national schools.

Captain Jones

objected to this grant, because the system it went to support was ' a complete failure. He knew, that Protestants did not send their children to these schools, because the Scriptures were not used in a complete form.

.Mr. V. Smith

must say he was surprised, that the noble Secretary for Ireland left the system of Irish education to be defended by those at his side. The Secretary for the Colonies, too, was unaccountably silent when his own measure was attacked. How was it that the hon. and learned Solicitor-general, who was so active an opponent of this grant, was now a perfect mute, and that they had no opportunity of knowing his opinion, if some indiscreet person on his own side did not force a division. This was certainly a great night for education ! First, the proposal of the Whig Government of 1839, as regarded England, was adopted. [Sir J. Graham: No; it was a compromise.] At all events, the Tories receded from the high ground they originally took when they acceded to the proposal of 1839, and it was denounced now with all the original bitterness of party animosity by the hon. Member for Oxford. Then came the vote for education on the most liberal principles; and, lastly, this Irish grant, which was assented to by all parties, or which would seem to be so if some inopportune division were not forced on by Gentlemen opposite.

Lord Eliot

felt that the taunt of the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether undeserved, for he ought to have risen at an earlier period to reply to the attacks which were made on this system. The Gentlemen who had made those attacks had been guilty of gross misrepresentation, and he thought they could not possibly have read the report presented to that House. Had they done so they would have perceived that the secular instruction of the schools was open to all, and that the religious instruction was given at particular hours set apart for the purpose, and at particular places according to the direction of the local patrons by whom the funds were mainly provided. That was the basis of the system, but he denied that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had been the author of it, because it was embodied so far back as 1812 in a report on the subject of education, which report was signed by the Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Cashel, and the Bishop of Killala. He must also deny that mere garbled extracts from Scripture were all that was allowed to be read in the national schools. The Scriptural extracts used in those schools comprised the historical books of the Old Testament, St. Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles; but they did not supersede the use of the Scriptures; and he must say that the accusation made against the board, of garbling the Holy Scriptures, was entirely unfounded. In 1824 the commissioners reviewed all the education societies which had previously existed, and they found them totally inadequate for the purposes of education. They said, that owing to the system of teaching the Scriptures without note or comment, the system which was adopted by those societies, the children were absolutely ignorant of the very principles of religion, that they were ignorant of the meaning of what they read, and that they learned it, like parrots, purely by rote. This was the opinion of men of impartiality. It was stated by his hon. and gallant Friend, that Protestant children generally did not attend the national schools. Now, he could assure the House that there was no unwillingness or dislike to attend them on the part of any portion of the people; and that, where there was a non-attendance of Protestant children, it was owing, he much regretted to say, to the influence of the Protestant clergymen, who, no doubt, were actuated by conscientious motives, believing as they did that the present system was one which they could not fairly countenance. But the fact was, that the people had most willingly sent their children to be instructed in those schools, from which they had in many instances been withdrawn by clergymen. Mr. Hall, who was probably known to most hon. Members, stated in his pamphlet that the system was a total failure, but he went on to say that it was admirably well managed, and that it was only in consequence of the unwillingness of the clergy to co-operate that it was rendered ineffective. There was no doubt that in some places there were only four or five Protestants to 100 Roman Catholics, but then in other places the preponderance was just as much in favour of the Protestant children. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble of looking to the character of the population, they would at once see the cause of that. The average number of Protestants, compared with that of the Catholics, was not more than 4 or 5 per cent., while many of those Protestants were in easy circumstances, and beyond the necessity of availing themselves of the benefit of the national education. He asserted then that a very fair proportion of the Protestant children did receive education under the present system; and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he had received reports from authority which fully bore him out in stating that a fair proportion of Protestants compared with the rest of the population did attend the national schools. He would not state positively, but he believed that one-eighth of those who attended the schools were Protestants. Looking to the nature of the population, and considering that a large proportion of the Protestants were in easy circumstances, and did not choose on that account to avail themselves of the system, he could not admit that the system was in any respect a failure. The commissioners stated in their report, that in the first year of its operation the number of schools was 759, in the next year 1,206, that in the last year the number had increased to no less than 2,377, and that the number of children to whom instruction was imparted in those schools was 281,345, and the number was continuing to increase. In the month of September last he attended the examination of the inspectors, and nothing, he assured the House, could have been more satisfactory than the statement which they made respecting the state of those schools. The system, as ail who were acquainted with it must know, was what was called "intellectual" — a system by which the minds of the children were cultivated to a high degree. The books were well adapted to that object, and were drawn up with considerable talent and ability, and the teachers were men who were in every respect qualified for public instruction. Upon the whole, be must say, that the result of his inquiry, and he had taken no small pains to inform himself on the subject, was that, under all the circumstances of Ireland, a system better adapted to the wants of the people of that country could not be adopted.

Sir W. Somerville

said, that he had listened with the sincerest pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had most correctly described the working of the system, and he had also correctly stated the reason why its operation was in some cases limited, that reason being that the clergy of the Established Church, he was sorry to say, had conscientiously considered it to be their duly to oppose the system. Something had been said about "raising the people of Ireland." Did not that mean depressing them to their former condition, when no Catholic could educate his children? [Cheers from the Opposition benches.] This cry, at all events, was most frequently in the mouth of that party who first prevented the mass of the population from receiving instruction according to their own religious tenets, and then reproached them for turbulence and ferocity.

Mr. Jackson

said, he was persuaded the committee would feel that, considering the position in which he now stood, and the part he had for so many years taken in regard to the education of the poor in Ireland upon Scriptural principles, it was impossible for him to remain silent on the present occasion, more especially when it was recollected that he had been so pointedly alluded to from both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, were anxious to call him (the Solicitor-general) up in this debate, hoping that some party advantage might be gained by eliciting points of disagreement upon this all-important question, between the present Government and some of its most steady friends and supporters. He (the Solicitor-general) deeply regretted that he should be placed in a position which compelled him to rise in apparent opposition to her Majesty's Government, but he did so under a deep and solemn conviction of imperative duty. He did not, however, rise to oppose the present vote, which was to place 50,000l. at the disposal of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, for the purposes of education in Ireland, and he did hope that at least some portion of it might be applied in promoting education in that country upon sound principles. He was, however, bound to say, that even had this been a vote directly to the National Board of Education in Ireland, decidedly as he disapproved of their system, he should not feel justified in giving his vote for withholding the grant at this period of the Session. He thought that it would be manifestly unjust that the board should have been permitted to reckon upon the continuance of the annual grant which they had enjoyed for some years, and to enter into engagements and incur liabilities, but he fervently entreated the Government and the House most carefully and candidly to reconsider the whole question. He spoke under impressions of imperative duty, when he declared the noble Lord most utterly to have been in error on the subject of the Kildare school system. The new system had not been justified, but the contrary, by the inquiry of the commission. That commission consisted of Mr. Frankland Lewis, well known in that House—Mr. Glasford, a Scotch gentleman of great talent and respectability—the late lamented Judge Foster—Mr. Anthony Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman of much talent, but who acted with perfect impartiality throughout the inquiry—and Mr. Grant, an English gentleman, who he believed was at the English bar. His noble Friend had stated the matter as if that commission of inquiry had been unanimous in their report; the fact, however was, that two of the able and enlightened members of the Board had dissented, and had supplied the grounds and reasons of their dissent, from the conclusions arrived at by their brethren. The dissentients were Judge Foster and Mr. Glasford. Now, he (the Solicitor-general), on the part of the Protestant people of Ireland, and of the Roman Catholic population also, most earnestly but respectfully called upon his right hon. and noble Friends composing her Majesty's Government, to take into account the propriety of carefully considering this great question. It was one of the most momentous importance. He would not disguise his opinions upon it. They were not taken up hastily, nor did they emanate from any unkind or uncharitable feeling towards any portion of the community or towards any human being. On the contrary, he trusted he might say, with perfect truth and sincerity that they sprang from the most anxious desire to promote, by the best means, the temporal and eternal interests of all classes and denominations of his countrymen. With regard to the Kildare-place Society, what were the facts? When the Parliamentary grant was withdrawn from that valuable institution, in the year 1832, there were, according to his recollection,—and he begged to be understood as only speaking from recollection, not recently refreshed as to the numbers—(for he had reason to believe that this vote would not have been brought forward to-night)—but according to his recollection, there were then upwards of 1,500 schools, containing more than 130,000 scholars, in connection with that society; and he could say that a very large number of them were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. He believed that at no period were there so few as one-half of of the scholars in those schools Roman Catholic. What was the state of fact in 1824, at the unfortunate period when the commission of inquiry was set on foot? At that period the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood in Ireland, anxious to put down scriptural education, and to obtain grants of public money for schools under their own control, used every effort to withdraw the children from the schools of the society. The commission called for returns from ail schools as to the number of children receiving instruction therein, and they required these returns to be made by the clergy of all persuasions, distinguishing how many were Protestant and how many Roman Catholic; and the clergy were apprized that they must be prepared to verify these returns upon oath. There could be no doubt therefore of the correctness of these returns, so far as they went; and the proof of their accuracy as to the relative proportion of Protestant and Roman Catholic children in the schools of the Kildare-place Society was this;— that the returns made by the Protestant clergy and Roman Catholic clergy corresponded to a small fraction in the results; and they showed, that at that period of persecution—for he could call it no less— when the parents of Roman Catholic children were denounced, and the rites of the Church withheld from them, if they did not withdraw their children from the scriptural schools—at that period the returns showed that a majority of the children in the schools of the Kildare-place Society were Roman Catholic. This, then, was really a united system of education, and he challenged his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) to produce from the reports of the commissioners anything which was calculated to disparage the conduct or exertions of the managers of the Kildare-place Society. They did, undoubtedly, require as a fundamental principal, that the Sacred Scriptures without note or comment, should be used in its schools. This was "the head and front of their offending." But this did not impede its efforts for the spread of education. Quite the reverse; for he (the Solicitor-general) could say with truth, that the poor Roman Catholics of Ireland were desirous of access to the Scriptures. Bearing in mind the facts he had stated, he most earnestly but respectfully called on the Government to consider whether it were not a matter of the most grave and awful responsibility to exclude from contact with the Scriptures — the Scriptures of truth, which teach the way of salvation—the youth of the country, the great mass of the population, in that season, too, when the mind and the heart arc most susceptible of impression ! His noble Friend (Lord Eliot) spoke of the large proportion of Protestants attending the national schools. There might be many Protestants in those schools; but for the most part they were in separate schools, not united with Roman Catholics in receiving instruction. In some schools there was not a single Protestant; in others, not a single Roman Catholic was to be found. Now, the main inducement for, and object of, this new board was declared to be the establishment of a united system. In this there had been a failure. He believed it was in the very town represented by the hon. Baronet, his hon. Friend—if he would allow him so to denominate him—(Sir William Somerville), viz., Drogheda, in which there were two schools, at opposite sides of the street, circumstanced just as he had described. The great mass of the Protestant people of Ireland were opposed to this new system, both clergy and laity. It was quite true that he had presented a large number of petitions to that House on the subject of education; but he must correct the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. J. O'Connell) in his statement that these petitions did not complain of the present system, and only sought aid for the Church Education Society. On the contrary, they one and all stated their conscientious objections to any system of education of which the perusal of the Sacred Scriptures did not form a part. They objected likewise to the constitution of the board, as being unfavourable to the Church; and that the working of the system, instead of tending to heal animosities in Ireland, had greatly aggravated them. He believed that he (the Solicitor-general) and his noble Friend the Member for Bandon (Lord Bernard) had presented petitions from every parish in the united dioceses of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, against this system. The clergy, also, of this diocese, petitioned and protested against it. They could not conscientiously participate in any plan of education from which the Scriptures were excluded. Were they to be censured for this conscientious disapproval of these national schools? Did they merit the rebukes bestowed on them by the noble Lord? It was in the highest degree creditable to them, in his judgment, that they did withhold their countenance and support from such a system of national education, impoverished as they were. [Cheers.] Yes, —yes, impoverished; your course of policy has grievously impoverished them." I believe," the hon. and learned Gentleman concluded," two-thirds of the benefices of Ireland were under 300/. a year when the clergy were deprived of one-fourth of their income. But impoverished as they have been, there are in the diocese I have named, which constitutes the county of Cork, 210 schools, containing between 8,000 and 9,000 scholars, who are supported by voluntary contributions, mainly of the clergy. They are in connection with the Church Education Society, and even in those schools in which direct instruction in the catechism and formularies of the Established Church is given, a considerable number of Roman Catholic children is to be found. But now I put it to the British House of Commons, I put it to the enlightened men who compose her Majesty's Government, is it fitting that the only portion of the community practically excluded from the benefit of the public educational funds should be the humble Protestants of Ireland, and those Roman Catholics who wish to obtain scriptural instruction? This ought not to be so; and I again implore the most serious consideration of my right hon. and noble Friends near me to this all-important subject. The House will forgive me, I am sure, for this trespass upon them. I confess I feel warmly, and could not withhold the honest expression of my opinion, although I have the misfortune to differ from those with whom on so many other subjects I entirely agree.

Lord Eliot

said, that his hon. and learned Friend had much misunderstood him if he thought that he meant in any way to depreciate the character of the Protestant clergy of Ireland. In regard' to the schools, all he had meant was, that other means of instruction ought to be provided for those children whose parents did not like to let them attend those schools.

Mr. Labouchere

said, after what had taken place to-night, he would not suffer the matter to rest here, without expressing a hope that the Irish Government and the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) would feel it to be their duty to promote the great and paramount object of the Legislature in its previous acts, namely, the general diffusion of information and education throughout Ireland. He had witnessed with concern what he must consider a positive and unqualified attack made by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the noble Secretary and the Government of Ireland for its conduct in respect to these seminaries. The course of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general for Ireland was widely different from that which would be taken by hon. Gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side of the House, who were, he believed, most anxious to give their best support to her Majesty's Government in carrying out a liberal system of education for Ireland. He rejoiced at the announcement which had that night been made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, believing as he did that it conveyed the sentiments of the Government generally upon this important subject.

Lord Stanley

said, the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had been so long a member of the Kildare-street Society, that there could be no surprise at his defending it. The Government, with the responsibility attached to it, and feeling respect for the opinions of those who supported them, had given their mature consideration to the subject, and their opinion was, that, notwithstanding many difficulties, the present system was one which gave the greatest amount of sound religious instruction to Ireland. He regretted the opposition, founded as it was on sincere motives, which had been offered to the system. The Kildare-street Society had been conducted in a most liberal manner, and that very liberality had prevented the attaining many of the objects it professed to gain. The rule calling together a number of children of different persuasions, and causing them to read the Scriptures without explanation, had the effect of making the language of Scripture sink more into the memory than the heart. A strong feeling having been manifested against the Kildare-street Society, he (Lord Stanley) felt that the effect of that education would be to exclude a great deal which should have been introduced in a school purely Protestant. He felt the present system contained the best solution of the difficulties, and gave the greatest amount of Scriptural education to the people of Ireland. He regretted that a certain want of co-operation, on the part of many Protestants, had interfered with the beneficial working of that system, and had led to a partial failure of it; but he believed that, notwithstanding those disadvantages, the system had done much to soften religious animosity in that country; and if they lost something from that want of co-operation, he was sure that they had gained much in the improvement of those schools, which the Protestants had established in a more exclusive system, arising from the spirit of rivalry which the Government system of education had introduced. He knew that many of his hon. Friends thought that a better system might have been introduced; he did not call upon them to sacrifice their opinions; but he said that there was nothing inconsistent in those hon. Friends of his, if they found that that system, mixed with evil though it were, had really advanced education in Ireland, and had taken a deep root in that country, giving a silent vote in favour of that system, though they would have preferred another. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be called upon to divide on the question; but if it were, his opinions remained unchanged, and, having approved of the introduction of that system, in the first instance, as the best adapted to the circumstances of that country, he should give his cordial support to the present vote.

Mr. Wyse

said that the wide differences between hon. Gentlemen opposite, Members of the same Government, were very remarkable; the Solicitor-general for Ireland as strongly opposed the present system as the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, supported it; and he must say that the reason given by the Solicitor-general for supporting this vote was more creditable to his talents as a lawyer than to his candour. He was, however, rejoiced to find that, of that great party which had, in the first instance, almost to a man, opposed the present system, but a few individuals now continued that opposition. The system had worked most successfully; it was realising the most sanguine anticipations of its friends, removing religious animosity, and teaching Irishmen of all persuasions, from their youth, to regard each other as brothers.

Viscount Sandon

rose only for the purpose of expressing the opinion which he entertained, in common with many on that side of the House. He had opposed this system from the beginning, because he thought it not likely to produce happy results in a country circumstanced as Ireland was; but that opposition having failed, and the system having been established a considerable time, he, for one, should be most unwilling to disturb a great question like that, without being able to substitute another system more likely to succeed; and he confessed that he was not aware of any such system. Believing, therefore, it would be honestly administered, he would be sorry to disturb it; but he must say that he thought it the duty of Government to assist the exertions made by the Established Church of Ireland, in the cause of education, by other means than setting up a rival system. He might quote, in favour of that view, the practice in England of giving money to two societies; and he earnestly hoped that, in another year, the Government would take this matter into its serious consideration.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

could not help complaining of the allusion made by the hon. and learned Solicitor-general of Ireland, when he spoke of Mr. Blake as giving impartial evidence, although a Catholic. Such an observation evidently showed that the mind of the hon. Member was still strongly imbued with the ascendancy feelings which he derived from his education. The language of the hon. and learned Gentleman formed a singular contrast to that used by the Members of the Government. It was rumoured that the hon. and learned Gentleman was to be transferred to another place, and he therefore regretted it the more that he should give expression to such an uncharitable expression.

Mr. Jackson

said, that if he had used the expression imputed to him, it was not in the sense which the hon. Member conceived. He had never intended to attack' the Roman Catholics, for he believed chat] the statements of Gentlemen belonging to that religion were entitled to as much respect and credit as those belonging to any other church.

Mr. Ward

was astonished at the conduct of the noble Lord, after the scruples which he had expressed, with respect to this vote, on former occasions. The noble Lord's example had been followed by several other Gentlemen on the opposite side, who now declined opposing a vote they, on so many former occasions, objected to. It appeared that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had skulked out of the House. [Cries of "Order."] He was not aware that he was disorderly, but he would then say had stolen out of the House. [Loud cries of "Order" and "Chairs."' Who, exclaimed the hon. Member, calls me to order?

Lord Stanley

I rise to call the hon. Member to order. I am sure that the hon. Member will, on reflection, be satisfied that he was out of order, and that he will regret having used the language that fell from him. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will feel that it was not orderly or proper to apply the terms skulking or stealing out of the House to another hon. Member. It was not possible for the hon. Member to know whether the hon. Baronet had left the House.

Mr. Ward

would merely then say, that the hon. Member had stolen away. [Loud cries of "Orders." He would appeal to the Chair as to whether he was out of order.

The Chairman

(Mr. Greene) said, that the hon. Member must be fully aware that there was not much difference between skulking or stealing away. On reflection, he was sure the hon. Member would not persist in his expressions.

Mr. Ward

observed, then he would say that the hon. Member and other hon. Gentlemen whoa generally opposed this grant had walked out of the House. He was astonished that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not now divide against this grant, after they had made such serious complaints on the subject. He confessed that he should have entertained greater respect for the hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, if that hon. Member, entertaining the opinion that he did, had resigned his office rather than pursue the course that he had that night done. He could not help thanking his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, for his generous and able speech on that occasion, in which he had expressed his determination to abide by the system.

Lord Clements

complimented the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland on the speech which he had that night addressed to the House—a speech which would create as much satisfaction in Ireland as the speech of the Solicitor-general for Ireland would create dissatisfaction. He approved of the system of education proposed, believing that it would do a great deal of good in Ireland.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy

said, that it had been stated in the course of the debate that no division had ever taken place on this question, but on a reference to Hansard he found that a division, led by the hon. Member for Kent, took place on this question in June. 1840. The system of education adopted in the national schools was approved of by the people of Ireland, and he trusted that a division would shew who those were that opposed it.

The committee then divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 0: Majority 94.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Fellowes, E.
Ainsworth, P. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Antrobus, E. Flower, Sir J.
Archdall, Capt. Ffolliott, J.
Baird, W. Forbes, W.
Baldwin, B. Fuller, A. E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Gaskell, J. M.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Gibson, T. M.
Bateson, R. Gill, T.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Gore, M.
Bradshaw, J. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bramston, T. W. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Brother too, J, Grogan, E.
Browne, hon. W, Hamilton, W. J.
Burroughes, H. N. Hardinge. rt. hn. Sir H.
Campbell, A. Hawes, B.
Childers, J. W. Hayes, Sir E.
Clements, Visct. Henley, J. W:
Clerk, Sir G. Herbert, hon. S.
Colvile, C. R. Hindley, C.
Courtenay, Lord Howard, P. H.
Cowper, hon. W. F, Howard, Sir R.
Cripps. W. Hughes, W.B.
Denison, E. B. Jermyn, Earl
Douglas, Sir C. E. Jones, Capt.
Eliot, Lord Knatcbull, rt. hn. SirE.
Escott, B. Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Farnham, E. B. Lefroy, A.
Leicester, Earl of Rushbrooke, Col.
Lincoln, Earl of Sandon, Visct.
Lowther, J. H. Scott, hon. F.
Mainwaring, T. Smith, right hn. R. V,
Masterman, J Smyth, Sir H.
Morgan, O. Somerville, Sir W M.
Morris, D. Stanley, Lord
Murphy, F. S. Sutton, hon. H, M
Newry, Visct. Taylor, J. A.
Nicholl, rt. hon, J. Thornley, T.
Norreys, Sir D. J, Verner, Col.
O'Brien, A. S. Vesey, hon. T.
O'Connell, M. J Wawn, J. T,
O'Conor Don Wood, B.
Packe, C. W Wood, G, W
Packington, J. S. Wyse, T.
Philips, M. Young, J,
Plumtre, J. P.
Rashleigh, W. TELLERS
Redington, T. N. Fremantle, Sir T
Rundle, J. Pringle.
Tellers for the NOES.
Bernal, Capt. Ward, H. G.

The House resumed on the question that the resolution be reported on Monday.

Mr. Lefray

said, that he had never given a vote with greater pleasure than that which he had just recorded in favour of the resolution; and his pleasure was the greater because he had shared in defeating the unworthy opposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield.

Mr. Ward

said, that he did not mean to impute unworthy motives to any one, and certainly not to the hon. Member for the county of Longford; but he could not help noticing that the hon. Member for Kent, who voted against the grant on the last division, had not refused to support it to-night. He was perfectly satisfied with the result of the division, if for no other reason than the satisfaction it had given him of seeing the hon. Member for Kent recording his vote in favour of the grant. He only regretted that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, had been cautious enough to walk out of the House before the division took place.

Mr. Plumper

said, that the only reason why he voted in favour of the grant tonight was, because he was determined not to be driven to adopt the course which the hon. Gentleman opposite wished him to take. In order, however, to maintain his consistency, he begged to give notice that he would oppose the grant on the bringing up of the report.

Captain Bernal

said, that he had consented to act as teller because he had been determined to show up to the country the inconsistent conduct of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Viscount sandon

All that I will say is, that it was a very bad joke, and, like all practical jokes, will not raise the character of those who practised it. The absence of their leader has, I suppose, caused hon. Gentlemen opposite to play these pranks.

Sergeant Murphy

thought that the extraordinary difference of opinion which had been exhibited between two Members of the Government was also to be attributed to the absence of their Lord and master.

Resolutions to be reported on Monday.

House adjourned at three o'clock.