HC Deb 30 June 1845 vol 81 cc1350-92

Order of the Day read. On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

Mr. W. Smith O'Brien

said, if he had thought there would have been any chance of success, he should have been prepared to submit a series of Resolutions before the Speaker left the chair; but he was so convinced that his labour would have been in vain, that he should best consult the convenience of the House by taking that opportunity of stating generally his objection to the Bill then under consideration. Ireland had presented a picture of misery which had no parallel in this or any other country, and yet another Session was permitted to pass without any effort for improving the material condition of the Irish people. He was not on that account, however, disposed to overlook the importance of providing for their mental improvement. He tendered the Government his sincere thanks for the progress which they had already made in this matter; but when it was said that 400,000 children had been provided with the means of education by the national schools, it must be remembered that there were from 1,020,000 to 1,050,000 who ought to be at school. With reference to the proposed Bill, his great complaint was, that there was no provision for religious education; and the Irish were essentially a religious people. A memorial from the Catholic prelates stated that they thought there ought to be a chaplain, with a suitable salary, in each of the Colleges, who should be recommended by the Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese, and should be removable by him. The Government were afraid to concede this point, inasmuch as they would have to encounter the outcry of the million and a half who had petitioned against Maynooth. The prelates also demanded for all Roman Catholic students protection from interference with their religious opinions; and it was natural that they should make such a demand, as there was not one Roman Catholic connected with any superior department of the Government in Ireland. The proportion of Catholics in the districts where the Colleges were to be established, as compared with Protestants, was nearly ten to one. The Roman Catholic prelates demanded that Roman Catholic tutors should be provided for instruction in history, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, and anatomy. History, it was well known, was generally tinged with the views of those who wrote it. The whole system of moral philosophy was constructed under the Roman Catholic system upon entirely a different basis, and it was therefore not unnatural that the Roman Catholic hierarchy should include moral philosophy. As to anatomy and geology, he did not see what difference should arise between Catholics and Protestants; but at the same time it was quite right that both should be secured from infidel views; and therefore he was prepared to give his full support to the memorial of the Catholic prelates. He did not mean to attribute improper motives to the Government; but if the measure had been framed expressly for party purposes, it could not have been more effectually moulded for such an object than it was. Could there be a doubt but that when a vacancy might occur in any of the professorships of these Colleges, the Government of the day would find a large number of its supporters in Parliament pressing upon it the claim of some candidate for the vacancy, who would perhaps be found to be more distinguished for his political tone, than for scientific or literary acquirements? The right hon. Baronet told them, indeed, that he reserved to Parliament the power of considering the question of the appointment of professors at the end of three years. That was said to be a great concession; but it was obvious that the Parliament had the same power in the matter in 1845 as it would have in 1848; but as the Bill provided that if Parliament failed to provide any mode of appointment to the professorships, the appointments would remain with the Government, it was only necessary for the Government not to bring forward any measure on the subject to ensure the continuance of the power in their own hands. The question of the best mode of appointing the professors in the first instance, was a subject of discussion; but of all the various modes suggested, that contained in the Bill was, he thought, decidedly the worst. The course which he would wish to recommend was, that a number of eminent men—a majority of whom, he would say, ought to be Roman Catholics—should be named in the Bill as a board, empowered to recommend to the Government the persons who ought to be appointed to the professorships. He confessed he was himself favourable to the principle of open competition, as being essentially necessary to insure proper appointments. But with respect to future appointments, the suggestion of Dr. Brice, of Belfast, a gentleman of great experience and ability, ought not, he thought, to be lost sight of. It was, that the Senatus Academicus, subject to such control as would be necessary to prevent religious difficulties from arising, should have the power of recommending, after public examination, those who should be appointed to the professorships. The right hon. Baronet held out some promises that visitors would be appointed to the Colleges, who would give satisfaction to the majority of the people of Ireland; but if such were the intention of Government, he could not understand why the visitors, for the functionaries who would ex-officio be visitors, should not be named in the Bill. Supposing, for instance, it were desirable that the Roman Catholic and Protestant archbishops of Dublin should be two of the visitors, why not insert a provision to that effect in the Bill? Unless they did so, there would be no security hereafter that the scruples of the people would be respected in this particular. Again, they had a promise that these Colleges would be constituted into a University; but why should not the framework of such University be provided in the Bill? He could not leave that portion of the subject without taking the opportunity of expressing his opinion, that there ought to be a measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government for opening the fellowships and scholarships of Trinity College to Roman Catholics. He could not understand why the Roman Catholic gentry and merchants of Dublin should not have the same opportunity of giving a university education to their sons as their Protestant fellow citizens. The Roman Catholics did not desire to invade the quarter of the Dublin University which was required for providing ministers for the Established Church in Ireland. They were quite content that that portion of the College should be maintained as at present; but they, at the same time, demanded that the remaining fellowships should be open to them in common with persons of other persuasions. A proposition had been made as an alternative, in case the Legislature declined interfering with the existing fellowships, namely, that an endowment should be provided in Trinity College, by special grant, for founding new fellowships, which should be open to Roman Catholics as well as to individuals of other religious belief. He had taken the liberty of offering these suggestions to the Cabinet and to the House, not for the purpose of making captious objections, but of stating what were his decided views on this subject. His impression was, that if the Bill passed in its present form, it would prove an utter failure; and he believed that to be the opinion of the great body of the Catholic community of Ireland. They should remember that the Catholic bishops of Ireland, who were unanimous on the subject of the present Bill, were viewed by the Roman Catholic population of Ireland with all the respect to which their piety and religion entitled them; that they enjoyed the perfect confidence—with perhaps a few individual exceptions—of the Irish people; and that their recommendation in respect to this Bill was, therefore, to be regarded as an expression of the opinion of the whole Roman Catholic community of Ireland on this subject. He should have hoped that the House and the Cabinet had had sufficient experience, in the cases of the Charter School and Kildare Place Society Schools, of the folly of attempting to establish any system of instruction among the Irish people in opposition to the views and feelings of their clergy. He warned them, therefore, against going in opposition to the Irish people on this subject. He had some experience of the manner in which that House legislated on Irish questions, without consulting the wishes of the Representatives of the Irish people. The advocates of the system of relief for the Irish poor, asked them for a poor-law of a particular kind, and they gave them one of a totally different character, and which the result showed to be totally unsuited to the wants of the country. Again, they had another instance of this species of legislation in the Irish Tenants' Compensation Bill introduced in the other House of Parliament by Lord Stanley, of which he did not hear a single person connected with Ireland express a word of approbation; and the Government were, he warned them, adopting a precisely similar course with regard to the present Bill.

Sir J. Graham

had hoped, after the full and ample discussion that had taken place on the principle of the Bill, and after the explanations which he had found it necessary to give on the subject on former occasions, especially as the hon. Gentleman had expressed himself favourable to the general objects of the Bill—that they would have been permitted to go into Committee upon it without further debate, and be thus enabled to consider the details of the measure with a view to its amendment. He certainly did not anticipate that many of the alterations which were proposed, would be sustained by reasons sufficiently strong, to induce him to alter the arrangements as they now stood; but he certainly was not prepared to say, that he was predetermined not to consent to any alterations whatever. The hon. Member had made many remarks upon the various details of the measure; but many of the topics embraced in the hon. Member's speech were embodied in notices of Amendments which would be made seriatim when the House went into Committee upon the Bill. Among other points raised in the hon. Member's speech, which would thus be subsequently discussed, were the provisions of the Bill with respect to the appointment of visitors, and another which referred to the application of the endowments of Trinity College. He thought a discussion upon this measure might have been conducted without the introduction of such irrelevant topics as the question of the Irish Poor Law, or the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which was then before the other House of Parliament. On this account, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would excuse his (Sir J. Graham's) not following the hon. Gentleman through all the points which were comprised in the speech he had just delivered. The hon. Gentleman had deprecated the designation of the measure "an act of conciliation." He had no hesitation in saying that this measure was not brought forward by Her Majesty's Government for any such purpose. It was not intended to effect any other object than the avowed one, which was the extension of the benefits of improved education to all classes in Ireland. The hon. Member had also charged the Government with the design of corrupting the minds of the youth of Ireland by this measure. But the hon. Member had admitted that a want of scientific information existed generally in Ireland; and he had also admitted that the measure which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government was calculated to relieve this want. How, then, could it be said that this Bill would produce the evils the hon. Gentleman imputed to it? Its effect would be to disseminate knowledge; and he (Sir James Graham) had so great confidence in the spread of knowledge, as a means of preventing error, that he could conceive no better guarantee that the mind of Ireland would not be corrupted by the Government, than the introduction of a measure such as that then before the House. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he rejoiced that the people of Ireland were a religious people. He felt happy also in being able to agree with the hon. Gentleman in the description he had given. He trusted also that they would continue so; and if he had thought that the present measure had any tendency to weaken that disposition, he would not have introduced it. Government had manifested their wish to preserve this national characteristic unimpaired, by the provision they had introduced for removing the professors, when they were found tampering with the religious creed of the students. It was totally incorrect to say, that religion was excluded by this measure. That was far from being the case. A precaution was, indeed, taken, that the religious opinions of the students should not be tampered with by those to whose care their secular education was entrusted. Government contemplated the foundation of halls, in which religious instruction would be imparted; and visitors would be appointed by the Government, in whom the people of Ireland would put confidence. But, as the principle of the Bill had been already discussed, he should only be wasting the time of the House if he were now to renew that debate He was ready to go into the details of the measure when the House went into Committee. It would then be open to those hon. Members who might approve of other provisions, to bring them forward. And if the Bill should come out of the Committee containing still the clauses to which they objected, they might then oppose it in another stage of its progress through the House. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the memorial which had been presented to the Lord Lieutenant by the Irish prelates against the Bill. Great alterations, however, had been introduced into its provision since that memorial was adopted; and although he felt disposed to pay every respect to the venerable individuals by whom that document was signed, he must nevertheless admit that he did not think it the duty of Parliament to resign to any ecclesiastical authority their discretion in a matter so proper to their functions as that of the secular education of the Irish people.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he should not consider that he discharged his duty if he allowed the Bill to go into Committee without offering a few remarks to the House upon it. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly just in thinking that the House ought not to submit to the dictation of any parties, however respectable or venerable, but they should not forget, at the same time, that their object in legislating ought to be successful. What would their waste of money or their appointment of professors signify, if they afterwards failed in the object which they had in view? His opinion was that they would not succeed if they continued to proceed with the Bill, in opposition to the opinions and advice of the Catholic bishops. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Bill had been much altered since the Catholic prelates had expressed their opinion upon it; but he (Mr. O'Connell) believed he had authentic evidence that these alterations had made no change whatever in their views regarding the Bill. The following was a letter which he had received within the last few days on the subject:—

"Maynooth College, June 26, 1845.

"My dear Mr. O'Connell—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your kind and respected communication. Though my reply has been somewhat tardy, it is most consolatory to me to be able to convey to you, that the sentiments of the bishops relative to the dangers to faith and morals with which the Collegiate Education Bill is fraught, remain unaltered. It has been reprobated in such terms as became the divinely constituted guardians of the faith and morality of their respective flocks to apply to it. However, though some of the prelates were of opinion that a petition to Parliament, framed on the model of the memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, would aid much in averting the threatened calamity; others thought it not right to encounter once more contemptuous disregard of the just requisitions of the Catholic prelates of Ireland.

"You can, however, with a confidence fearless of contradiction, state, that the Resolutions of the bishops regarding this had scheme of academic education remain in full force, and that no Ministry can ever hope to render tolerable to the Catholic people of Ireland so penal and revolting an enactment.

"You have full liberty to make any use you may think proper of this communication. Wishing you and your faithful adherents all your wonted energy and success in combating this Anti-Catholic measure, I remain, my dear Mr. O'Connell, your very respectful and devoted,


"Daniel O'Connell, Esq., M.P., London."

That was the opinion regarding the measure of the archbishop of Tuam. It showed that he still considered the Bill to be one which would hold out temptations to youth to neglect the duty which they owed to the principles of their religion; and though describing it as a "penal and revolting enactment," might be considered in that House as too strong a condemnation of the measure, it was in itself evidence of the feelings which were entertained in Ireland respecting it. The object of the Government in introducing the Bill was to be successful; but they could not expect success if they met with the decided opposition of the clergy of two-thirds of the Irish people—of that portion, too, of the people who required additional facilities for education most, and to whom, if properly administered, it would prove most valuable. His objection to the Bill was, that it was an irreligious one—that it provided no means of instruction in religion—and in this point, he did not think it had been improved by the alterations that had been made in it, since, in its first introduction originally, it left religion out of the question altogether. The principal object of human life was in it totally disregarded. They now came forward with a Bill in which they condescended to tolerate religion. They were kind enough to permit religion to be taught, but that was all. Now, he did not really think that to be any great concession. If the Catholic people of Ireland thought fit to erect a hall in a town in which one of these Colleges was situated, the Government would allow of its existence. But what law was now in force that could prevent the Catholics from founding such an establishment? They did not open any law or confer any benefit not already enjoyed by this Bill; but they made—to use the words of the archbishop of Tuam—a penal enactment. They gave dictatorial powers to their visitors over these halls, while they did nothing towards the founding of them. In a recent case heard before Lord Chancellor Sugden, it was decided that there is no law in existence limiting the power of establishing female convents and places of education for the Catholic people of Ireland. The Legislature, therefore, in passing this measure, did nothing affirmatively, but they did something negatively. They would thus, by their proceeding, which he had no doubt was well-intentioned, excite jealousies and religious animosities amongst all classes in Ireland. They had already the animating distinction in existence in that country. They had that "darkness," to use the term employed by the right hon. Baronet, in which error and bad feeling might be most easily propagated; but they refused to remove it by giving the genuine light of religious education to the people — of religious education to Protestants—religious education to Catholics—religious education to Presbyterians. They would promote the charity of the common Christianity of all by giving such religious education; whereas by turning religion out of their Colleges, or making its existence in them merely permissive, they held back from the children the advantages of Christian truth—leaving matters in their original darkness, and instead of advancing their own views, on the contrary defeated them. Then again it should be recollected that the Protestants of Ireland were the most wealthy class; and if the Bill merely gave permission to build halls, was it not probable that three, four, or five Protestant halls would be erected for one Catholic hall? If they wished, instead of allowing wealth to triumph over religious poverty, they should take the subject of providing for religious instruction into their own hands, and thus place all religious persuasions on a footing of perfect equality. It was not his intention, however, to divide the House at that stage of the Bill. He would find it to be his duty to press for a division on one of the early clauses, and having done so, he would consider that he had performed his duty against it. He would do so, not with any hope of success, but in order to protest against its provisions — to protest against it for giving merely a kind of left-handed permission, but no real assistance whatever to the best and most important branch of education—the religious education of the Irish people.

Lord J. Russell

said, that various Amendments had been proposed or suggested in the progress of the measure; but certainly the subject to which the hon. and learned Member for Cork had alluded was one that ought not to be overlooked. He considered that matter to be of the greatest importance, especially after they had the authority of a Roman Catholic archbishop for calling the measure as it now stood a penal and revolting enactment. These were certainly strong phrases, which might perhaps not have been used by all the members of that body; but it should not be forgotten that the Bill was described as being dangerous to the faith and morals of youth, and that these words had been adopted generally by the Roman Catholic prelates. [Mr. O'Connell: Adopted unanimously.] He very much feared that unless they made the Bill more acceptable to the Roman Catholic bishops, they could not hope to be successful. He would wish to propose Amendments, or to aid in carrying the Amendments of others; but if, after these Amendments had been adopted or rejected, the Bill on coming out of Committee was still found to receive the stigma of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he was of opinion that it would be better really not to send it to Ireland at all. At another time, or with different views, such a measure might be found more useful, and made to work well; whereas at present it might be found actually injurious. There was one part of the Bill especially which he would wish to see amended, namely, the provision for retaining in the hands of the Government the appointment of the professors; for if the Government appointed men opposed to the popular feelings of the country, it would quite negative the object which they had in view. He would not say more at the present stage of the Bill.

House in Committee.

On the 1st Clause being read,

Lord J. Russell

said, he had an Amendment to propose in the seventeenth line, to the effect that these words be inserted, "including the building of the halls hereinafter mentioned." He had also to move the omission of the words "not exceeding the sum of 33,333l. 6s. 8d. for each such College" from the eighteenth line. He considered the omission of these words necessary, because it might be found advisable to expend a larger proportion of the 100,000l. in the erection of one College than of another.

Sir J. Graham

said, he could not consent to the proposal of the noble Lord, as he thought it to be decidedly at variance with the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Wyse

thought that the adoption of the Amendment would greatly facilitate the success of the measure, and at the same time would not alter the principle of it.

Sir R. Peel

The scheme originally proposed by the hon. Member for Waterford was to make the contributions of Government for religious instruction greatly dependent upon local assistance. The hon. Gentleman took, as the very basis of all such aid upon the part of the Government, the contributions which were to be raised by the grand juries and others upon whom the obligation of rendering that assistance was placed. We have gone beyond the hon. Gentleman. We have proposed that the whole sum of 100,000l. should come from the public fund, without having regard to any contribution such as that referred to by the hon. Member's plan. We propose, however, to expend that sum upon buildings which we desire should be erected of a character worthy of the purposes for which they will be raised. The money appropriated to each College we propose to expend upon the erection of a House for the Principal, for lecture rooms, and other buildings. Whatever amount is appropriated to the building of halls must necessarily, therefore, diminish in the same proportion the funds proposed to be allotted to the purposes I have just enumerated. In carrying into effect this design, we have called for no local contributions; the entire sum we have provided from the public funds. We are fully alive to the importance of uniting religious education with secular; but we do consider that it is better that Government should confine its assistance to the latter, and, with respect to the former, rely upon the aid of those parties in Ireland who are interested in rendering that assistance. I do hope that these parties will render their aid. Such is the principle of the Bill, and the more we deviate from it, the more I do believe we are likely to be entangled. Now, supposing Government were to erect these halls, with whom would the control rest? One chief advantage from the plan we have adopted is, that it will vest that control in the individuals furnishing the endowments. With regard to the design of Government, I think we may refer to the way in which we have acted, as well in reference to the Irish Bequests Act, as also in regard to this Maynooth Endowment Bill. It surely is but reasonable to expect that a suitable provision will be made for religious instruction by the large bodies of Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland. We are willing to advance the original sum. If I were a Roman Catholic, I would rather keep the religious education of these halls under the control of their founders, than ask the Government to assist them by money. Upon these grounds I am induced to prefer the original principle of the Bill to that now recommended by the noble Lord.

Mr. V. Smith

supported the Amendment of his noble Friend. The professorial system which they were about to establish would not answer in Ireland. It scarcely succeeded in the English Universities, where the degrees were not taken by gentlemen until the students were of an age from twenty to twenty-two; but these Irish Colleges were intended for the middle classes. [Sir J. Graham: Not exclusively.] Not perhaps exclusively, but principally; and for the boys of that class, who would leave the Colleges at seventeen or eighteen, the professorial system was not at all suited. The right hon. Baronet had opposed the Motion of his noble Friend upon the ground that he would not interfere with these halls; but by the 17th Clause it would be seen that the Bill already interfered with them. He begged to support the Motion of his noble Friend.

Mr. Shaw

said, he saw that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had notice of another Amendment to Clause 12—the Endowment clause—proposing to add the word "chaplains" before the other officers endowed by that clause, that seemed to him (Mr. Shaw) intimately connected with the present Amendment. For if you put the halls in which the pupils were to reside, under the charge of the State, along with the Colleges themselves, and thus give the character of a domestic system to the institutions, domiciling the pupils there—then, indeed, it would be impossible to omit religious instruction as an essential part of the education to be imparted. And chaplains of the different persuasions must be appointed; that would open the whole question of endowment by the State of professors of creeds adverse to the Established religion, to which he (Mr. Shaw) had, throughout, objected; it would change the whole principle on which the Bill was founded; and to which—as the best that, under the difficult circumstances of Ireland, could be practically adopted — he (Mr. Shaw) had assented. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord.

Lord J. Russell

said, that he did not assent to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that the two clauses must be taken together; but he was willing to explain his intention to the Committee. But, first, what was the proposal of the Government? Their original measure had been to provide secular instruction, and to take no notice whatever of religious instruction; but this had subsequently been altered, and by the clause affecting the management of the halls, the Government had interfered with the religious instruction of the students. He had only gone a little further than this, and proposed that there should be a State endowment for these halls. Having voted for the Maynooth Bill, he was quite prepared to vote for religious instruction to the Roman Catholics. The Government having carried that measure, seemed now ashamed of their principle. That the Roman Catholics should be educated, he was quite prepared to say. Whether Trinity College, Dublin, now confined to Protestants, ought to be thrown open to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he was not at the moment ready to say; but of this he was quite sure—either that Trinity College must be thrown open, or religious instruction provided for the Roman Catholic youth of Ireland. This, however, was something apart from the present question. That question was, whether the House would not consent to the endowment of these halls? The right hon. Baronet had said that that endowment would reduce the 100,000l.; but he would prefer two Colleges properly established, to three indifferently founded.

Sir J. Graham

said, that the noble Lord had made an unintentional mis-statement in saying that Trinity College was confined to Protestants. This was not so. The education of that College was open to the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland. He disagreed with the argument of the noble Lord, because the principle of the Bill was, that all religious instruction should be voluntary; and though an alteration had been made in the Bill, any attendance on religious lectures was still to be voluntary.

Mr. C. Buller

said, he had hailed with great delight the Bill as it was originally brought in by Her Majesty's Government; he thought it a wise policy to found a liberal system of education in Ireland; but every alteration that had been made in the Bill since its introduction had interfered with its original intention, and had deteriorated the measure. The defect of the plan was, that the Government did not complete it by founding a new University in Ireland. The value of a university education was that it gave degrees, which were useful in after life; and unless those degrees were given, they might depend on it these Colleges would fail to produce their proper effect. He did not support the proposition of the Government as one for giving that scholastic education proper for youths, but as part of a system of university education. They were now trying to graft on the original plan that system of Halls and Colleges which existed in the English and Irish Universities, and no others in Europe. He thought the Scotch system an excellent one, and particularly fitted for a country so divided in religion as Ireland. He did not wish to depreciate the advantages of a religious education; but it was a delusion to suppose that it could be provided by the system pursued at Oxford and Cambridge. The two things were incompatible. The system of compulsory attendance at chapel was anything but conducive to religious feelings. He wished hon. Gentlemen would recollect what had happened to themselves at Oxford and Cambridge, and would speak the truth on this subject. Why, at the Universities the chapel was a perfect roll-call, and the worst of roll-calls; a nobleman, for instance, was required only to attend it on Sundays. He recollected a case in which a gentleman who was found reading a novel in chapel was ordered to attend it morning and evening every day for the rest of the term, instead of being told, as a really religious teacher would have told him, not to come till he was in a better frame of mind. This was what was called the education of a Christian at Cambridge! As to the morals of the Universities, he hardly dared to trust himself to speak; the students had quite their proportion of youthful excesses compared with any of the Universities of Europe. From the way in which the University system of Scotland was spoken of in that House, one would suppose that the Scotch were a nation of Atheists; but he believed they were not the least religious of the people of this country. Were the middle classes in Scotland, who were trained in these Universities, more deficient in religious education than other classes? Without contradiction, they had the general character of being superior in this respect to the rest of their countrymen. But it was supposed, unless students were taught the Greek syntax out of the Greek Testament, they received no religious education. He was a year and a half in the University of Edinburgh, and took his degree at Cambridge; and in Edinburgh there was incomparably more provision made for religious and moral instruction than at Cambridge. He spoke in no unkindness to Cambridge when he said, that, from the time he entered till he quitted it, excepting the compulsory attendance at chapel, he might have been without any instruction in religious doctrine whatever. And, as for morals, if a young man had prudence enough to keep out of the way of the Proctor, he was the only person who had anything to do with them. At Edinburgh he lodged in the house of an excellent clergyman, and thus a much more efficient system of moral and religious instruction was provided for him. In this matter he thought all experience was in favour of the plan proposed, by the Government; it would have been easy to have made it as satisfactory to the people of Ireland as the education of the Universities of Padua and Pavia was to the orthodox Catholics of Lombardy. He was anxious the plan should take effect, as it would be a great boon to Ireland; but he trusted the Government would not, on any consideration, involve the question in those theological animosities which were sure to be excited when the question of the endowment of any particular sect was brought forward. The Government took the right course, when it proposed to give secular and scientific education to Ireland; moral and religious instruction might be left to parents, and those to whom parents might commit the charge. He should support the original Bill against the amendments proposed in it.

Sir R. Inglis

thought it unfair that in the present debate, without any notice, the hon. Member should have brought so many accusations against the two English Universities; but as there would be other opportunities of referring to that point, he should reserve himself till such time as he could give a detailed answer, which he was fully enabled to give, to the allegations of the hon. Member. In one respect, at least, the hon. Member had not profited by the experience which he might have gained; for he was desirous that the House should receive from him a statement, in 1845, of the state of Cambridge at the time he was a member, instead of referring to the state of the University at this time. In answer to the hon. Member's statement, and to the cheers of other hon. Members, he had no hesitation in stating that no improvement in society had been greater or even equal to that which had taken place in these Universities. He could only say that his hon. and learned Friend had been peculiarly favoured during his residence in Edinburgh; and that it was not one out of twenty young men who were so lodged during their academical residence in that city: he had always understood that they were lodged about the town without any moral check whatever. The only question which was under the consideration of the House was the first Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. That Amendment proposed that a portion of the money to be allocated for educational purposes in Ireland should be applied to the erection of halls in connexion with the Colleges to be founded under the Bill. His objection to the Bill was, that so far as it went it took no care for the immortal part of the youth; that so far it did not recognise religion in any terms whatever; that so far as the State of England was to be connected with the Colleges in Ireland, it gave no encouragement to religious education; in fact, not a word was contained in the Bill in regard to religion, which might not be adopted by any State in the world which followed any religious system whatever. Now it was because the proposition of his noble Friend went to provide halls in connexion with the Colleges, in which halls religion might be taught—because it would, as it were, give a standing place in which some religious teaching might take place, though still in his opinion very far from what ought to be, that he thought the Amendment would be an improvement upon the Bill, that he was prepared to give it his support. He could not understand the ground on which the Amendment had been objected to by the Government. It had been intimated that the formation of these halls would imply an interference with them on the part of the Government, and this was considered a sufficient objection to the Amendment. But the Bill as it stood provided for much more interference. By Clause 16 persons desirous of preaching in these Colleges must first obtain a license from the President, who was to be the nominee of the Government, and their license was renewable yearly. He considered that if pious persons, of whatever persuasion, founded the means of religious instruction, they ought to be allowed to do so. No external interference ought to be used to prevent them. The Amendment, he repeated, would be an improvement in the Bill, and therefore he would give it his support if his noble Friend divided the House upon it.

Mr. Bernal

said, if the Government had attempted to make this Bill a religious Bill by the force of compulsion, they would have excited the feelings of the people against them. He, therefore, exhorted them to persevere in the course they had resolved on; and he certainly must regret that any attempt had been made again to raise a religious discussion on this stage of the Bill, and particularly on this Amendment.

Sir R. Peel

said, that no University constitution could afford so effectual a guarantee for the moral education of the people as that which existed in the improved feeling of the people on such subjects, and the greater desire of parents and guardians to see to the moral and religious training of the younger persons under their care. This improved state of the public mind afforded a guarantee which did not exist thirty years ago. With regard to the University with which his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) was connected, he believed it to be quite consistent with true friendship for that institution for him to state, that at the University of Oxford the expense of education was so great as materially to lessen the benefit that might be derived from it. He wished that some system could be adopted which would extend the advantages of academical education at the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to classes which were now excluded on account of the expense. He could not help adding that, in his opinion, the laxity of discipline which prevailed in some of the Colleges, constituted a great objection to the system of education at the Universities. With respect to the question immediately before the House, he must declare that he had such confidence in the solicitude of parents for the welfare of their children, that he could not doubt that they would make the most beneficial regulations for their religious instruction.

Mr. Sheil

said, that a very important principle was involved in the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for the city of London. The Government appeared to think that if they agreed to the Amendment of the noble Lord, and made the concessions which he required, they would thus abandon the ground which they had taken; whilst on the other hand, those who were anxious to make the Bill really useful, thought that such a concession was desirable. The Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland had unanimously repeated the statement of the views which they entertained upon this subject; and they had been supported by every Irish Roman Catholic Member—by every Irish Member at that side of the House. [Mr. Ross: No.] The hon. Member who expressed his dissent represented Belfast, in which there was a College with a provision for religious education of the Presbyterian pupils. That was the mode of instruction adopted in Belfast; and why, he would ask, did the Government exclude religious education from Galway and Cork? He was not disingenuous enough not to admit that if the Government gave 26,000l. to Maynooth, it was only fair that they should provide for the education of the Presbyterian clergy at Belfast; but he would remark that it was not the clergy alone who were enabled to receive religious education at Belfast, as the laity also received it. The future clergyman and the future layman were educated there together. He wished, therefore, that the Government would tell the House, plainly and distinctly, what reason it was which induced them to say that they would not make any provision for religious education in those new Colleges. Let the House be told without any circumlocution, why it was that the Government made no provision of that description. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Bernal) had assigned a reason. He said it was because of the excitement of the people of England; but he (Mr. Sheil) would say that such a course would be no other than governing Ireland in accordance with the prejudices of the people of England. If they feared the prejudices of the people of England, and acted on that fear in this respect, it was not in his (Mr. Sheil's) mind the standard by which the affairs of Ireland ought to be regulated; and he was sure the Prime Minister would agree with him in that proposition. What, then, he would ask, was the reason why no religious education was provided for in those Colleges? If it was good, they ought to give it, and if they thought it bad, why did they allow individuals to receive it from another source? Why did they not do themselves that which they encouraged others to do? They paid Roman Catholic chaplains in military hospitals in Ireland; the Rev. Mr. Paisly attended six barracks in Dublin, the duty being rendered very onerous by the necessity of attending to render religious consolation to the wives and families of the soldiers, and for such duties those chaplains received 60l. a year. He (Mr. Sheil) knew that the Government paid a priest in Templemore for attending the barracks; for he persuaded the hon. Member for Coventry, when he held the office of Secretary at War, to give a salary to a Catholic priest at Templemore for that purpose; they paid the Catholic chaplains for attending barracks, gaols, and workhouses in Ireland; and, in the name of consistency, he would ask, what reason was it which induced them not to pay a Roman Catholic chaplain in places where, in consequence of secular instruction being daily imparted to youth, religious instruction was, on that account, the more peculiarly required. They (the Ministerialists) were constantly intimating their willingness to pay the Catholic priests, and it was constantly hinted that as a settlement of the Catholic Church, that would be an object of paramount importance. In fact, the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated that it was a mistake to say that he had voted with Lord Francis Egerton in 1825, when the proposition was carried by a majority of 43, as he was not then in the House; but he said he should have voted in favour of the payment of the Catholic clergy, if he had been in the House on that occasion. They said that the Catholics did not like that proposition. Be it so: but how was it consistent with those intimations which they had given, that when the Catholic bishops asked them to appoint chaplains to those institutions, they refused the smallest pittance. That was the policy which they had adopted towards Ireland; and if they acted in that manner from fear of the prejudices of the English people, this, instead of being "a message of peace," would but add to the long catalogue of frustrations which had characterized their government of his country.

Viscount Bernard

was ready to admit the great wants of the lower orders in Ireland, but they did not want University education; they wanted industrial education. The lower orders in that country required to be taught the most improved modes of farming, and the manner in which the science of geology might be made available to practical agriculture. He was convinced that education ought to be based on religion, and religion on the sacred Scriptures, for no other would be of real advantage. He was in favour of the Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Devonshire; and he thought that it ought to be extended to Colleges, and that no education ought to be given which was not founded on true religion. Whatever religious concessions were made with respect to Ireland, must stand or fall by their own merits. If they were bad, let them be rejected, and if they were good let them be approved; but let it not be expected that they could, by measures of the description of this Bill, purchase even temporary peace in Ireland. If they wished to make Ireland happy, let them give employment to her people—let them develop her resources—let them employ capital in so doing. That was the way in which to restore peace to Ireland. The real question for them to consider was, how they were to raise the condition of the labouring population of Ireland; for, until they raised the condition of the Irish people, they could not be said to have done anything.

Sir J. Graham

said, before the discussion went further, he thought it right to answer the question addressed to the Government by the right hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil); and before he did so, he would assure the Committee that Her Majesty's Government did not tender the present measure, or any measure, as a panacea for the evils of Ireland. They were decidely of opinion with the noble Lord (Lord Bernard), that although it was a matter of the utmost importance to spread throughout Ireland, and give to all classes in that country the benefits of improved education, yet the peace of Ireland could only be secured by improving the physical condition of the people; if, indeed, by legislation it was possible to effect so difficult an object. But, to return to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it desirable, even in Committee, that they should, as far as possible, stick closely to the subject-matter in debate; but still he agreed with the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that the point about the halls, which they were then discussing, was necessarily and intimately connected with an ulterior Amendment intended to be proposed by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), with respect to the appointment of chaplains, to which the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Sheil's) question more particularly adverted; and he agreed with the reasons assigned by the right hon. Member for the University, that if the State favoured the foundation of halls, and adopted the domestic system of education, as contradistinguished from the professorial system, the State could not fail to give their support to some scheme of religious education intimately connected with the domestic system. This question, therefore, of halls was immediately blended with the consideration of the question of the appointment of chaplains. Now the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) appealed to the Government, and asked them to let him know distinctly their objection to the appointment of chaplains to be paid by the State. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to put that question, and he agreed with him in the opinion he expressed, that if Ireland was to be governed in servile obedience to the strong religious feelings of the people of this country, as opposed to the Roman Catholic religion, he did not think Ireland could be so governed, on principles consistent with her happiness and peace. That was his (Sir J. Graham's) decided feeling—a feeling in which he was fortified by the firm support which he, together with his Colleagues in the Government, had recently received on the Maynooth measure, which, he must own, ran counter to the feelings—he would not say the prejudices—of a considerable portion of the Protestant population of this country. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had said concerning himself (Sir J. Graham) personally on this subject, he was quite right. He (Sir J. Graham) was not present in Parliament, it so happened, in the year 1825. He, therefore, was not compromised by any vote given on the subject of the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy, and he might have reserved his private opinions on that matter. But gratuitously, and wishing, with regard to all the circumstances of Ireland, to state frankly his own opinions and feelings, he had certainly stated that he should have no scruple upon religious grounds, or with reference to any individual feeling, to support such a grant if it were proposed. It was, therefore, quite clear, that in objecting to the appointment of chaplains, he was not disposed to be swayed by any consideration such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred—namely, servile submission to what the right hon. Gentleman would term the prejudiced feelings of the Protestant population of either England or Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman asked them why he (Sir J. Graham) was not prepared to support the appointment of chaplains to those Colleges? He (Sir J. Graham) stated distinctly that he thought such an appointment would destroy every hope of the usefulness of those institutions. One of two things must be done. If they were to give religious instruction in those Colleges in Ireland, they must attempt either united religious instruction, or separate religious instruction; if united, they must then do that to which, on religious grounds, he had insuperable objections. They must, notwithstanding the differences—he did not call them fundamental, but important differences in matters of doctrine of the Christian faith—establish a scheme of amalgamated religious instruction which would dilute all those religious principles, and sink all these differences, even on cardinal points of essential importance; and by such dilution administer religious instruction in a manner most imperfect and unfavourable, and which could only lead to scepticism. Such an alteration in the measure must inevitably lead to that end. It was his intention to deal frankly with the matter. He saw no use in making any concealment respecting it. He had stated that this collegiate plan was very much founded upon the national system of education. He had stated also what was quite true, that joint religious instruction was not necessarily a condition of that scheme of education. It was admitted, but it was not enjoined, and if he were to point to what he really believed to be one of the greatest objections, honest objections, on the part of the Protestant clergy, and a portion of the Protestant laity, to that scheme of national education, he believed it was the admission of that attempt to promote joint religious education. He believed that was the fundamental ground of their objections to it. They would object infinitely less to a complete scheme of secular education, from which all attempts at religious instruction would be excluded. He said, then, that even judging from experience with reference to that particular measure upon which this proposition was mainly based, the clergy would prefer going the whole length of excluding from the collegiate scheme any attempt at religious instruction whatever. He had contemplated only the proposition of a united scheme of religious instruction. There remained only the opposite scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman would seek to introduce, in conformity with the Amendment of the noble Lord—namely, a scheme of separate religious education. Now, it was of the last importance—it was the groundwork of the proposition, that in these new Colleges Protestant and Roman Catholic should be submitted to the discipline of one united scheme of education, with the hope, the expectation, that it would mitigate religious antipathies, and lay at rest hostile feelings amongst the youthful community in Ireland. Now, he thought if they admitted the propriety of appointing even in the south of Ireland a Roman Catholic chaplain for the Roman Catholic students, in common justice, and consistently even with the equality desired by the right hon. Gentleman, they must appoint a Protestant chaplain for the Protestant students; and a Presbyterian chaplain for the Presbyterian students; and if there were any Unitarian students, a Unitarian chaplain. Nay, he knew not if there were any Jews at those Colleges, whether it would not be their duty, acting on this principle, to appoint a Rabbi as their religious pastor. Nay, they should not only, in acting upon that principle, pay the chaplains of the different creeds, but they should also build and maintain separate places of worship for each. He conceived that in such a state of things, so far from mixed education succeeding in softening religious differences, an opposite effect would be produced; it would be chaos worse confounded, and, instead of mitigating religious animosities by the adoption of such a course, the most certain and inevitable effect of it would be to increase and aggravate them an hundred-fold. He had, without concealment, frankly stated to the right hon. Gentleman what were his objections to the proposal. He conceived it to be directly opposed to the principle of the Bill; but that was a minor objection, because the Bill might be rejected. However, not only was it opposed to the principle of the Bill, but also he was of opinion, that if religious instruction was their object, it was unsound in principle, and would be fatal in effect, and a more impolitic proposal, with all due deference to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he could not conceive.

Mr. Ross

said, that the feelings of his constituents were divided upon this measure. Several respectable Roman Catholics signed a petition which he presented from Belfast in favour of the Bill; but he believed that the great body of the Roman Catholics followed in the train of their prelates. He had been denounced by she hon. and learned Member for Cork, because he was not, in the first place, a Repealer; and in the second place, because he said that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not represent the mass of the educated and middle classes in Ireland on the subject. He had stated that as his honest opinion, and for that he was denounced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the habit of denouncing others, in no very handsome terms. He might lose his seat in that House; but he was ready to lose it rather than give up his honour and his independence. He did not think that anything wiser, or better, or more adapted to the circumstances of Ireland, could be devised by any Government than the present measure.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he had never been more astonished than by an attack made on him by the hon. Member for Belfast on a former occasion. The report of the hon. Member's speech had, however, no sooner reached Ireland than the hon. Member stated, as indeed, he subsequently mentioned to him (Mr. O'Connell) personally, that the report of what fell from him was not accurately given. All that he (Mr. O'Connell) had said in reply to the hon. Member was, that the hon. Member had shown himself no great witch in his knowledge of public opinion in Ireland. He had made use of no harsher terms.

Mr. Ross

said, it was perfectly true that he denied the accuracy of the observations attributed to him; but there had been no retractation of what fell from the hon. Member for Cork, or of the attack made on him by the public press.

Mr. O'Connell

said, he was not responsible for the press. Nothing harsher than what he stated fell from him in reference to the hon. Gentleman.

Viscount Clive

said, that as a great number of pupils must reside at these boarding-houses, and it was important that a sufficiency of them should be provided, he would vote in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Lefroy

could not support the present proposition as a resting place for religion, without going further, and requiring the endowment of chaplains. If, however, Her Majesty's Government were to take a step in support of particular religious views, they would be opposed by many who now supported the measure as it stood.

Mr. Bellew

said, that under all the circumstances of the case, and considering the great importance of providing increased means of education, the Bill would be received in Ireland as the best plan of mixed education that could be brought into operation.

Mr. Roebuck

said, in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Shell), that they could not expect to govern Ireland well, by positively creating any ill feeling in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked, why not endow religious bodies in these Colleges? He would not have such bodies endowed, because he did not think that so doing afforded the best system of education which the circumstances of the whole country would permit. The Amendment of the noble Lord went to the very essence of the question. It introduced, or sought to introduce, a totally new system of education in place of that proposed by the Government. He was astonished to hear some hon. Gentlemen call the Government proposition a "godless" system of education. It had been said that the Irish were essentially a religious people. When the term "godless" was applied to the system proposed by the Government, it was understood by them, if such was not in reality what was intended to be communicated, that there was something in this system which would prevent the people from being religious. This was an unfair way in which to represent the system. The Bill provided a certain sum of money for the erection of certain buildings; it then, in the 17th Clause, enacted and gave power to individuals to erect halls in the proposed Colleges. For what purpose were these halls to be built? The Amendment of the noble Lord went to this, that when private persons contributed money for these halls, the Government should step in, and by advancing a further sum, enable them to be erected and established. This was only a proposed application to private views of public money. He could not hesitate for a moment as to his vote on that occasion; nor was he at all, in reference to this matter, fettered by his vote for the increased grant to Maynooth. He voted for the College of Maynooth on a totally distinct set of principles from the principles upon which he was called upon to support this Amendment. He voted for that College in spite of its religion, and not in consequence of it. He found certain circumstances to exist in the condition of Ireland which called upon the Government to interfere for the instruction of the pastors of the people. This, however, was a distinct and separate consideration. Here he had to administer education to the great body of the people. If, indeed, the whole country, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, were happily of one faith, there would be no difficulty in the way. But differences of creed had sprung up, would increase, and they could not diminish them; they could not well control them, and it was particularly impossible for them to educate all of them. Being, therefore, unable to educate all of them, the necessary and honest conclusion was, that they could not interfere in this great question; that they should confer such education upon the people as they could, without militating against the communication of religious instruction which each sect might choose to impart to those within its pale. They should allow, and proposed so to do, each sect to teach religion within the College which they sought to erect. Private liberality might endow religious foundations if it wished, and the Government would not interfere. The Government, therefore, could not be accused of bringing forward an irreligious and godless system of education. They had pursued a wise and a bold course—they had dared to face many strong prejudices, as he would call them, in this country, and which, if not impelled by a paramount sense of duty, they might well have avoided, and thereby gained for themselves a fleeting applause. Instead of yielding to those prejudices, and seeking this applause, they placed the good of the country above every other consideration; and had, in bringing forward this matter, introduced that which was a bold, and which, he would venture to predict, would yet prove a beneficial measure.

Lord J. Russell

thought that the present discussion had gone far beyond the Amendment itself, and had extended to the principle of the Bill; and, in endeavouring to defend the Amendment, he could not altogether avoid touching upon the general argument. He did not at all wonder at the support which the hon. and learned Member for Bath gave to this clause and to the Bill generally. The hon. and learned Gentleman had always contended that it was wise for the State to give secular education; that secular education should be given in common; but that, as there were so many religious differences in this country, that it would be unfair and unjust to single out one, one only, to be favoured by the State; and as it would be impolitic, if not impossible, to provide for all, it was, therefore wise to neglect religious instruction altogether, and to leave such entirely in the hands of the parents and guardians of the young men to be educated. He (Lord John Russell) must say, that the Bill of the Government tallied in all its provisions with the opinions and predilections of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought that the principle advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman went at once to the destruction of endowments for religious purposes. It went to the destruction of religious Establishments. He would say the same as to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman thought that it would be unjust to favour one sect only in the proposed Colleges, and that if they attempted to provide for all, they would be involved in the greatest confusion. These were the arguments always used by the advocates of the voluntary system. It was new to him to hear arguments of that nature from the Treasury Bench—arguments which went to the root of all religious Establishments. The object of his Amendment was of a more limited character than the right hon. Gentleman chose to assign to it. His Amendment would operate in this way:—The Government having the power, but not being under the obligation, to build halls, would undertake, when they were about to build a College at Cork, Galway, or Limerick, to inquire what was likely to be the endowment which would be contributed for the halls; and, having ascertained that it was the wish both of Roman Catholics and Protestants that there should be these halls, that the Government should then say that they were ready to contribute in their erection, not only by advance or loan, but likewise by grant of part of the cost of erection, which they would be empowered to do by another part of the Bill. The Amendment went, to some extent, to the promotion of religious as well as secular education. If the Committee rejected it, because such was its tendency, because the probability was, that religious education would be furthered by it, it would, of course, reject any proposition for the nomination of chaplains. If all the amendments which he was ready to propose were adopted, the Bill would be materially altered. It would, however, be altered for the better, and would be more in harmony with the people of Ireland. With regard to Trinity College, he had seen some time ago an advertisement for a Professor of Chemistry, which was open to the competition of every one who, amongst other qualifications, was a Protestant. This was extremely exclusive. With regard to such professorships, there should be no such religious tests. The provision which excluded Roman Catholics from such professorships was a bigoted and an exclusive provision. Maintaining such a system in Trinity College, he did not know how they could defend the present constitution of the Bill. If the Committee refused to adopt this Amendment, he would not think of pressing that which referred to the nomination of chaplains.

Mr. Sharman Crawford

said, that he felt jealous of the interference, on the part of the clergy of any persuasion, with secular education. He was opposed to the clergy of his own Church doing so, and would never consent that the clergy of other denominations should have the power of interference. He would oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord.

The Committee divided on the Question, that the words be inserted:—Ayes 42; Noes 117: Majority 75.

Clause agreed to.

Upon Clause 10,

Mr. Wyse

moved as an Amendment— That on any future vacancy occurring in the Professorships of the intended Colleges, such vacancy be filled up by such candidate as, after due public examination before competent examiners, hereafter to be appointed, shall be declared by them (being otherwise qualified by character and conduct) to be the most competent to discharge the duties of such Professorships. He referred to the course pursued in Trinity College, Dublin, with respect to the fellowships in that University. The examination was public, carried on for four days together, each day's examination lasting four hours. There was the greatest competition, and the best evidence was afforded of the competency of the individuals chosen. He admitted that a difficulty might occur, where a person of distinguished character might offer himself for a professorship. An examination might be made to depend upon the discretion of the governing body; but the certain efficiency of the Bill would depend upon the constitution of the body of visitors, and the manner in which they exercised their powers. Admitting them to be what he desired they should be, they might leave to them dispensing powers, in particular cases. They ought to hold out to the students in the College an inducement to devote themselves to science, and to let them know that by their own exertions, and merely by standing the test of a public examination, they might become professors. At present he was reduced to the necessity of vesting the choice of the examiners in the teaching body, under the control of the visitors. If he regarded this plan as a whole, he should, as he had stated before, oppose it; but regarding it as a part of a whole, he considered it as a step in the right direction.

Mr. Smith O'Brien

suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment, and move it as a distinct proposition.

Sir R. Peel

said: I think it desirable that we should treat each question separately, and that we should consider each proposition on its separate merits. I do not think it advisable that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions should be mixed up with that of the hon. Member for Limerick, or that of the noble Lord. It does not appear to me that there is any material difference, in point of principle, between the opinions of the Government and those of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the particular points which he has urged. We do not dispute that it may be desirable to merge those Colleges into one, and to establish a University. I think that this is a question which we are not even called upon to discuss. I think that the question is premature. We agree in thinking that it is desirable that hereafter these Colleges shall be made into an University, and that that University shall, as of course, have the power of granting degrees. However, in whatever manner it may be advisable hereafter to appoint the professors, I think it advisable that, between the interval that must elapse between the establishment of those Colleges and the establishment of a University, it is desirable that the Crown should possess the power of appointment. But whilst the Government ask that, in the beginning, the Crown shall reserve to itself this power of appointment, there is nothing to deprive the Crown from getting the best assistance to enable them to decide upon the efficiency and suitableness of the persons to be appointed. Nothing is to prevent the Crown from availing itself of the best assistance, in taking the best means, to make the most useful appointments. Now, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the success of these institutions may, in a great degree, depend on the appointment of the Board of Visitors. But, surely, every confidence might be placed in the Government on this point. What object could they have in securing any paltry political advantage, compared with the advantage of establishing a good system of academical education in Ireland? I think that no one can doubt that it must be more the interest of the Government to establish a good system of academical education, than to gain any paltry advantage. I think it is quite plain that the object the Government must have in view is the establishment of a good system of academical education in Ireland. Now, I should object to the establishment of such a rule as the hon. Gentleman proposed for fellowships. Now, I doubt whether men of the greatest eminence in science would, if you opened the competition in the way proposed, be inclined to avail themselves of the opportunity of that competition in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I think, at the same time, that if the rule in appointing to those situations must either be by public competition, or by reserving a power to except some persons from that competition, the effect can only be to lead to the notion of favouritism. Supposing that you exempt one man who is very eminent from public competition, whilst you subject another man to it, the consequence must be to lead to the notion of favouritism, and to give the party so preferred an undue influence. I hope, hereafter, that those institutions will supply their own professors. I hope that those young men who will be educated in those Universities will be able to supply those Universities hereafter with professors. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member, I doubt whether there is any material difference in point of principle with respect to this question between him and the Government. The Government admit that, after those institutions are established, they are willing to look forward to the earliest period to have them connected with an University. The Government even named (as we understood) 1848, when it might be desirable to establish an University in connexion with those Colleges. However, in the first instance, with respect to those appointments, on account of religious suspicions, mere intellectual acquirements would not be a sufficient recommendation. I think, therefore, that those appointments should be exercised with the greatest care to make them satisfactory. I think also that the next thing to be considered is to appoint such men of eminence as will give the best security of producing public confidence. Upon the whole, not differing widely from the principles which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, I think it should be left to the Crown to exercise its best discretion with respect to those appointments in the first instance — not doubting but that the Crown will be most desirous so to act as to endeavour to secure the success of those institutions.

Viscount Ebrington

was not willing to place any unnecessary confidence in the Government on a question of this kind. He thought that it was most desirable that the House of Commons should strictly limit their appointment to those situations. Let the House remember the course the present Government had pursued with respect to the appointments in the Church in Ireland. They had appointed to bishoprics in Ireland some of those who had shown the most decided enmity to the national system of education. He could place no confidence in the Government with respect to this matter; and thought that their power of making those appointments ought to be restricted.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that he had intended to take the opinion of the House on this clause, if he had not been anticipated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford, and he thought that it would be better if the hon. Member brought in his Amendment as a specific clause. He wished, at all events, to call the attention of the House to the immense power conferred on the Government by this clause. He fully concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that instead of giving the Government unlimited power in these appointments, they ought to fetter their discretion as much as possible. He thought that this was the only chance of gaining credit and confidence for the Bill. It was the duty of the House to keep as close a watch as possible to limit the power of the Government on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had a little while ago boasted of the success of the Charitable Bequests Bill. Now, he (Mr. O'Connell) denied that the success of the measure was so great as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated. The only chance of success the measure had was from the expectation that it would be amended during the present Session of Parliament. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that the success of that Bill depended entirely on the fact whether it would be amended in the present Session or not. Now, let him call their attention to the power which this clause gave. It gave the Government the power of appointment to every situation, and the power of removal. He also objected that in this Bill they had no intimation as to who were to be the visitors to be appointed under it. He thought that in a case of this kind the names of the visitors ought to be inserted in the Bill. He thought that the names and numbers of the visitors should be inserted, with the powers conferred on them. Let them recollect that this Bill had been by the Catholic bishops declared dangerous to the faith and morals of the youth to be educated in those Colleges. This ought to make them more cautious as to the powers which they conferred. The Bill as it now stood even exercised a power of deciding whether a parent should send his child to the guardianship of the person under whom he desired to place him; for the Bill (so we understood) contained a power of withdrawing licenses to boarding houses. He thought the powers conferred by this clause were excessive. Nothing could be more unlimited than the authority conferred by this clause. It was not very well for the Government to talk of what they would do hereafter; but he would ask, since the Government had come into office, had they made one single liberal appointment in Ireland? Had they not appointed to a bishopric a person opposed to the national system of education? Had they not appointed to the judicial bench persons unpopular, and supposed to be hostile to the liberties of the Irish people? Had they not deprived of the Commission of the Peace every magistrate who had concurred in seeking the Repeal of an Act of Parliament? When the proper opportunity came, he intended to move the omission of this clause.

Sir J. Graham

said, that on the part of the Government, he was bound to say that, in allusion to the hon. Member's statement, the Government did not ask for any confidence from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the Government had appointed no Liberal to any situation, but that, on the contrary, they had for preferment selected persons adverse to the national system of education. Now, when an important office became vacant, that of Secretary to the Board of Bequests, although the appointment was vested in the Crown, yet the appointment was left to be made by the Board themselves, and the consequence was, that a gentleman was appointed to the office not agreeing in politics with Her Majesty's Government. Now, with reference to the allusions and objections that had been made; to the 15th and 16th Clauses of this Bill, as restricting the power of parents to send their children to any boarding house they wished, the licensing clause had only been introduced in consequence of the objections of hon. Members opposite, and in order to afford an additional security for the due care and vigilant control of the pupils. The Bill had been originally introduced without those clauses. The object of introducing those Amendments was to protect the morals and good conduct of the young men placed at a distance from their own homes. Now, with respect to what had been urged by the right hon. Member for Waterford, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the instance he had quoted of the mode in which appointments were made at the University of Glasgow. There was no veto on the part of any superior ecclesiastical body, neither was there any veto on the part of the Crown; and as to the concursus, the patronage was conferred in a way different from what the hon. Member supposed. In that University, out of twenty-two professors, a considerable proportion was nominated by the Crown, besides those who were otherwise endowed. Success being their primary object, Government would take the advice of those parties in Ireland who were best qualified to give it. He considered that the highest Catholic ecclesiastic in the locality of the College should be one of the visitors. He might, he thought, be pardoned if he referred to the Amendments which had been proposed by the noble Lord. It had been proposed to substitute the year 1846 for 1848 in this clause; and in default of such alteration being adopted by the House, that the power of appointment should be vested in the governing body of the College. Now, as his hon. Friend had remarked, it would take some time to build these Colleges, and after they were erected, some time would further elapse before the system came fairly into operation. It was his conviction, that the scheme would be imperfect unless the various Colleges came afterwards to be incorporated into one University. If such a plan were to be adopted, then it would be necessary to come to Parliament for a further endowment. If these arrangements were carried out, it would be a question whether the examiners in the University might not have the power of electing the most eligible of those who came before them to fill the vacant professorships in the various Colleges, which might from time to time arise. A veto must be reserved to the Crown, but subject to such veto the selection should be binding on the Crown—neither the noble Lord nor the hon. Gentleman objected to the first presentation being exercised by the Crown. With respect to the plan which had been suggested as to the appointment of the professors, he thought that the election to these offices being vested in the College decidedly objectionable. Local jealousies and local prejudices, it was much to be feared, would come frequently into play, and this would materially injure the character of the institution. The most suitable plan, and one which he believed would work most favourably for the bodies themselves, would be to vest the power of appointment in the University, which would hereafter perhaps be constituted. He trusted the noble Lord would forbear from pressing his Amendment.

Mr. Wyse

rose to explain. He mentioned Glasgow College as an instance of a collegiate body where the appointment of officers was vested in the governing body. He did not intend to cite it as an exemplification of what he had insisted on with regard to the three qualities in his opinion essential for a perfect mode of procedure.

Mr. Warburton

said, that of the three plans which had been proposed, he was decidedly of opinion that that adopted by the Government was the best, and he considered the plan of the noble Lord was the worst. The plan the Government proposed was to vest the appointment in the Crown. The noble Lord wished to give it to the professors in office when the vacancy occurred. He thought this latter plan most objectionable. Physiologists had laid it down that the breeding in and in of animals vitiated the race. And the account they gave of the cause was this— there is always a tendency towards defective organization; and the tendency to exaggerate this defection was increased in proportion as you narrowed the sphere within which the election was made. There was certainly a tendency towards defect in any body of professors; and, therefore, by the process of breeding in and in, as he might term it, a deteriorated class would be found to result. On this account, therefore—all human beings were fallible, even Ministers of the Crown—he preferred the appointment being vested in the Crown, whose Ministers were responsible to Parliament, and more responsible, therefore, than any other body of men. On these accounts, therefore, he hoped Government would keep the appointment in their own hands.

Mr. Fox Maule

took the same view as his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal. He thought, as Government were responsible for the due discharge of their functions to Parliament and the country, it would be better to leave the responsibility of their appointments with them. They could be called to account if they did what was wrong. As regarded, however, the leaving the appointment in the hands of the governing body, he thought no arrangement could be more objectionable. He was very glad to find the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Graham) agree with respect to this principle of election. The right hon. Gentleman once filled the office of Lord Rector of Glasgow University, and when in that capacity was of course one of the governing body. He (Mr. Fox Maule) remembered an anecdote which he would tell the House illustrative of the right hon. Gentleman's past experience in this matter. When the Divinity chair became vacant, Dr. Chalmers was a candidate; and there was also another individual, who, though since a distinguished divine, was at that time an unknown country clergyman. They rejected Dr. Chalmers, with his distinguished reputation, and chose his unknown competitor. That was illustrative of the principle of election by the governing body in a College.

Mr. M. O'Connell

was glad to bring back the House to the grave subject before them, after the jests and anecdotes with which they had been amused by the hon. Members for Kendal and Perth. All parties in Ireland disliked the appointment of the professorships being vested in the Crown. So strong was this feeling, that he felt sure that if two men of equal merits were competitors for a professorship, the success of either would be generally imputed to the effect of political interest. The hon. Members for Kendal and Perth had said that the Government responsibility would prevent any abuse of this power. But where was this responsibility? "Talk about responsibility on the part of the Government in 1845," said the hon. Gentleman, "why the idea is absurd." True, they had their responsibility sometimes examined, and rather severely too, by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. He was not then in his place. But Ministers ever resisted that hon. Gentleman's severe sarcasm and eloquent invective. How could the idea of Ministerial responsibility be entertained by orators of an inferior order, and perhaps in matters of minor moment? The notion of Ministerial responsibility he (Mr. M. O'Connell) pronounced a solemn joke. He should support the expurgation of the clause; and he recommended Government, if they wished to conciliate the people of Ireland, to make this concession.

Mr. Sheil

would take Trinity College as a perfect model, and would recommend it to the attention of Ministers on this occasion. In Trinity College the Crown appointed the Provost; the head was appointed by the Crown. What was the case with respect to the Fellows? That body, which was in the enjoyment of large emoluments and of elevated position, were not elected by the Crown, and they never had been. The benefits they conferred on the University and on the country were chiefly owing to the fair and impartial mode in which they were elected. During his whole collegiate career he had never heard the slightest breath of suspicion against one of their decisions. Their integrity was unimpeachable; but there was an efficient aid to its support—competition ensured purity. There were present, besides the examiners, many spectators during the time the trials were proceeding, and each of them was able to appreciate the accuracy or extent of the information displayed by the minor competitors. A race decided often by such narrow lengths provoked the keenest rivalry; and a proportionate confidence was reposed in the decisions of the judges. Why did not Government follow this example? All the objections which had been urged against the plan which had been suggested, applied with equal force in respect to Trinity College. In this institution competitors were found who actually devoted ten or fifteen years in the most intense study as a preliminary to the struggle for the honours and emoluments they had in view. Carry out this arrangement in the new Colleges, and better results might be expected. It would, besides, open up, he did not doubt, a large class of able men, who, without such a trial, would remain in obscurity. He recommended it also as a means of freeing the Government from the imputation of jobbing, which many would think was their design if they persisted in the present plan of vesting the appointment in the Crown. He had too much respect for many of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite personally, and far too strong a feeling of Parliamentary complaisance, to say outright all that might be passing in his mind with respect to their merits. The right hon. Baronet had referred to their responsibility to Parliament as a guarantee for the fair exercise of their prerogative. "Responsibility," said the right hon. Gentleman, is a favourite term with them. When the Post Office question came under discussion, the right hon. Baronet claimed exemption from scrutiny, on the ground of the responsibility of his office. When you placed Mr. O'Driscoll on the Bench, and made a man a Deputy Lieutenant who had been repeatedly convicted of acts which, in another man, would have been visited with the penalties of the law, you then shielded your conduct under the plenary security, "responsibility of office." The fact is, your excuse is a mere idealism; your appointments in Ireland have been made in defiance of real responsibility. To stations on the Bench and in the Church you have preferred men in utter disregard of all these supposed restraints; and, looking at the mode in which your patronage has been dispensed, it is not such as to conciliate the people of Ireland, nor to warrant their reposing confidence in the responsibility about which you speak.

Mr. Shaw

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil), as well as the hon. Members who had preceded him, had referred to the fellowship examination in Trinity College, Dublin, as a precedent for opening the professorships under the present Bill to public competition. He (Mr. Shaw) entirely concurred in the value and excellence of that system of examination, for the purpose to which it was applied; but there it was the case of young men entering upon life after vast application and acquirement, and having their abilities and knowledge tested by the severest public competition. They were not generally much beyond the age of men taking a first-class degree at Oxford, or becoming senior wranglers at Cambridge; but how different the case of men advanced in years and distinction, and already at the head of their several professions, who could be hardly expected to submit to such public examinations, but, instead, would be driven from that species of competition, and their services lost to the institutions. While upon that point he would correct two erroneous statements that had been made with reference to the senior Fellows of Trinity College: one by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse), that night—in which, however, he had Only followed others—that the incomes of the senior Fellows were above 2,000l. a year; whereas, they were not above 1,200l., with an average of about 300l. arising from other collegiate offices; and, let it be recollected, those were the great prizes of the College, after an average of thirty years spent as junior Fellows, and a long life devoted to the service of the College. The other still greater error was committed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Shell), in saying that the offices of the senior Fellows were sinecures. The answer had been given in his speech by the right hon. Gentleman himself; for he (Mr. Sheil) had stated—and that was in addition to their management as the governing body of the entire discipline and conduct of the University—that the senior Fellows were the examiners in that most arduous of all examinations held annually for fellowships; and he (Mr. Shaw) had himself heard no less a man than Archbishop Magee declare that it took him six months hard reading every year to prepare himself to examine at the fellowship examination. He (Mr. Shaw) would not then discuss the question of Irish appointments with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil); but he could not help observing, in answer to the charge of the noble Lord (Lord Ebrington), against bishops being appointed by the present Government who opposed national education, that none of them opposed it more conscientiously and warmly than an eminent Prelate who had been appointed by the Government with which the noble Lord was connected. He (Mr. Shaw) would feel it uncandid of him to sit down, without saying that while he supported the Government in that Bill, he did not agree with them in supposing that it would afford to the people in Ireland University education, properly so called. He considered that the present University having about 1,400 undergraduates, and supplying, he should say, about 300 annually with degrees, did as much in that way as was wanting, if not more than the learned professions demanded. The new Colleges, he expected, would be useful intermediate places of education, keeping in the country many who ought not to go up to the University at Dublin, and sending on those who were likely to distinguish themselves by their superior learning or ability. The gentry of all creeds, he was persuaded, would still continue to send their sons to Trinity College; and let him again remind the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) that there all the advantages of education were as open to Roman Catholics as to Protestants; and that the governing body and foundation alone were, as they necessarily must be, of the Established Church, having been instituted as a Protestant Ecclesiastical Establishment, endowed as such, and of which characteristic the University of Dublin could not be deprived without a total subversion of the express objects for which it was founded.

Lord J. Russell

thought that the question of the Dublin University required some further examination, because if, as stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), that was the only University to which young men of the highest classes would go, would it be fair that that University should continue to bear its present exclusive character? He was quite as ready as any one to give to the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal all the weight to which it was so justly entitled; but he could scarcely go along with his hon. Friend in imputing to the Government a wisdom of decision little short of infallibility; and he felt the less disposed to subscribe to the doctrine of his hon. Friend when he recollected that the greater part of the appointments made by the present Ministers in Ireland had been made in favour of a class of politicians who took the narrowest possible view of the principles upon which Ireland ought to be governed. The present advisers of the Crown had placed on the bench of justice, and on the bench of bishops, men who were well known to entertain the most bigoted sentiments with regard to their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen; and there was the less excuse for this when such men were to be found as Bishop Sandys and Bishop Dickenson. They were men favourable to the system of national education; but they were at the same time men of acknowledged learning and piety. Many such were to be found in Ireland; and a Government which professed itself favourable to national education ought to give a preference in their appointments to those whose opinions coincided with their own. As to the Amendment, he should vote in favour of leaving out the words proposed to be left out; and with respect to the words which his hon. Friend proposed to introduce, they might be made the subject of further consideration.

Lord J. Manners

said, that as the House had decided to proceed with the Bill, it only remained for those who objected to such a measure to use their best endeavours for the purpose of making it as little objectionable as possible. They were called upon to consider and decide whether the proposition of the Government or the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Waterford ought to be preferred. For his part, he was decidedly adverse to leaving these appointments in the hands of a majority of that House. He drew a broad distinction between that which gave power to the Crown to be exercised by the Queen, and that which gave power to the Ministers, who, in effect, were appointed by a majority of the House of Commons.

The Committee then divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause—Ayes 141; Noes 47: Majority 94.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Bernard, Visct.
Acland, T. D. Boldero, H. G.
A'Court, Capt. Borthwick, P.
Adderley, C. B. Bowes, J.
Aldam, W. Bowles, Adm.
Baine, W. Boyd, J.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Bramston, T. W.
Baring, rt. hn. W. B. Brotherton, J.
Barrington, Visct. Bruce, Lord F.
Bateson, T. Buck, L. W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Buller, C.
Bunbury, T. Lambton, H.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Lawson, A.
Cardwell, E. Legh, G. C.
Carew, W. H. P. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Chelsea, Visct. Lincoln, Earl of
Christie, W. D. Lockhart, W.
Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G. Lowther, Sir J. H.
Clive, Visct. Mackenzie, T.
Clive, hon. R. H. Mackenzie, W. F.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. M'Neill, D.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Mahon, Visct.
Connolly, Col. Mangles, R. D.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Martin, C. W.
Conrtenay, Lord Maule, R. H. F.
Craig, W. G. Meynell, Capt.
Crawford, W. S. Milnes, R. M.
Cripps, W. Mitchell, T. A.
Damer, hon. Col. Morgan, O.
Dawnay, hon. W. H. Morris, D.
Denison, E. B. Mundy, E. M.
Dick, Q. Napier, Sir C.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Newport, Visct.
Duncombe, T. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Palmerston, Visct.
Egerton, Sir P. Patten, J. W.
Entwisle, W. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Escott, B. Peel, J.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Pigot, Sir R.
Flower, Sir J. Polhill, F.
Forman, T. S. Praed, W. T.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Pringle, A.
Gardner, J. D. Pusey, P.
Gaskell, J. M. Rashleigh, W.
Gill, T. Repton, G. W. J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Rous, hon. Capt.
Godson, R. Sandon, Visct.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Scott, hon. F.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Grimston, Visct. Smith, A.
Halford, Sir H. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Hamilton, J. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Hamilton, G. A. Spooner, R.
Hamilton, W. J. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hamilton, Lord C. Tancred, H. W.
Harcourt, G. G. Tennent, J. E.
Harris, hon. Capt. Tower, C.
Hawes, B. Trelawny, J. S.
Henley, J. W. Trench, Sir F. W.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Vernon, G. H.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Villiers, Visct.
Hope, hon. C. Vivian, J. E.
Hope, G. W. Waddington, H. S.
Hotham, Lord Warburton, H.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Wawn, J. T.
James, Sir W. C. Wellesley, Lord C.
Jermyn, Earl Wortley, hon. J. S.
Jocelyn, Visct. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Johnstone, Sir J. TELLERS.
Jones, Capt. Baring, H.
Ker, D. S. Lennox, Lord A.
List of the NOES.
Archbold, R. Bouverie, hn. E. P.
Barron, Sir H. W. Bowring, Dr.
Bellew, R. M. Browne, R. D.
Blake, M. J. Browne, hon. W.
Chapman, B. O'Connell, M. J.
Collett, J. O'Connell, J.
Curteis, H. B. O'Conor Don
Dawson, hon. T. V. Ogle, S. C. H.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T. Oswald, J.
Dickinson, F. H. Protheroe, E.
Dundas, D. Rawdon, Col.
Easthope, Sir J. Redington, T. N.
Esmonde, Sir T. Ross, D. R.
Ewart, W. Russell, Lord J.
Forster, M. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Gore, hon. R. Sheridan, R. B.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Hollond, R. Somers, J. P.
Hope, A. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Maher, N. Stuart, Lord J.
Manners, Lord J. Stuart, W. V.
Martin, J. Tuite, H. M.
O'Brien, J. TELLERS.
O'Brien, W. S. Wyse, T.
O'Connell, D. Ebrington, Visct.
Sir H. W. Barron

moved the following Amendment:— That previous to the first appointment of any rector, president, head of college, or professor under this Act, the Board of Education in Ireland shall have power to present three names to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who must select one of the said persons to fill such office. He observed, that a Roman Catholic archbishop would necessarily be a member of the Board; a gentleman possessing the confidence of the Presbyterian body would also be connected with it; and the Government, to avoid all suspicion of reserving these appointments to themselves for purposes of patronage, ought to put them out of their own hands. He thought it most desirable that the Board of Education in Ireland, which possessed in so eminent a degree the confidence of the people of that country, should have the power of submitting the names of persons to fill the offices to which his Amendment referred to the Lord Lieutenant, though the actual appointment might be vested in the Crown.

Sir J. Graham

said, that on grounds he had before stated, he could not, consistently with his sense of duty, consent to the hon. Baronet's Amendment. He believed a large majority of the Members of that House entertained the opinion that the Government ought to have the power of recommending to the Crown the persons they deemed most competent to fill the offices to which the hon. Baronet's Amendment referred. He concurred in the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Barron), that the Board of Education in Ireland, as now constituted—comprising, as it did, members of the Established Church, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians—possessed the confidence of the Irish people; but he doubted whether, if the patronage proposed by the hon. Baronet to be placed in the hands of that Board was assigned to it, the harmony now existing would be maintained. He (Sir J. Graham) could state that the Board would be most unwilling to undertake the duly which the hon. Baronet proposed to impose upon it; for he was assured that if this Motion should be adopted, more than one member of that Board would cease to hold any further connexion with it. He, therefore, entreated the House not to agree to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

On the question that the Clause (No. 10) stand part of the Bill,

The Committee divided — Ayes 129; Noes 24: Majority 105.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Damer, hon. Col.
Acland, T. D. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
A'Court, Capt. Denison, E. B.
Adderley, C. B. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Aldam, W. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Archbold, R. Duncombe, T.
Baine, W. Duncombe, hon. A.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Egerton, Sir P.
Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Entwisle, W.
Barrington, Visct. Escott, B.
Bateson, T. Fitzroy, hon. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Flower, Sir J.
Bernard, Visct. Forster, M.
Boldero, H. G. Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.
Borthwick, P. Gardner, J. D.
Bowes, J. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bowles, Adm. Gill, T.
Bowring, Dr. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Boyd, J. Godson, R.
Bramston, T. W. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Brotherton, J. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Bruce, Lord E. Grimston, Visct.
Buller, C. Halford, Sir H.
Bunbury, T. Hamilton, C. J. B.
Cardwell, E. Hamilton, J. H.
Carew, W. H. P. Hamilton, G. A.
Christie, W. D. Hamilton, W. J.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Hamilton, Lord C.
Clive, Visct. Hawes, B.
Clive, hon. R. H. Henley, J. W.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Holmes, hon. W. A'C.
Corry, right hon. H. Hope, hon. C.
Courtenay, Lord Hope, G. W.
Craig, W. G. Hotham, Lord
Crawford, W. S. James, Sir W. C.
Cripps, W. Jermyn, Earl
Jocelyn, Visct. Redington, T. N.
Jones, Capt. Repton, G. W. J.
Ker, D. S. Ross, D. R.
Lambton, H. Rous, hon. Capt.
Lawson, A. Sandon, Visct.
Legh, G. C. Scott, hon. F.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Lincoln, Earl of Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lockhart, W. Smith, A.
Lowther, Sir J. H. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Mackenzie, W. F. Smollett, A.
McNeill, D. Somerset, Lord G.
Mahon, Visct. Spooner, R.
Martin, C. W. Stuart, W. V.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Meynell, Capt. Tennent, J. E.
Milnes, R. M. Tower, C.
Mitchell, T. A. Trelawny, J. S.
Morris, D. Trench, Sir F. W.
Mundy, E. M. Vernon, G. H.
Napier, Sir C. Waddington, H. S.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Warburton, H.
Palmerston, Visct. Wawn, J. T.
Patten, J. W. Wellesley, Lord C.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Peel, J. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Polhill, F. TELLERS.
Pringle, A. Lennox, Lord A.
Rashleigh, W. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Barron, Sir H. W. Manners, Lord J.
Blake, M. J. O'Brien, J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. O'Connell, D.
Browne, hon. W. O'Connell, M. J.
Curteis, H. B. O'Conor Don
Dickinson, F. H. Ogle, S. C. H.
Dundas, D. Rawdon, Col.
Easthope, Sir J. Somers, J. P.
Ebrington, Visct. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Esmonde, Sir T. Wyse, T.
Gore, hon. R.
Hollond, R. TELLERS.
Hope, A. O'Connell, J.
Maher, N. O'Brien, W. S.

The House resumed. Committee to sit again.