Commons Sitting of 23 April 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Removal Amendment.
2° Highways.
Reported.—Lunatic Asylums.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord J. Russell, from Rigby Wason, Esq., for Alteration of Law with respect to Bribery at Elections.—By Mr. F. Dundas, and Sir A. L. Hay, from several places in Scotland, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—From Ratepayers of the Town and Parish of Presteign, in the Counties of Radnor and Hereford, in favour of the Rating of Tenements (No. 2) Bill.—By a great many Hon. Members, from an immense number of places, for and against the Government Plan of Education.—By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Halifax, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.—By Lord J. Russell, from Guardians of Carrick-on-Shannon Union, against the Introduction of a certain Clause in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Divett, from Governor, Deputy-Governor, Assistants, and Guardians of the Poor of the City and County of the City of Exon, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Sir H. Campbell, and other Hon. Members, from several places in Scotland, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and Marriage (Scotland) Bill; and by Mr. Hume, from Parish Schoolmasters and Session Clerks of Forfar and Argyleshire, for Compensation in respect of the same.—From Bath, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.

PORTUGAL.
SIR DE LACY EVANSrose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government respecting the result of the intercession of the British Government, with that of Portugal concerning the generals and troops who were lately granted an honourable capitulation by Marshal Saldanha, and who were said to have been since transported to the penal and unhealthy colony of Angola. The troops referred to had retired with the honours of war, and expected and were promised to be treated as soldiers usually were under such circumstances. He regretted, however, that that had not been the case. They had been marched to Lisbon, put on board ship, and crowded together in a cruel and most oppressive manner. He admitted the right of the Government to detain those parties and keep them in safe custody, but he denied their right to transport them to an unhealthy penal colony. Nearly three months had now elapsed since the Government had promised to intercede, but as yet nothing had transpired. He trusted the noble Lord would be able to inform the House that an order had been sent out for the return of those unfortunate prisoners from Angola.
LORD J. RUSSELL: It is quite true that certain prisoners, who surrendered with the honours of war, were afterwards placed on board a ship of war in the harbour of Lisbon, and were afterwards or-

1273
dered to be sent in a brig to Angola. The ground stated for that determination was that a plot had been laid for their escape—that they had many friends in Lisbon—and that their escape could not otherwise have been prevented. In the opinion of the British Government that justification was not sufficient, and they instructed their representative at the Court of Lisbon to express very strongly their opinion of the harshness of that proceeding. We have not for the last ten days received any intelligence from Lisbon, but we expect shortly to receive further information. I am in hopes that those prisoners have not yet been sent to Angola; but we have received no intelligence that the original intention of the Portuguese Government has been altered.

SUPPLY—GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH NIGHT).
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the House going into Committee of Supply.
Debate resumed. Question agreed to. Order read.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
SIR W. CLAYsaid, that in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, it would be necessary for him to trouble the House with but few observations. He had stated fully, last evening, the reasons which induced him to withhold his support from the Government scheme. The House had decided in favour of that scheme by a very large majority, and he bowed to that decision. Certainly, he could not repress his apprehension that the decision of the House might prove the fertile source of future anxiety and trouble. They had thought fit—instead of endeavouring to frame some comprehensive plan of national education—to place the State at the head of a vast scheme of sectarian education; and he feared they must be prepared for the perplexities and embarrassments which must of necessity flow from the State assuming so dangerous and unbecoming a position. But the House had approved of the scheme, and it was no longer competent for him to oppose it as a whole. His present Motion, therefore, was directed to the amending a portion of the scheme, the defective character of which the noble Lord had himself admitted. The defect he alluded to was the omission of any pro-
1274
vision rendering it incumbent on the managers of schools receiving pecuniary assistance from the State, to permit children, whose parents might object to the religious doctrines taught in those schools, to participate in that secular instruction of which the State contributed to defray the expense. It was true there was nothing in the Minutes to prevent such permission being accorded, but there was nothing to enforce it; and should the measure receive the sanction of Parliament in its present form, it was quite possible that there might exist thousands of schools throughout the country partly supported by the State, and from which those children that should be more especially the objects of the paternal care of the State, from having no other means of education, would be excluded. The object of his Motion, then, was to remedy this defect—to supply this omission—to secure the opportunity to all the subjects of the realm of participating, if they thought fit, to some extent at least, in the advantages of a system, to the support of which they themselves contributed. The most difficult problem, perhaps, in the science of government, as regarded free States, was how to protect the minority. The attention of the Governments of such States should accordingly always be turned to the solution of that problem, and to the averting the injustice which the working of the institutions of such States had a perpetual tendency to inflict on the minority. Now, in the measure before them, no such attempt was made; on the contrary, it afforded a very striking illustration of the tendency he had referred to. No moderately enlightened despotism would permit any portion of its subjects to be the victims of the injustice which would, beyond all doubt, be inflicted on the Nonconformist minority in this country, if the measure passed in its present shape. The scheme was fair in terms, and he had no doubt in intention; but a moment's consideration would suffice to show that it would be greatly otherwise in its practical working. It was certain that in every parish, or almost every parish, in the kingdom, there would be a Church of England school in a condition to claim the Government grants. He had stated last evening to the House his grounds for this anticipation, and need not repeat them; but its correctness could not be doubted. It was equally certain, perhaps, that in a very large proportion of the parishes in the rural districts there would not be found Nonconformist schools

1275
so supported as to be enabled to obtain the Government assistance. What would be the inevitable result? That in parishes where Nonconformist schools did not at present exist, none would be established; and that where they did exist, they would fall before their more powerful rivals. Such was his opinion, and such was the opinion almost universally entertained by the parties interested in the maintenance of Nonconformist schools. These apprehensions he believed to be well founded. The measure proposed would, therefore, work a twofold wrong to Nonconformists. In the first place, it would—as developed in the Minutes—in all places where the Nonconformists were so far a minority in numbers or property as not to be enabled to maintain a school in conformity with the conditions required—deprive the youth of such classes of all chance of participating in the advantages held out by the plan—of becoming pupil-teachers, stipendiary monitors, masters, or obtaining appointments under Government. But, secondly, if it tended to enfeeble and finally to suppress any Nonconformist school, it would not only fail to be a means of diffusing education, but actually, so far as the Nonconformists were concerned, be the means of checking and discouraging it. Let them take the case of a rural parish of from 1,200 to 15,000 inhabitants, and of that number let them assume one-sixth to he Nonconformists. On the ordinary calculation of school accommodation being required for one in six of the population, there would in such a parish be from 150 to 200 children of members of the Establishment, and from thirty to forty of Nonconformists to be educated. What would be the working of the plan in such a parish? Why, almost of necessity that there would be a Church of England school receiving the grants, and that the Nonconformist school would not be of a character to receive them. Was it at all probable that the school of the minority would continue to exist? Was it desirable even? Suppose that in such a parish some wealthy Nonconformist or liberal Churchman were to contribute the funds necessary to claim the Government grant, would it not be an absurd waste of the funds of the State and individuals to maintain two schools where one would amply suffice? The case he had supposed would occur, he was satisfied, not only in one or two, but in thousands of parishes of the kingdom. Were they prepared then to sanction so great an injus-
1276
tice, only to be averted by so great a folly? It was no answer to the case he had made out, to say that the scheme was fair in its terms, if its practical working were undeniably such as he had shown it to be. If they assented to the measure in its present form, if they refused to agree to his Amendment, beyond all doubt they would be committing a great injustice—they would be taxing the whole people for the benefit of a portion only of the people, and that the richest and more powerful portion. In one sense certainly the scheme would be scriptural—"To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Of course in parishes where the members of the Church of England were in the minority, the exact converse of the case he had supposed would exist; and he should equally protest against the injustice of which they would then be the victims. It had been remarked to him by several Members of the House, that his resolution contained no provision for the children of Dissenters attending Church of England schools receiving religious instruction. He had not thought it desirable to add any such provision to his Motion, as he could not have made it useful or intelligible without going into too great details; but if the House adopted his proposition, it would clearly be in the power of the Committee of Privy Council, in rendering compliance with such resolution one condition of receiving the grant, to prescribe to the managers of schools such rules as they might think proper for insuring on the part of all children permitted to participate in the advantage of secular instruction regular attendance at some place of divine worship. He concluded by moving that—
"It is expedient that in any plan for promoting the education of the people by pecuniary assistance from the State, provision should be made that in schools receiving such assistance, the opportunity of participating in all instruction, other than religious, should be afforded to children whose parents may object to the religious doctrines taught in such schools."
MR. CHRISTIEwas anxious to explain the reasons which induced him to differ in opinion from a large number of his constituents with respect to the subject before them. It was proposed by the measure of the Government to give aid to schools under certain regulations with which it would often happen that the schools of Dissenters could not comply; and the Dissenters would, in such cases, lose the advantages which it was proposed to give the

1277
schools complying with the regulations; but if the Motion of the hon. Baronet were agreed to, it would, in his opinion, afford facilities to the Dissenters to send their children to Church of England schools, which facilities would have a tendency rather to swamp the Dissenting schools, which now went on so well, notwithstanding the opposition of the Church of England schools. The proposal of the Government was a proposal not of a general plan of education on their part, but was a proposal for aiding and improving the voluntary efforts in favour of education. The Roman Catholics were not included amongst those which were to be permitted to partake of any portion of the sum to be granted by this measure—a sum which it would be recollected was not a large one, and which it was the duty of the Government to do as much good with as possible. The Jews were also excluded from it, although they were, by the Act of 9 and 10 Victoria, cap. 59, sec. 2, placed in the same position with respect to schools and places of religious worship as the Dissenters from the Church of England. The words of the second clause of that Act were—
"And be it Enacted, That, from and after the commencement of this Act, Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion, in respect to these schools, places of religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, and the property held therewith, shall be subject to the same laws as Her Majesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England are subject to, and further or otherwise."
He understood that the Jews had in the metropolis three schools—one an infant school, another an industrial school, and another a free school, as it was called—the latter containing three of four hundred boys; and all those schools very much required assistance; and he hoped that when the claims of the Roman Catholics to aid for their schools came to be considered, the claims of the Jews would not be forgotten. With respect to the subject of including all sects, he would quote the opinion of Edmund Burke, stated in 1775 to a gentleman who claimed him as an exclusive supporter of the Church of England. Mr. Burke said—
"It is certain that I have, to the best of my power, supported the establishment of the Church upon grounds and principles which I am happy to find countenanced by your approbation. This you have been told; but you have not heard that I supported also the petition of the Dissenters for a larger toleration than they enjoy at present, under the letter of the Act of King William. My ideas
1278
of toleration go far beyond even theirs. I would give a full civil protection, in which I include an immunity from all disturbance of their public religious worship, and a power of teaching in schools as well as temples, to Jews, Mahometans, and even Pagans. Much more am I inclined to tolerate those whom I look upon as brethren. I mean all those who profess our common hope, extending to all the reformed and unreformed Churches, both at home and abroad; in none of whom I find anything capitally amiss, but their mutual hatred of each other. I can never think any man a heretic or schismatic by education. It must be, as I conceive, by an act in which his own choice, influenced by blameable passions, is more concerned than it can be by his early prejudices and his being aggregated to bodies for whom men naturally form a great degree of reverence and affection. This is my opinion, and my conduct has been conformable to it. Another age will see it more general; and I think that this general affection to religion will never introduce indifference, but will rather increase real zeal, Christian fervour, and pious emulation: that it will make a common cause against epicurism, and everything that corrupts the mind, and renders it unworthy of its destiny. But toleration does not exclude national preference, either as to mode or opinions, and all the lawful and honest means which may be used for the support of that preference."
He considered that the system which had been pursued in reference to the schools connected with the University of London was in itself an answer to the objection which had been raised against the measure on the part of the Dissenters. Again, in King's College, within the last few weeks, a Roman Catholic gentleman had been elected a professor for the express purpose of instructing, in the Chinese language, young men who were about to proceed as missionaries to China, The answer to the objections urged against the appointment was, that it was better to have a Roman Catholic professor of Chinese, than none at all; and, by a parity of reasoning, it seemed to him that it would be better to have Roman Catholic schoolmasters than none at all.
MR. VILLIERSobserved, that if the Dissenters persevered in what he must call a new principle, namely, in not receiving the public money, then the funds available for schools would be less than formerly, and the consequence would be that there would be more poor children in country parishes left without education than had formerly been the case. He did not blame the Government for this, because if he understood the history of the progress of what was now called State education, it was only owing to religious bodies that any steps had been taken in the matter at all, and it was in consequence of their pre-occupation of the ground that we were not able to

1279
make that advance which, the House and the country might desire. He saw that a difficulty would arise if the Dissenters refused to take the public money, from the circumstance that the House would then be voting money for one society only, which mixed up religion with education. He took it for granted that the people were determined to give the aid of the State to general education; and the question was how they were to give education to the children of the poor without religious instruction being mixed up with it We must have some kind of education that all could partake of in schools supported by the public money. He believed that the opinion prevailed much more generally in this country than was supposed, that secular education might be separated from religious instruction; and he thought that the children of Dissenters might be allowed to attend the National schools without being obliged to receive the religious education which was imparted there. He felt that we were only in the infancy of this subject, and he could not join with those who objected to the Government plan. He certainly thought that the Dissenters had rather taken their friends by surprise, because he did not see any difference in principle between this grant of money and former grants. With regard to the objection that this question should not have been discussed as one of the items of the miscellaneous estimates, he must confess that he thought that it had some weight. He knew that his Parliament; he must state, however, that the objection taken to the course followed by the Government was one which had been frequently taken, and he thought that the opinion prevailed that more caution ought to have been used on a subject relating to religion, than had been observed on this occasion. Every one knew that no man could bring in a Bill affecting religion or commerce, without the whole House being resolved into Committee; and it was upon that account, and that account only, that he did not vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. With that exception, however, he thought that the Government had done all that it was at present in their power to do. He could not sit down without giving expression to his hope that what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had suggested might be carried into effect, and
1280
that we should lose no more time in squabbling about the mode in which fellow Christians might teach their children the Christian religion, but that some common ground might be discovered on which Christians of all religious denominations might meet in brotherly love and charity.
MR. FORBEScommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the manly way in which he had brought forward the scheme, but should feel it his duty to oppose the project hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth on the previous night. He regretted to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and would feel it his duty to oppose any system of education in which the authorized version of the Scriptures was not read.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he could not plead the excuse that he had not caught the Speaker's eye, for he had not endeavoured to catch it. He was not indifferent about the matter—not at all. He had suffered too much in the cause of civil and religious liberty to be careless of any subject connected with either. He did not agree with those who said the State was not bound to educate the children of the poor. He thought the Government as much bound to provide the means of educating those who were not able to educate themselves, as to collect the taxes. He voted against the Government plan, because he thought no class of Her Majesty's subjects who reason as he opposed this scheme—because he could not consent to pay for the education of priests for a section of the people. He had opportunities of seeing the advantages which education conferred, having been for forty years superintending a large number of workmen. Those who were educated were docile, easily governed, and attended to their employer; those who were not so were much more difficult of management. Catholics, Protestants, and Dissenters, were all educated in the same school in Birmingham; and why not elsewhere? There was nothing peculiar in the air of Birmingham. After all, he was more in favour of secular education by the State than any other; because it prevented the jarring and conflict of religious tenets. However, he thought, when the religious and the secular were mixed up, it ought at all events to be of universal application,

1281
and not of such a nature as to cast a stigma, by exclusion, on any portion of the Queen's subjects.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENsaid, the opinion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, as to the principle of applying the proceeds of taxation to the universal education of the people, lost some of its force by the fact that a large portion of the Community was wholly opposed to the reception of aid from the State for any system of religious education. There was great difficulty in proposing any general scheme in the present complicated state of society, distracted as it unfortunately was by conflicting religious opinions. He admitted the good temper and moderation with which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had spoken; but differed from the hon. Member's remark about the Dissenters, whose conduct, he said, had taken many by surprise. He thought that portion of the Dissenters who had sent delegates to London, who had met in Crosby Hall, and who had petitioned that House, had, at all events, been consistent, bold, and straightforward. He should not be doing justice to the Division of Northamptonshire which he represented, if he did not state that all the petitions which he presented averse to this measure — all the letters which he had read from Dissenters resident there — did not contain objections to the Government measures such as had been used generally in that House; but those which had been enunciated in Crosby Hall—those which were found in that circular which they had all seen; those persons could not be charged either with fanatical bigotry or political violence; they averred their dissent with moderation and with fairness, and were entitled to respect for their conscientious conduct. His opinion was, that it was better for the State wholly to abandon the cause of education, and leave it to the voluntary system altogether, than to endeavour to separate the secular from the religious instruction. If they considered politically the experience of the Dissenters since 1839, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was the last man to say that he had been taken by surprise, because the hon. Member had always advocated the principle of progress as opposed to the let-alone, the laissez faire principle; and he must have ill appreciated the force of his own eloquence, if he had supposed that it would be fruitless. It was not at all surprising to him that the Dissenters should have reasoned thus — the
1282
Government had declared that it could not properly interfere with commerce and trade, and so it should not interfere with education. The difficulty of that argument had been felt, and, consequently, the case in that House had been argued merely as a question of police—as though they were striking a balance between the expense of schools and of gaols; and the Crosby Hall arguments were better than that. But he wished that some hon. Member would rise up, and show that the Dissenters were not only wrong in resisting the measure, but inconsistent in resisting it on that principle. Had that principle of non-interference been persisted in? All the present Session the House had abandoned the free-trade principle; for whether they interfered with the wages of the labourer, or with the profits of the manufacturer, or whether they interfered with education, they still acted on that doctrine of interference for protection, which last Session, because it then suited their purpose, they had repudiated. The right hon. Baronet the apostle of free trade, which he had taken and adopted from the hon. Member for Stockport, last night said that the voluntary principle was not sufficient; then, that this measure was the voluntary principle; and then he selected the very worst example for the application of the voluntary principle. When hon. Members urged so vehemently the necessity of secular education, would they be so good as to say what education was? Was it mere instruction — mere book knowledge? or was it the training and educing of the better parts of our nature? Would the former ensure the institutions of the country, or give security to property and life? It might be very well for those who, like the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-worth), said that no advance had been made in the science of ethics since, the days of Aristotle and Plato, to advocate the exclusion of religious instruction; but if the great majority of that House, who thought that there had been a great advance in the science of ethics since those days, were to be content with such a system of education, they would certainly be visited with the punishment they deserved.
DR. BOWRINGsaid, a great part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was totally irrelevant to the question before the House. With respect to himself, he had never known votes cause him more pain than the vote which he had given and the votes he

1283
should be obliged to give on this subject, It pained him lest it might be thought that he felt less interest in the extension of instruction than those who supported the scheme of the Government. On the contrary, he deemed it a shame and opprobrium to the country that such multitudes were unprovided with popular education. He was bound to acknowledge that voluntary efforts had not accomplished the objects which were desired, notwithstanding the great and long-continued exertions made by the Dissenting body. Those exertions had failed, and much remained to be done; and he only regretted that the measure of the Government had not been so presented as to be universally acceptable. And the reason was, that in its practical workings the religious susceptibilities and convictions of many were interfered with, and a standard of religious faith introduced which necessarily led to exclusions and disabilities. He believed that the scheme, as presented by the Government, had not succeeded in any part of the world, and could not succeed here. State education could never be universal, if the State required certain conditions as to religious opinions. When he heard it stated that the Government instruction must be religious, he said that was only a controversy about words. All secular instruction was eminently religious that elevated the minds and purified the morals of the people. It was owned by every one, that, with respect to the Roman Catholics, the Government was in a false position. The Government admitted that wrong was done to the Catholics, and intimated that that wrong would be redressed at a future period; but he thought that there ought to be no delay in the redress of a wrong, the existence of which was acknowledged. A menace had been held out that the Government would hear of this question at the next election. They were to be held up as infidels, because, though they said they could not do justice to the Catholics now, they had held out a hope that justice would be done them hereafter. Religious instruction was not to be obtained for the people by a peremptory Act of Parliament, drawing distinctions between various classes of Her Majesty's subjects; the children of the families belonging to the several denominations ought to be instructed in religion by the clergy of those denominations respectively. And, after all, what fine distinctions were these between two versions, where the knowledge
1284
and the sincerity of the several translators was not impeached; ought the instruction of millions to be made dependent upon points like these? It must be confessed that the present controversy was in many respects eminently childish; and the conclusion might well be drawn, that our hearts were not sincerely set upon the great work pretended to be had in view. There were Gentlemen so attached to their particular theories and creeds, that unless these were to be inculclated, they declared that the people should not be educated. These persons assumed that they, and they alone, were the possessors of truth; forgetting that they were not gifted with the sagacity alone to discover what truth was. That was always one of the most entangled questions. For himself, he came to this conclusion—he did not know what was true, but he did know what was charitable; and men might be wrong in their creeds, but they could not be wrong if their principles were benevolent. There was in the world much truth and much falsehood; but the falsehood must be on the side of persecution, and truth on the side of kindness and charity.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he could not vote last night with the hon. Member for Finsbury, because he thought the present was a time not for deliberation, but for action. He had no objection to the Government measure, on the ground that it was unconstitutional; on the contrary, he held this grant to be eminently constitutional, because it left to Parliament the annual opportunity of reconsidering it; and as to the amount, if two millions a year were proposed for education, he should be ready to vote for it. Nor did he object on the ground that it was essentially different from the grant of 1839; for the two grants were, in principle, identically the same. He was a sincere believer in the voluntary principle; but he thought that the measure of 1839 violated that principle quite as much as the present. He repeated that the amount was quite inconsiderable. It was a sort of political bathos to ask for so small a sum; it was, as it were, damning the cause with faint praise. But he had some great objections to the Government measure. He certainly objected very strongly to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics. He objected to any test being introduced into schools; and on that point he agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Bolton. He was sensible of the good effects which had followed the

1285
introduction of a more tolerant system of education into public schools. It had excited more kindly feelings among members of the community. To show the effect which the general tolerance which prevailed in that House had had upon his own feelings, he might mention that before he became a Member of it, there were hon. Gentlemen now present whom he could have seen flayed alive; but for whom he now entertained kindly and respectful feelings. As he had already mentioned, he was a firm supporter of the voluntary principle in the matter of religion; but whilst he would repudiate State assistance in that matter, he would not object to it in the case of education, because there was an essential difference between the two cases. In the case of schools, what was taught were facts upon which all were agreed; but as regarded religion, the same agreement did not and could not exist; because religious matters were not susceptible of the same degree of demonstration as the subjects taught in schools.
MR. BROTHERTON: The hon. Member for Staffordshire had asked what was education? He thought the best definition of it was such a training as would fit a man for performing the duties of his sphere in life, and, combined with that, some instruction as to his duties to his Maker and his neighbour. The House had heard much of this measure as calculated to extend the political power and influence of the Established Church; but the main question to be considered was, whether it was calculated to be beneficial to the people. Considering the amount of ignorance and crime, and the taxation for its punishment, in this country, he was compelled to acknowledge that the voluntary system with regard to education was not sufficient to meet the evil. In the votes he had given and might give, his object was to make the measure as perfect as possible, and that justice should be done to all classes of the community. Allusion had been made to the state of education in Manchester. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had alluded last night to the immense number of Irish in Manchester, amounting to 60,000. He believed, that in that district the proportion of those apprehended for various offences who were unable to read or write, had increased rather than diminished. From the returns made by the police, it appeared that the number of persons annually taken into custody in the borough of Manchester was about 10,000.
1286
Of that number in 1840, 50 per cent could neither read nor write. In 1841, 52 per cent, and in 1843, 55 per cent could not read. The average number of convictions from 1839 to 1843 in England and Wales was 93,877; of these, 36 per cent could neither read nor write, and 55 per cent could read only, or write imperfectly. From the report of the Registrar General it appeared that out of 123,818 marriages in 1843, 101,235 persons signed with marks. With such facts as these before them, who could say that the voluntary system had been successful? He had made a calculation which he believed would be found correct, that it cost this country more than 2,500,000 l. a year for the punishment of crime. He should be most willing to vote any reasonable sum for the prevention of crime. It appeared to him an extraordinary anomaly to expend so much money in gaols, and so little in schools. The cost of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance last year was 16,000,000 l. The people expended 50,000,000 a year in intoxicating liquors. There were 20,000 places of worship, and 120,000 public-houses and beer-shops. Surely it was time that something should be done to teach the people their best interests, their rights and their duties, that their physical and moral condition might be improved. One objection to the voluntary system was, that it appeared to him to be humiliating to the working classes that they should be dependent on the charity of their richer neighbours, for the education of their children, if they were to be educated at all. The love of power or ostentation was stronger in some persons than the love of usefulness. He said, therefore, let the people he educated at the expense of the State. He was not jealous of the power of the Church; if they educated the people they improved them. If they wished to make the people of this country religious, they must improve their minds by teaching them those truths which it was important they should learn. What was the reason that the light of truth had so little power over the minds of Roman Catholics, and their priests so much? Because the mass had always been kept in a state of ignorance and superstition. He had voted in favour of the Amendments proposed, because the measure of the Government was partial in its application, and therefore not just. Had the Government brought forward a perfect scheme, he should have had no objection to their proceeding by Bill;

1287
but looking to the state of society in this country, and the feeling prevalent in Parliament at present, he feared that if they were to proceed by Bill, the measure would be an imperfect one, and which, if passed into law, it would be impossible to undo. As long as there was an annual grant for education—as long as the matter was in the hands of Ministers, and the Commons of England had an opportunity every year of expressing their opinions upon the system—he had no doubt that the plan would be gradually improved and rendered of general benefit to the country; and sure he was, that if the time arrived when a measure could be adopted, founded on the principle of general justice, they might then proceed by Bill, and establish it for ever.
MR. ACLANDbelieved the Government had acted wisely in proceeding in the way they had adopted, and trusted that the spirit in which they had dealt with the question, and the spirit in which it would be received by the country, would be rewarded with blessings to the country, and to themselves, in the success of a well-intended measure. There had been, he considered, a great deal of misunderstanding on this subject. The Government, he believed, did not consider the present as the best possible measure, but as the measure which it was right for them to brine; forward in present circumstances. He contended that the objection to the teaching of Church of England ministers was not so widely diffused among Dissenters as was supposed. He knew of several places where the Church of England schools, superintended by clergymen of the establishment, were largely attended by the children of Dissenters. Far be it from him to say, that there was any want of sincerity in their peculiar doctrines on the part of Dissenting parents who sent their children to those schools; he thought the reason they did so was, that they did not consider there was so much difference in doctrine as should exclude their children From the benefits of the education given there. The bulk of the clergy, he believed, gave every real and practicable facility to those parents who conscientiously objected to their children being put under the teaching of the Church; but if the State were to lay down an unbending principle, that two systems of education—one full and complete, and the other marked out as different—should be pursued in the same school, the clergy would find it very difficult to do their duty. The practice of King Edward's school at
1288
Birmingham had been referred to on this subject. Now, he had the greatest respect for Mr. Prince Lee as an able and conscientious man; but he was sure he should be borne out, when he said that the school at Birmingham formed no example for ordinary parochial schools, and could not be beneficially held up in that light. Any one who knew what earnest-minded men were doing in their schools, must know that such a system as that was utterly impracticable in ordinary parishes. The reason why he adopted the Minutes of the Council might appear paradoxical; but he took them because he considered them an emphatic declaration on the part of the Government that the State could not be the educator of the people; for he said that it was not the duty of the State to educate the people, but to see that they were educated; to promote, assist, and encourage education; and, under some peculiar circumstances, in some degree to control it. He admitted that he had once entertained considerable apprehensions as to the spirit and the ulterior views of the Committee of the Privy Council, and had felt serious fears of the influence of the Secretary; but he could not help saying, that the spirit in which that gentleman had devoted himself to this subject, the conciliatory mode in which he had adjusted conflicting claims, but above all the eminently practical nature of the Minutes, were deserving of every acknowledgment and praise. He accepted the Minutes especially, because they showed the intention of the Government to adopt the exertions of men of humble station but of Christian spirit, who were labouring throughout the country and making voluntary exertions. He confessed that he had been sorry to hear the case of a Sunday-school pupil, who had been six years at school, held up to ridicule because he could not read, as the lad might have been idle or stupid, and the case proved nothing at all; and he believed that a great deal of zeal and of Christian faithfulness had been brought to bear in the Sunday schools by young men and women, who having worked ten hours a day during the week, had given up their time on Sunday to teaching, and, in the absence of a more perfect system, they had done great good. As to the voluntary system, if left alone, he knew it to be imperfect; but the course which the Government had pursued during the last ten years had drawn forth a great increase of voluntary exertion, and the 500,000 l. granted during the last few

1289
years had called forward nearly 100,000 l. a year of annual subscriptions. He agreed that even this was inadequate; and he hoped that nothing of religious discord would prevent the Government from meeting all cases of educational destitution. Hence he somewhat regretted the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, in which the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be altogether endeavouring to assist the Government in carrying their measure into execution, when he pressed them to deal with the case of the Roman Catholics during the present Session. With respect to the Roman Catholics, indeed, he did not see what reason there was for charging the Government with acting otherwise than straightforwardly. They had not concealed their wish to assist Roman Catholic schools, or their intention to do so; and he was bound to say that there was no help for it. For himself, he thankfully accepted the plan of the present Government, and he had no desire to say anything against the right hon. Baronet; but if he had voted against the system of colleges in Ireland, it was because he thought it unnecessary to pass over the religious convictions of a great body of the Irish nation, and he believed that the conscientious Dissenters would spurn any plan which wholly excluded religion. He heartily welcomed the system of the present Government: he hoped it would succeed—that it would effect all the good which they anticipated—and that it would stand in the way of any such system as prevailed in the colleges in Ireland. He expressed his thanks particularly to the Government, for paying attention to the quality of the education rather than to the quantity; they had been building schools rather too fast—providing good schoolmasters was what was needed; and on this point the hon. Member for Waterford was entitled to receive much of the reward of the Government, for he had laboured honestly to make good teachers, as the only way effectually to effect the education of the people. In this respect the Government had hit the real difficulty of the question, by preserving the aid of intelligent lads who were now called away to other occupations. With reference to another objection, he agreed that the Church had many gentlemen clergy, and that they wanted members of the ministry of another order; but the money granted for schools ought not to be applied to support deacons for the Church, He would be no party to
1290
such a plan; but he know the good done by the Rev. George Moody, who, seeing the state of the Westminster model schools, had taken the office of National schoolmaster, being a gentleman and a clergyman. Again, because the Bishop of London had thought proper to make the present master, Mr. Wilson, a deacon, was he on that account to be disqualified from taking pupil-teachers, or receiving any advantage from the present grant? He asked the Government, therefore, to be careful in framing these Minutes, not to debar men who might do their duty more efficiently than any others, from rendering their services.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, the House would not be surprised that he should be anxious to say a few words, both as regarded the vote he had given on this question, and the vote he intended to give. Approving of the political conduct of the noble Lord's Government, and acting in conjunction with them as he had done and hoped still to do, it seemed to him that explanation on this subject was natural, not to say necessary. It was not the principle of the Government measure to which he objected, for it seemed to him that the funds of the people could hardly be put to a better purpose than in an attempt to dispel that dark cloud of ignorance which had so long overwhelmed the country, and disgraced it in the eyes of the world. In the principle he heartily concurred; and he thought to insist upon the voluntary system, which had notoriously failed to the extent of the exigency, and to refuse Government aid, if that aid could be made properly available, was little less than insanity. If Government could produce a system of national education which would give promise of working well, and with perfect equality to all classes of religion, let them proceed in the good work—it was deserving of all praise. In the case of the famine in Ireland, Ministers did not hesitate to step forward, and, freely using the funds of the people, endeavoured to check the evil, with the consent and approbation of all parties. Was the famine of the body worse than the famine of the mind? Were the evils attendant upon physical want, worse than those which followed in the track of moral destitution? If physical famine led from demoralisation to death, famine from the want of mental nourishment led from demoralisation to the destruction of both body and soul. To the principle, then, of national education, and to Government aid to carry that principle

1291
out, he yielded his perfect assent; and there he paused—for he felt that a measure might be excellent in principle, and yet in detail so faulty that it ought not to be carried into effect; and this he held to be the case with the present measure. To the details of this measure he had most serious objections; so much so that he had voted for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury; and he should decidedly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. A great number of the petitions laid on the Table had prayed Government to bring the Minutes of Council before Parliament in the shape of a Bill; and this had seemed to him the best mode, because Members might have discussed the principle at the second reading, and the details in Committee; but he confessed that the reasons given during the debate against that course seemed to him to have considerable foundation; and, therefore, as the only notice he could take of the details, he should venture to point out a few of the circumstances in the Minutes which Jed him to oppose this measure. He could not vote for a measure which, professing to provide equally for the education of all classes of religion, evidently recognised the domination of the Church of England. It was impossible to come to any other conclusion after a minute inspection of the document now before the House. He should have emoted the omission of the Catholics; but from what passed in the first debate, he had hopes that they would be cared for; he used the word omission, advisedly, for to tell a body of men they might have the benefit of an institution if they would read a work, having first ascertained they would not—seemed to him tantamount to exclusion. Now, were the Nonconformists better off? He believed the operation of that measure would prove that they were not. The machinery proposed was to him suspicious, to say the least of it. The power given to a class of officers called inspectors was plenary, unlimited; now he found that these inspectors were the beginning, the middle, and the end of everything in these Minutes. Shall a grant be made to a school? Ask the inspector. Shall a master be continued or discharged? Ask the inspector. Shall a pupil-candidate become a teacher? If it so please the inspector, but he must consult the master; now, as the master was affected by the report of the inspector, whose voice would be most potential? If the master
1292
or mistress of a school desire to have a pupil apprenticed to him or her; ask the inspector. The stipends of pupil-teachers and of a curious kind of officer called in these Minutes a stipendiary monitor, all depend on the breath or pen of the inspector! The grant of an exhibition of 20 l. or 25 l. may be given to a pupil-teacher in normal schools, if it so please these grand viziers the inspectors. No pensions can be granted for long and meritorious services, unless at the pleasure of these mighty men the inspectors. Now he would ask who inspected the inspectors? By whom were these inspectors appointed? At present there were 15 inspectors, thus constituted:—9 for Church of England schools, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; 2 Church of Scotland; 2 lay inspectors; 2 Dissenting inspectors. How many more were to be called into existence did not appear in these Minutes. Was there no cause for inquiry here? Was there no cause for jealousy, none for suspicion? What were the motives and feelings which in the main loaded that Table with petitions for and against the measure? Some few there were in favour, emanating from men who omitting to look at the less prominent mischief of the measure, were anxious for education at any rate; and others, clergymen and strong advocates for a State Church, supported the measure because they saw in it excellent encouragement for orthodoxy; and on the other side the Dissenters saw in the measure the prospect of money and means being brought against them in favour of a powerful and rich rival establishment, and felt great jealousy on the occasion—and well they might; he participated in the feeling. The Church of England had above six millions of revenue, and in competing in the race of education with the Nonconformists, who were without a shilling to bless themselves with but that which arose from the voluntary system, had been disgracefully beaten. So said the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester; and yet still the laurels which they had won were to be torn from the Nonconformists, by the State Church being urged forward with Ministers at her back. [Cheers, and "No, no," from the Ministerial Bench.] Well, he sincerely hoped not; but he believed that such would be the effect of this measure: the clergy of the Church of England believed it, and so did the Nonconforming clergy. Seldom had been heard more eloquence than his noble and hon. Friends had displayed;

1293
never had more ability been thrown upon a subject than on the present debates by Ministers, and indeed by Members on both sides; but the theme was grateful and easy, the principle noble. The beauty of virtue, the ugliness of vice, the attributes of education, those of ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had been particularly brilliant—he had however expected that right hon. Gentleman to have carried his history of ignorance down to the present day; he had given a graphic description of the horrors of ignorance and their fatal consequences, in the religious riots caused by Lord George Gordon; why did not the right hon. Gentleman carry his history down to the present time, and point out the mass of ignorance collected under the cathedral walls of the great diocesan, in that county so well besprinkled with clergymen, where the Plumtree and other holy trees blossomed?—and then he might have commented upon the gross and blind ignorance of thousands who believed in the divinity of a miserable maniac, and were by him led on to bloodshed and murder. Let the Church take the lead: he desired it; but as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, let it be by eminence in good works. The measure before them would pass with acclamation, with great majorities; he cared not for that, he had seen worse measures so hailed. Two years ago the late Ministry came down to that House with a bad measure: it passed by acclamation, a Bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. The then Attorney General made a powerful speech on the horrors of prisons; the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) made a strong appeal to humanity. The Bill became a law; in six months half the tradesmen of England were on the brink of ruin. The following Session they came down to the House, repealed their popular bad measure, and invented a very good one. Thus would it be with this measure of the present Government. It never could work well, and they would have to substitute another in its place.
SIR J. PAKINGTONbegged to remind the House that the question immediately before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. To the principle of that Amendment he assented. It was carried out at that noble institution, King Edward's School at Birmigham, under the direction of the Rev. Prince Lee, and at other schools in the country; but at the present time he was not pre-
1294
pared to make that principle compulsory. He thought it far better that its adoption should be left to the voluntary exertions of those at the head of the various schools, and he hoped that ere long that concession would generally be made without the interference of Parliament.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that as he approved of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he certainly should vote in favour of it. As it seemed clear that the proposal of the Government would be carried into effect, the best thing they could do was to make it as palatable as possible to the various classes of the community; and he believed that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would have that effect. He was not surprised at the course taken by the hon. Members for Stirlingshire and Kent, because they approved of no education save an exclusive and religious education; but he was surprised at the votes intended to be recorded by some hon. Members who expressed their approval of the principle of the Amendment, and yet intended to oppose it. He was no less surprised at the course which he supposed was to be taken by the Government. He had listened with great attention to a speech much praised in the House—the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh—and that right hon. Gentleman had said that no education was sectarian. But if education was not to be sectarian, why oppose the Amendment of his hon. Friend? In the course of his speech, with all its eloquence, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon the real arguments against the proposed measure. The conduct of the Government had given great dissatisfaction to the Dissenters of the country. The noble Lord had afforded a conference to the Wesleyans, but had refused an interview to other bodies of Dissenters, and to the Roman Catholic prelates. The Roman Catholics thought themselves very much aggrieved by the conduct of the Government. [Sir J. O. HOBHOUSE: There's a Motion on Monday on the subject.] Well, if there were a Motion on Monday—perhaps he should not be able to address the House upon it. He had already risen twenty times, and had not been able to speak, and, therefore, he thought himself entitled at once to refer to the treatment of the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics were, in his opinion, the very persons to whom the Government should afford education; for they were the persons

1295
against whom bigotry and intolerance raged most fiercely, and the Government were frightened by the threats of the cry of "No Popery." He thought, therefore, that Minutes ought at once to be introduced, admitting Roman Catholics to the benefits of the plan. When the right hon. Gentleman alluded to some small districts in which he said that the Dissenters would be in the minority, and the members of the Church of England in the majority, he made no allusion whatever to those districts in which the Dissenters would be in the majority, and those who professed the tenets of the Church of England in the minority. Now, he would give the right hon. Gentleman an instance of parish with which he was connected, and which he knew well. And, first of all, he would show the great progress of Dissent in Wales; and in so doing, he believed he should have to state that which might not be generally known in the House. Only 100 years ago, in the whole of North Wales, there were only six Dissenting chapels. But what was the case now? If they travelled through North Whiles, and it was not a very large portion of Wales, they would find at least sixty or seventy such chapels. And what was the cause of that progress of Dissent in Wales? Why, he believed that the chief cause was the appointments which had taken place in the higher stations of their own Church by the different Governments of the day. He knew the Welsh people. They were a moral and religious people, and the first desire of a person who became afflicted with sickness was that the spiritual pastor of the district should be immediately sent for, that he might pray with them. And did they suppose that he would send for a person to pray in a language which they did not understand? He believed, therefore, that the real cause of the rapid progress of Dissent which had taken place in Wales, was owing to the Government sending the bishops and clergy into Wales who could not preach to the people in a language which they understood. Why, let them fancy themselves to be placed in a similar position, would they not be inclined to adopt the course pursued by the majority of the people of Wales? Then they could not blame that people. He remembered being informed, on a visit which he paid to the right rev. the President of the Roman Catholic Institution, at Prior Tark, that they were actually educating Welshmen as priests, in order that they might go
1296
amongst the people of Wales and perform clerical duties amongst them. The Roman Catholics were always anxious to step in where they had the least opportunity of making converts, and he did not blame their zeal. He believed that the Dissenters had now taken possession of the heart of that country; and the House ought not, therefore, to be surprised at the extent of Dissent in Wales, because this country was the cause of it. He thought that this and every other Government should insist upon every clergyman whom they sent into Wales being able to speak in the language of that country, and that the bishops should properly discharge their various duties. In the diocese with which he was connected in that country, five clerical appointments had recently taken place, viz., one dean, two archdeacons, and two chancellors, only one of whom could read or speak the language of that country. Who, then, could be surprised at the extent of Dissent in Wales? He would now show the House whether the Church of England or Dissent was in the majority in the district in Wales with which he was connected. There were 25,000 inhabitants in that parish; 32 Dissenting chapels, the average attendance at which was 15,300; there were but five Church of England chapels, the average attendance at which was only 2,590. In the adjoining parish there was a population of 8,000; there were ten Dissenting chapels, the average attendance being 3,200; there were but three Church of England chapels, at which the average attendance was only 140. In such cases, therefore, as these, he thought that unless they passed some resolution of the kind then before the House, the people who were members of the Church of England would not have those advantages which they ought to have from the national grants for the purposes of education, for in such parishes there was scarcely anybody likely to give them the slightest support. He had no hesitation in saying, as a landowner, that he would not set up any school exclusively for the members of the Church of England. He could not do so; be could not put aside all the Dissenters whom he had mentioned; he must endeavour to make some arrangement by which the people might receive the benefits of a sound education. But supposing some one to succeed him there who might not hold the same opinions, then there ought to be some security afforded to the

1297
people that no intolerance should be permitted to exist in those districts on the subject of religious education. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Somersetshire. He should certainly offer his most decided opposition to any compulsory system of education by the Government. He did not think that such a system would be palatable in this country. He knew that there were some hon. Gentlemen who thought that such a system would work well, because they viewed with admiration what had taken place on that head in foreign countries. The House had often heard Prussia cited as an example of the excellence of the schools, and the great extent to which the Prussian people were educated. He ought to know something of that country; and he must say that a system of national compulsory education might do very well for a country in which the Government was truly despotic, but he did not think that it would do well for such a nation as this. He did not think that it would do for a country like this, where the people had been taught for many years to depend upon their own exertions, and they saw the proud result of those exertions. Now, what was the condition of Prussia? Why, in Prussia the State was everything, and the people nothing. It was very true that they had just had some sort of a constitutution offered to them; but it was, in fact, a mere nothing: it was only the first step in the right direction. It was very well known that in Prussia the King and his Ministers could compel the attendance at schools of the children of that country, the penalties for non-observance of their orders on the part of their parents being fine and imprisonment; and in case of a party not having attended school in his childhood, he was incapaciated from fulfilling any situation. Now, he was very much struck with a passage which occurred in a pamphlet written by Dr. Kay, descriptive of his tour through Prussia, in which he stated that, notwithstanding the people had been brought up under a compulsory system of education for the last three hundred years, yet the people were wanting in morality and good order, and that the children attending the schools were the most vicious he had ever seen in any country. He also said that he did not believe that Protestantism was an enemy to good order; but he did believe that Protestantism with an uneducated people was deci-
1298
dedly bad, whilst Catholicism was the reverse; that he would much rather have religious superstition, morality, and good order, than Protestantism and sensuality and revolutionary principles. He would say then, in conclusion, that unless some such Motion as that of the hon. Baronet were adopted, or unless the Government would give some assurrance that they would carry out their propositions in a proper spirit, he feared that great dissatisfaction would be experienced. In opposing the plan which had been brought forward by the Government, he did so because he sincerely believed that it would have a tendency to increase the unhappy differences which at present existed between the members of the Church of England and the various Dissenting bodies.
MR. HENLEYdiffered entirely, not only from the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House, but also from the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he trusted that the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he stated his views on this subject. He would not presume to go into the question which had been so much debated on the previous night. Now really it appeared very odd to him that this measure of education should be opposed by the so-called friends of education under the plea of liberty of conscience. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government some two or three nights ago, as well as several hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, spoke loudly in favour of this Motion, and he said it was a hardship that persons attending the Church of England schools should be obliged to repeat the Church catechism; but he said that he could not at the present moment propose any alteration in the plan in that particular. Now it was very unfortunate that the noble Lord and the many hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, should yet confess that at present they could not vote for it. Two right hon. Baronets (Sir R. Peel and Sir J. Graham) on that side of the House, had expressed themselves very friendly to the scheme of the Government, and they certainly took good care to facilitate its quiet passage through the House. He conscientiously disapproved of the principle of compelling persons to attend the schools established by the Church of England. He could not understand how any man who called himself a friend

1299
of liberty of conscience, could actually attempt to force other people to do that which might be painful to their conscience. He could not call that liberty of conscience: it was tyranny, which was very often attempted to be exercised under the name of freedom, or liberality. And he warned the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government to act with prudence when settling the Minutes of the Privy Council with regard to education. He warned them not to attempt now or at any time hereafter to force the Church of England to educate her children in a way that in her conscience she did not believe to be right; and that if he did so he would create such an opposition as he little dreamt of. There were some expressions in the speech of the noble Lord the other night on this subject which had been much noticed in the country. It had been well said by an hon. Baronet the other night in the course of the debate, that the Church was taking a very considerable hold of the people—much greater indeed than she had for some years back. He would ask whether they believed that she had got that hold by sacrificing her distinctive principles, by adopting a slip-slop religion, if he might so call it, and pretending to do one thing, and actually doing another? No, she had obtained that hold by her increased zeal, and the steady maintenance of her distinctive principles. He believed that she would not suffer herself to be controlled as to the manner in which she imparted religious education to her children. That had been her course hitherto. He believed that it was the sincerity of her professions, the zeal and good conduct of her members, which had taken the great hold on the people of this country alluded to by the hon. Baronet on that side of the House. Holding these opinions, then, he felt himself bound to vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He hoped that the Church would steadfastly and honestly refuse to give up what she believed to be true. She had refused to teach falsehood to the people, and he hoped that she would ever continue in the same course, never omitting to instruct those who were intrusted to her charge in what she believed to be the foundation of all useful knowledge; and he had no doubt that if she did she would be crowned with success.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that not one word had been said that evening in the course of the debate, with respect to the specific Mo-
1300
tion before the House. It had been merely a continuation of the three past nights' debate, until the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had certainly confined himself strictly to the terms of the Motion. He, however, widely differed from the hon. Member in some of his observations respecting the conduct which ought to be pursued by the clergy of the Established Church. He hoped that the clergy would rather follow the advice of the hon. Member for Droitwich, and the hon. Member for Oxford. It was not the intention of the Government, that in schools receiving aid from, the grant, any restriction should be imposed upon the religious teaching of the children, other than those that at present existed. He hoped that there would be an extension of that liberal feeling, and of that common sense which was daily becoming more prevalent, and which he hoped would soon become universal. The Government had not proposed to establish any system of their own. They merely proposed to assist existing institutions, thereby enabling them to extend their usefulness and efficiency, and to raise the character and position of the schoolmasters. To adopt the principle of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, would be inconsistent with the system upon which the Government had resolved to act. If they were to say to the British and Foreign School Society, to the Wesleyans, or to any other class of Dissenters, or even to the Roman Catholics, who he hoped would soon be included, that they were willing to give them aid, but that they could not do so until they had agreed to conform to the model which had been laid down, it would be wholly inconsistent with the present state of things, and with that voluntary principle which was now maintained. That children of different religious denominations might be educated at the same school, was a very different principle from attempting to interfere by arbitrary regulations which would defeat the very object they had in view. These were the reasons which induced him to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which he conceived to be in opposition to the Government plan.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, there was one thing exceedingly gratifying to all friends of liberal education in this country, which was the wish expressed by every person whose opinion was worth having, as to its being absolutely necessary that there should be some system of public education

1301
for the people; and secondly, that that education should be one which would include all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Those were propositions which had been ably maintained by many hon. Members during the debate for the last few nights, and by none more forcibly or eloquently than by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh. And he should say, that he did not think that persons holding the opinions of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, or of the noble Lord the Member for London, were open to the imputation of being infidels, because they did not come up to the strict measure of intolerance required by some persons in this country. To prevent any mistake as to the views he had, in voting upon the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he should beg to offer a few observations to the House. He took it for granted that it was an acknowledged fact, that the Government should educate the people. He assumed that it was the business of the Government to educate the largest number possible of the people. It had been said by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and re-echoed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that it would not do for the Government to half educate the people. But he should take leave to transpose some of those words. He should say that he did not think it would do for the Government to educate only half the people. The noble Lord said that he was not willing to give half an education. What then did he propose to do? To educate half the people—leaving the other half in that brute ignorance which had been described so forcibly by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who, in speaking of the condition of the people about Manchester, had used the words, "savage ignorance," in describing that condition of utter want of education by which they now oppressed society. And that reminded him of a prophecy of his own made a few nights ago, when he had said, that go as far as the noble Lord would, the right hon. Baronet would go beyond him. However unfortunate it might be for themselves, it was fortunate for England that they did so. The advocates of education, however, would get what they desired. They would get education for the people. They would get real tolerance in spite of the hon. Member for Kent. They should have the people made real Christians, but not after the
1302
fashion of one sect or another. They should have the noble Lord running a race of liberality with the right hon. Member for Tamworth; and they cared little who won in that neck-and-neck race, for it could only be won by that small fraction of liberality which was represented by such a distance. But what, he would ask, was the meaning of the phrase "religious education?"—which fitted equally the mouth of the right hon. Baronet and that of the noble Lord, and which issued with the same sort of efficiency from that of the hon. Baronet the member for the University of Oxford and from his own. If he understood aright what was education, he thought it was a sort of fashioning of the minds of the various persons who received instruction, so as to fit them morally and intellectually for the pursuit of happiness. To give knowledge was agreed upon by all parties as proper. The propriety of giving mathematical, geographical, or historical instruction to the people, was not disputed. It surely then could not matter whether the teaching that two and two made four, were conveyed by a Roman Catholic, or a professor of any other religious denomination. Education was a fashioning of the habits of the people, to the influences by which they were surrounded in society—those influences being the opinion of the family, the opinion of society out of doors, the law, and a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Did they not all agree that there was a future state of rewards and punishments? And did they believe that a child was likely to be influenced in his moral associations, in his habits, so as to be a recipient of happiness himself, and competent to communicate it to others, by entertaining that common creed? What, then, was it that was raised as a bugbear on the present occasion? Did any one doubt as to the means of forming the moral habits of the next generation? No; then what was it they differed about? Why, the fantastic dogmata propounded by those who desired to separate the community by prejudice, passion, and by ignorance, but never made use of by those who really intended the happiness of their kind. It was in consequence of these dogmata, these peculiarities of faith, as they were called, these differences between the Douay and the English authorized version, that all this great pother and disburbance about religious education had been created. The reality no man disputed; they all wished for that

1303
which every one admitted was desirable, viz., a belief in the minds of the people of a future state—that expectation of future rewards and punishments which should induce virtuous habits and moral conduct. That was a religion which was common to them all; and yet, entertaining this faith, they had raised up that phantom—phantom, in words, but most direful in reality—religious hatred among those who should be brethren. There was no difference about the knowledge which ought to be imparted; there was no difference about the mode in which the habits could be fashioned; the only difference was respecting the peculiar dogmata arising from religion. If any one distrusted the peculiarities of a religion, and was doubtful of their effect upon a member of the community, he should ask himself, "Don't I know gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion? Are they not honest? Are they not good fathers, good brothers, good citizens?" Yes, such men were known; then it was clear their religion had not had an evil or mischievous influence on their moral character. They knew Baptists; were they not good Christians, in the real sense of the word—good fathers, good brothers, good citizens? He might run through every form of religion existing in society—the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, here in England—and were they not all good fathers, good brothers, good citizens, good men, in spite of those peculiar differences which arose in every civilized community, and which would be met with the more frequently the more civilized the country became? Well, then, if that were the case, what did the noble Lord, and what did the right hon. Baronet mean when they said we must teach religion? Did he object to their teaching the expectation of rewards hereafter for good conduct here? Not at all; but what he did object to was, that they should create a standard of their own; that the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) should point out his mind—his mind!—as the standard for all virtuous and intellectual effort. His mind! To say, "All men who don't agree with me are doomed!" What did he mean by "doomed?" Put an "a" in the place of the "o," and they fathomed the orthodoxy of the hon. Gentleman. He had not that extraordinary estimation of the hon. Gentleman's intellectual capacity, and he did not perceive any of those sublime moral characteristics, which should command the world to accept the hon. Gentleman as the
1304
type of human and Christian excellence. He objected also to the manifestoes made by some persons out of doors. The Wesleyan Methodists, in that remarkable document which had been issued in consequence of the very remarkable transaction with the Government, declared that they were not content error should be taught; that they objected to the teaching of Roman Catholic children; and they finished up with a glorification that they hoped the time was coming when there should be full religious tolerance. Now, what was the meaning of these phrases put together? It was this: religious tolerance in their mouths meant "my religion," and "I hope to see the time when no religion but mine will be taught." It meant that they were of that religion which represented and contained everything that was good and salvatory. He was not of that opinion; and, what was more, he could have no great faith in the intellectual eminence of that body if they had been taken in by the proposition of the noble Lord. But mark—let all the world mark—he mentioned this on purpose, and with the intention that that mask which he had put on on this occasion should be stripped off; they entertained a doubt about the Minutes—they entertained a dread of the Minutes, because they supposed there was to be an extension of the good things of this world, in the shape of a vote of that House, to the Roman Catholics; and they applied to the noble Lord. And, after sundry applications and well-conducted negotiations, they were partially satisfied—that the Roman Catholics were to be excluded. The whole of their satisfaction arose from that source. Their satisfaction was in proportion to their certainty that the Roman Catholics would be excluded from a participation in those favours which would be granted by a vote of that House. He was afraid that the satisfaction must be vastly diminished by the proceedings of the last few days. The noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell) had got up and said, "I don't promise they shall be for a very long time."—"It is true, that so far as this 100,000 l. is concerned, they may be;" but this was in the potential mood—there was none of the positiveness of the future, or of the imperative—let it be, or it shall be. It might be to the extent of 100,000 l., but the assurance was not extended even so far as the next vote. And the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had thoroughly done away with this proposition. John chalks as high as he can; Tom

1305
chalks a little way more; John chalks a little further; and then Robert chalks highest. Therefore, the satisfaction of those who rested their approval of the Minutes upon the probable exclusion of the Roman Catholics, would be very much diminished by seeing the last chalk. The real meaning of the thing had been exposed; and that House, representing the good feeling and good sense of the country, had destroyed the hallucination. It would be totally impossible under any Administration—he didn't care whether of the noble Lord or of the right hon. Baronet, or, to go to a more wild and wondrous supposition, of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn—to do that which was necessary to satisfy the Wesleyans. He would go one step further. Even if the right hon. Baronet near whom he sat (Sir R. H. Inglis), and for whom, on all occasions, he was glad to express respect—if that hon. Baronet, with all his sturdy and constant and conscientious consistency, were to be Prime Minister to-morrow, he would be so pressed that, like a right hon. Baronet before him, he would have to defy all the warnings of Oxford, and, accepting a compromise, have to seek refuge in a rotten borough. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets might consider his Motion as really carried. The noble Lord's language was, "I will proceed step by step, as the people of England will permit me," Let him say it once for all—for he would never repeat it—he had the greatest possible respect for the noble Lord's character; but on this subject the noble Lord's conscience was elastic. It was like a ball—it followed the pressure from without. At present the pressure from without was great; as that receded, the noble Lord's conscience would extend and expand. The noble Lord said, "I can't include Catholics and Protestants at present. The pressure is very great now, but the steam is getting up. I have a large area before me, and the Catholics before long shall have my cordial embrace. They are within my mind already." The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, hoped the Catholics would be included. Did he mean that was the impression intended to be conveyed in the communications recently made to the Wesleyans? ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] Why, no such thing. The year 1848 was left to them in the darkness of the future; it was cut off from their knowledge. They were left in the belief that all futurity was to be like '47, happy in
1306
their intolerance, and in their belief that the Catholics would be excluded from sharing in the Government money. But was not that House certain of what was coming; and must not the Wesleyans be certain of it too, after what had passed in that House? There would be a large majority in favour of the Government grant of 100,000 l.; they would all go to their constituents, and some of them would return to that House again. When, then, some of them came back, he did not say "some of us," hon. Members would take comfort from the seven years before them, and knowing how, under the railway system, kindly feelings travelled, they would find that, both out of doors and in doors, people would be in favour of receiving all classes into a system of national education. 1848, he would pledge his faith to it, would see the Catholics included in the vote of that House. But if that were certain to happen, what must they think of that class of men who could enter into negotiation with gentlemen whom the House could shadow forth without collars and with white neckerchiefs, and who could persuade them that they had attained the object these latter had in view—in establishing a system of downright Protestant intolerance? That hope must even now be at an end; and of the two alternatives before the Government, that which they had this year adopted of teaching, all the various sects in different schools according to their separate dogmata, would be done away with, and they would arrive at an education which would include all sects. The Wesleyan Methodists complained that the Government were going to apply their funds to teach error, and they were going to raise up a feeling of intolerance on that account. He would say to them that he was not going to take their money to propagate error, but to rescue the people from a savage state of ignorance. He would take their money as a mere matter of policy. He would not put it on a higher ground, until the people had raised their intellect to some higher point; and as the Government raised money for the police, for the justiciary, and for the Army and Navy, so he would take other funds to maintain schools and schoolmasters, with the view of rendering the people secure and the nation happy. The time would come when the people would go before that House in the race, and lead them in the task of informing mankind; when they would cast off the slough of prejudice and bigotry, and in the

1307
exercise of justice, faith, and generosity, would compel them to adopt a good measure of public education. Such a measure would not come by that state of agony and battle by which the Government proposed to give it, when they declared themselves sectarian at the commencement; but by avowing their thorough and conscientious conviction of the claim that every man had to the complete and impartial protection of the State. He was sorry to say that the liberality of the noble Lord was not the liberality which led, but the liberality which followed and was forced. He was only liberal when others were more liberal; he was only right when others were more right; he was wrong when they said nothing. He wished the noble Lord to be the leader; he wished him to point out that his Government now without fusion wished well to all, and would avail themselves of the means at their disposal to advance the happiness of all. Could he doubt as to the vote he should give on this occasion? Not at all. He believed that, as they advanced day by day into that civilization which they all saw before them, that step by step every Government would daily and hourly fall into that track which he had described of perfect tolerance, the total absence of sectarian feeling, an utter carelessness of each particular hatred as manifested by one sect towards another.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: I regret to have again to trouble the House on this question; and had hoped that the statements I had offered with regard to it would have prevented many observations that have been made to-night, both by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) and the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I did conceive I had shown clearly from an authentic document what was the statement made by the Secretary of the Committee of the Council, in the name of Lord Lansdowne, to the Wesleyan body. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has completely lost sight of the whole of that statement, and has raised up an edifice entirely of his own imagination. He has supposed that the Wesleyans came to us, asking that the Roman Catholics should be always excluded, and that we thought there might come a time when they might be admitted, but still left the Wesleyans under the belief that they would not be so admitted; and, likewise, that the Government, as far as I represent it, has an elastic conscience in these things, and that though, we might
1308
feel great repugnance to admit the Catholics this year, we should have no repugnance in subsequent years, if we found that others had no conscientious objections to it. Now, I can show that I have no conscientious objections to the admission of Roman Catholics to the benefit of an education supported by the State, because, in 1839, I had agreed to put forth, and had laid before Parliament, Minutes, in which, the education of Roman Catholics from their own version of the Scriptures was established. That I could pretend, therefore, after that, to have conscientious objections to the admission of Roman Catholics, is quite impossible. I never pretended then, or at any time since, that I could object to the education of Roman Catholics, or the establishment of Catholic schools, as a matter of conscience. The charge the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers, is all a creature of his imagination. The whole ground on which I ever placed the question was this: I said in 1839 what I have said since, that I saw a very strong feeling in the public contrary to my own opinion on the subject, and I did not like to shake or disturb that public feeling; I thought it more advisable to wait till it became more in favour of the opinion. I hold; and I said I never doubted opinion would so come round, and when it should be in my favour, I was ready to propose the establishment of Roman Catholic schools. With regard to what happened the other day with the Wesleyan and other bodies, and any statement made to them, it is stated in a sentence I read last night from the reply of the Government—
"Further Minutes, when presented, will make a separate provision for Roman Catholic schools, and will in no degree unsettle the basis cm which aid is now granted to other schools. Full opportunity will be given for the consideration and discussion of such Minutes before Parliament is called upon to carry them into execution."
How the hon. and learned Gentleman can say that the Wesleyans were deceived into the belief that there was no intention entertained of establishing Roman Catholic schools, almost passes my comprehension. I cannot conceive how the hon. and learned Gentleman could, with these facts before his eyes, have made several other statements of the same kind, as he has done to-night. The hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone has stated that I refused to see certain Roman Catholic bishops and deputations of Protestant Dissenters. I only remember one Roman Catholic bishop who desired to see me before any Minutes

1309
were framed as to the admission of Roman Catholics to the schools. I said nothing should be done without my seeing that Roman Catholic prelate, and that I was ready to see him before I framed them. That was not refusing to see a Roman Catholic bishop! With regard to Protestant Dissenters, I saw two deputations from Leeds, and other deputations also, all reiterating the same objections. I was happy to converse with them: they included many gentlemen with whom I had acted on various occasions; but, having seen a considerable number of deputations, and as they took up time which was required for other public business I was obliged to attend to, I said I must decline seeing any more. If the hon. Baronet had any particular charges to make against me, he might have informed me what the particular facts were, and then I could have answered him. But the Motion of my hon. Friend (Sir W. Clay) is the immediate question before the House, although upon it a very small part of the debate has turned. I think, if the greater part of the debate had turned upon it, we should not have had so many hon. Gentlemen declaring themselves ready to vote for that Motion. Be it observed, the principle upon which we have gone is that of giving support to different societies and schools in aid of voluntary contributions. We began in the year 1833 by giving aid to the National Society and the British and Foreign Society. Those general provisions lasted a great number of years without alteration; but they shut out a considerable portion of the inhabitants of this country. I believe the right hon. Baronet was quite right when he said they excluded the Wesleyans. I thought they would have been willing to receive grants through the British and Foreign Society; but by the constitution of their body they could not do so, and they were excluded as well as the Roman Catholics and other persuasions. This was the state of things at that time; of late years we have said—and we have never gone any further in any Minutes of the Privy Council—that we would listen to special cases; we would listen to other applications, and those cases should be considered special. But still we must consider that the great mass of applications will come from bodies connected with one of those two societies, and from those which have made large subscriptions of their own. How did the hon. Baronet meet those difficulties? By proposing—
1310
"That it is expedient, that in any plan for promoting the education of the people by pecuniary assistance from the State, provision should be made that, in schools receiving such assistance, the opportunity of participating in all instruction, other than religious, should be afforded to children whose parents may object to the religious doctrines taught in such schools."
Of course, that would put an end to any schools in connexion with the National Society receiving any aid. They would say, it is impossible to assent to a rule contrary to the fundamental principles of the society. But let us look at the British and Foreign schools, the society to which I have for many years belonged, and which I consider the best foundation for bringing together a great number of children of all classes in this country. That society lays down as its first rule that the Bible shall be used in all its schools. My friend Mr. W. Allen, member of the Society of Friends, used to call them the "schools for all," all who admitted the authority of the Bible being capable of entering them; but the demand made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets is, that the parents of children shall be at liberty to declare that they shall not receive any part of the religious instruction, but that they shall receive the secular instruction alone, religious teaching not being imparted to them in any way. I doubt whether the British and Foreign Society could receive, any grant on terms contrary to an old rule of the society. Therefore, with regard to the two main societies to which we propose to give assistance, they will be prevented by the resolution from receiving the aid we offer; and it is obvious that the effect of such a resolution as this will be to defeat the whole intent and grounds on which the grant of 100,000 l. is proposed. Previously an objection was made, before this measure was proposed, that certain schools were established and supported by the societies to which they belonged out of their own means; that those societies did not come to the Privy Council to seek assistance, but building schoolhouses less capacious than they might be if aided by this grant, and with less able schoolmasters, they still went on without the assistance of the State. Now, as the measure which we propose is not one which is intended to be a State model of education, or a general plan of our own, the object which we have in view would be defeated by the Amendment. If this rule were adopted, neither the National School Society nor the British and Foreign School

1311
Society would agree to it, and the efficacy of the measure would be destroyed. In the British and Foreign Schools, where a great number of the children of Dissenters might attend, it is not insisted that the Church catechism shall be taught to those children, as we conceived it more generous and charitable that they should not be taught that catechism. There is, for instance, a portion of that catechism in which the child, or the person to whom it is taught, mentions his godfather and godmother; and it is well known that many classes of Dissenters are of opinion that no godfather or godmother is necessary. I think, with regard to the British and Foreign schools, if the Roman Catholics object to the reading of the Bible in them, it would, to that extent, be an objection; but I do not believe that they would be a general rule or a fundamental rule of objection. I, therefore, hope my Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets will withdraw his Motion; for, if he succeeds in it, he will at once dispose of the distribution of the 100,000 l. as far as rendering assistance to these two societies.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, that even if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay) were adopted, he did not think that those who had induced him to bring it forward would accept the assistance he proposed to give them; for he believed their dread of the Established Church was such, that they would not send their children to a school in connexion with that Church. He considered that one great benefit resulting from the discussion of this question had been, that it had exposed that system of organization and of bitter hostility and bigotry against the Church which existed among the body of Dissenters bearing the name of "Independents." They did not represent those Nonconformists of the seventeenth century, for whom our sympathies were enlisted as the sturdy champions of liberty; but rather the bitter Puritans, who waged war against the Church and Monarchy: from these he must except the Dissenters of the district which he represented, who, in an interview he had had with them, had expressed their objections fairly and moderately. He would take that opportunity of pressing on the Government the adoption of a plan of apprenticeship for the workhouse boys, under the management of the inspectors appointed by this measure.
MR. P. H. HOWARDmerely rose to speak on a question of fact, to which the
1312
hon. Baronet had alluded. The hon. Baronet had alluded to an interview which had been proposed between the Roman Catholic bishops and the noble Lord. The truth was, the Catholic bishops were anxious to see the noble Lord before the 19th, when he unfolded his plans, and opened the scheme of education as proposed by the Government. He had heard that deputations from other religious bodies had been received by the noble Lord; and the Roman Catholic bishops were anxious, before the 19th, to receive, which they thought they had a right to do, a similar audience. On Thursday or Friday, last week, they wrote to the noble Lord to request an interview with him before Monday, for after that time it would be too late to remedy any evils which might arise. With respect to the reports which prevailed on the subject, he would not then enter into them, or consider whether any classes were to be excluded. It had been stated, however, that this exclusion of the Catholics from the benefit of the grant, had been a question between the Government and the Wesleyans. The Roman Catholic prelates, therefore, had written to the noble Lord for an interview, to which they received the following reply, by which the House would see that the noble Lord declined an interview before the 19th:—
"Lord John Russell presents his compliments to Bishop Griffiths, and will name a day for receiving the Catholic bishops before the introduction of any measure relative to the education of poor Catholics."
Thus, then, the interview was asked before the 19th, when it was stated they were to be excluded; but the noble Lord refused. The note proceeded to say—
"Her Majesty's Ministers have no intention, however, of proposing a Minute of Council on the subject at present."
Consequently the interview was postponed for an indefinite period. He was not going to say anything with respect to the interview with that highly respectable person, Mr. Jabez Bunting. He would not say a word otherwise than of respect of that gentleman; but he maintained that the Catholic hierarchy of England—the hierarchy of that religion which was in power in this country when its liberties were founded—had some claim to the courtesy of an interview with the noble Lord as First Minister of the Crown before the 19th instant, when it was understood the members of the religion they professed

1313
were to be excluded from the benefit of the grant. He thought that he had made out a satisfactory case, and had decidedly shown that an interview was declined when they believed that the interests of those whom they represented would be affected. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Somersetshire in his censure of the liberal observations of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. He thought that the language that right hon. Gentleman used with respect to the state of the education of the poor Catholic population of Manchester, did him the highest honour. He trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would not disdain to be guided by these sentiments. He was quite sure, if they did not do so, they would not legislate for the poor man in that confiding spirit by which they would best consult the interests of the country. With respect to the Amendment before the House on the subject of this measure, he should vote with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets, as he thought that all should, in as nearly equal proportion as possible, share in such a grant as that now proposed. There should be impartial justice, and for the sake of the constituency which he represented, as well as for that of the community at large, he wished justice should be done to the minority, instead of nearly all being conceded to the majority. By doing this, he believed the best interests of the country would be promoted. He therefore gave the Amendment his cordial support.
MR. T. D. ACLAND, in explanation, denied that he was open to the charge brought against him by the hon. Member. If the Minutes of Council had been altered to admit the Wesleyans, the Catholics should not be excluded by it.
The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question—Ayes 210; Noes 74; Majority 136.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Beckett, W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bell, M.

Acland, T. D.

Bell, J.

Adderley, C. B.

Bellew, R. M.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bennet, P.

Antrobus, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Bailey, J. jun.

Blackburne, J. I.

Baillie, Col.

Blackstone, W. S.

Barclay, D.

Borthwick, P.

Barkly, H.

Botfield, B.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Broadley, H.

Baring, T.

Buck, L. W.

1314

Buller, C.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Buller, E.

Hill, Lord E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hope, Sir J.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Hope, A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hope, G. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Hotham, Lord

Chelsea, Visct.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Christie, W. D.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Christopher, R. A.

Hudson, G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hurst, R. H.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Clive, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Colville, C. R.

James, W.

Coote, Sir C. H.

James, Sir W. C.

Copeland, Ald.

Jervis, Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Courtenay, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Craig, W. G.

Lambton, H.

Cripps, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Layard, Maj.

Davies, D. A. S.

Legh, G. C.

Denison, W. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Denison, J. E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Denison, E. B.

Lindsay, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

Loch, J.

Dodd, G.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

M'Neill, D.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mahon, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Mainwaring, T.

Dundas, Sir D.

Maitland, T.

Du Pre, C. G.

Manners, Lord J.

East, Sir J. B.

March, Earl of

Ebrington, Visct.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Egerton, Sir P.

Meynell, Capt.

Emlyn, Visct.

Miles, P. W. S.

Entwisle, W.

Miles, W.

Fielden, J.

Monahan, J. H.

Ferguson, Sir H. A.

Morgan, O.

Filmer, Sir E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Finch, G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Floyer, J.

Mundy, E. M.

Forbes, W.

Mure, Colonel

Fox, S. L.

Newdegate, C. N.

Frewen, C. A.

Newport, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Newry, Visct.

Gill, T.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Norreys, Lord

Gordon, hon. Adm.

Northland, Visct.

Gore, M.

O'Brien, A. S.

Gore, hon. R.

O'Conor Don

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Granny, Marq. of

Ord, W.

Greene, T.

Ossulston, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Oswald, A.

Grimsditch, T.

Owen, Sir J.

Guest, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Hale, R. B.

Pakington, Sir J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Palmerston, Visct.

Halsey, T. P.

Parker, J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Philips, Sir R. B. P.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Harcourt, G. G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Polhill, F.

Hawes, B.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Powlett, Lord W.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Protheroe, E. D.

Heneage, E.

Pusey, P.

Henley, J. W.

Rashleigh, W.

1315

Repton, G. W. J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Rich, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Richards, R.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Romilly, J.

Tollemache, J.

Round, G. G.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Round, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Vane, Lord H.

Russell, Lord J.

Verner, Sir W.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Villiers, Visct.

Russell, C.

Vivian, J. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Scott, hon. F.

Ward, H. G.

Seymer, H. K.

Wilshere, W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Wodehouse, E.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wood, Col. T.

Stanton, W. H.

Worcester, Marq. of

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, H.

Tufnell, H.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hindley, C.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hollond, R.

Baine, W.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Hume, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Langston, J. H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

M'Carthy, A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bowring, Dr.

Marsland, H.

Bright, J.

Matheson, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brotherton, J.

Moffatt, G.

Brown, W.

Morris, D.

Brown, R. D.

Muntz, G. F.

Callaghan, D.

Napier, Sir C.

Chapman, B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Collett, J.

Osborne, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Pattison, J.

Currie, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Dashwood, G. H.

Perfect, R.

Dennistoun, J.

Pulsford, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Duncan, G.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Duncombe, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Dundas, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ellis, W.

Thornely, T.

Escott, B.

Trelawny, J. S.

Evans, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Ewart, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Wakley, T.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G.

Walker, R.

Gisborne, T.

Warburton, H.

Granger, T. C.

Wawn, J. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Hastie, A.

Yorke, H. R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

TELLERS.

Heathcoat, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Heron, Sir R.

Duncan, Visct.

House in Committee, and a sum of 100,000 l. was voted for the purposes of Education, under the direction of the Committee of Privy Council.
The House resumed. Resolution to be reported.
House adjourned at One o'clock.