Commons Sitting of 17 March 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Londonderry County, Thomas Bateson, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Friendly Societies (No. 2).
2° Pharmacy; Municipal Corporations Acts Amendment; Common Law Fees Regulation; Indemnity; Consolidated Fund (8,000,000 l.)

MANCHESTER AND SALFORD EDUCATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, in asking the leave of the House to read this Bill a second time, he would not occupy its time by expatiating upon the importance or on the necessity of a scheme of education. It was admitted on all hands that it was most important and necessary that education should be extended in this country. But he would frankly state the circumstances in which he was placed, and the origin of the Bill. It was a measure originating with the inhabitants of the boroughs of Manchester and Salford, among
1196
whom there were three parties all immediately interested in promoting the cause of education, but who happened, however, to differ as to the best means of accomplishing their ends. The Bill at present under discussion was promoted by a very large proportion of the ratepayers of these boroughs. The three parties to which he had alluded, were—first, those in favour of a combined religious education; secondly, those in favour of a secular system; and, thirdly, the upholders of a voluntary system; the first-named being those who were promoting this Bill. The present Bill was supported by the great majority of the ratepayers in both boroughs, 40,000 of whom had petitioned in its favour, namely, 31,000 and upwards in Manchester, and 8,500 in Salford. The town councils of both boroughs had met to consider the subject; and he was bound to admit that, at a recent meeting of the town council of Manchester, after a long discussion, the Bill was rejected by thirty-four votes against twenty-two. In Salford, the result had been different. There the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by seventeen against fourteen; the seventeen who voted in the majority being assessed at 9,243 l., and the fourteen forming the minority at 1,826 l. So far, at least, as Salford was concerned, not only was the majority of the council, both in numbers and rating, in favour of the Bill, but a majority of the ratepayers had petitioned to be taxed for the purpose of providing for the education of the working classes. And though in Manchester the majority of the town council objected to this particular measure, they had expressed no opinion adverse to the principle of imposing a rate for educational purposes. It was objected that the Bill was for a public object, and that legislation on the subject should be general. But the fact was, that the promoters of the Bill, however anxious they might have been on the subject, despaired of any general measure that should be applicable to the whole kingdom; and feeling how urgent was the necessity in Manchester and Salford that something should be done, had, after much consideration, brought forward this scheme, which was acceptable to the great body of the ratepayers, and which they conceived did not infringe in any way on the rights of conscience. Should the House consent to the second reading, there were certain courses which might be pursued. First, the Bill might be referred to the Committee of Selection, who

1197
would appoint those Members on the Select Committee who were best qualified to deal with the details, and who would give full consideration to any objections that might be urged; and afterwards, when the Report was brought up, it would be competent to refer the Bill then to a Committee of the whole House, and treat it in all its subsequent stages as a Public Bill. Or, after the second reading, it would be quite practicable to refer the whole subject to a Select Committee upstairs to receive evidence, and to prepare such a measure as would be generally acceptable to the people, and which might become a pattern for other large towns wherein a similar desire to educate the working classes existed. The objection as to the purpose of the Bill being a public one, was, therefore, no ground for refusing to read it a second time. The parties were willing to bear the expense and to submit to a tax for educational purposes; and he thought they deserved immortal honour for the noble example they had in this respect set to the rest of the Kingdom. The proposal for raising a compulsory rate had been objected to—but who were the objectors? Those who were in favour of the secular system were also in favour of rating, and the majority of those who would have to pay in both towns were not only willing, but expressed a desire to be rated for such a purpose. There was one party only who, on principle, could object to the Bill, namely, the advocates of the voluntary system. But that party was opposed to any legislation for educational purposes whatever, conceiving that voluntary effort was sufficient; so that whatever decision the House might ultimately come to could have no weight with them. With regard to the decision of the town council of Salford, he considered it so important that, with the permission of the House, he would read the resolution in which it was expressed. It was in these terms:—
"Inasmuch as two schemes are now before the public, and are about to be discussed in Parliament, having for their object the better education of the children of the working classes, and both based on the principle of a public rate, the council, admitting that there is great need of increased means of education for the working classes, consider it desirable that those means should be supplied by a public rate, to be limited in amount, and to be under local management."
Here, then, they had the majority of the ratepayers and of the town council declaring their opinion that there was a necessity for increased education, and ex-
1198
pressing their willingness to provide for it by a rate; and this it was proposed to do in a way that would not infringe the right of conscience. On the subject of remuneration, he might mention that that would depend on the number of scholars—the; pay would be in proportion to the work. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. MILNER GIBSONregretted to say he must take a somewhat unusual, though not, he apprehended, an irregular course, with regard to this Bill. He proposed to move, as an Amendment to the second reading, a resolution to the effect that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of education in the municipal boroughs of Manchester and Salford, and certain adjacent townships; and whether it is advisable to make any further provision for the education of the inhabitants of such boroughs and townships by means of local rates. In the first place, it appeared extraordinary that this subject should be dealt with by a Private Bill. He admitted that the measure, being confined in its application to a particular locality, did possess the distinctive character of a Private Bill; but though that was so, he thought he could show that the object of this measure was of that nature that it ought to be provided for by some general laws applicable to all localities, as was done in the case of Enclosure and other Bills of a private nature, for which Parliament had to prevent the undue accumulation of its private business, and, to secure uniformity, framed a code of regulations applicable to all cases. For consider what a serious impediment it would be to the ordinary business if every town in England came to Parliament with its particular Education Bill, calling upon them to enter into the consideration in each particular case of a question involving religious controversy and differences, which it would be impossible to dispose of satisfactorily without great difficulty and prolonged discussion. The reasonable and the prudent way to deal with this question of education was for Parliament to decide on the general principles which should be applicable to the whole community; each particular locality could avail itself of the general law, by confirming to the particular conditions therein contained. On this ground he thought he had a

1199
fair argument against the attempt to legislate in the present instance by a Private Bill. If the House now agreed to the second reading of this measure, it would give its assent for the first time to a most important principle of public policy—that was, that free schools for religious and secular teaching should be supported by public rates. This was a perfectly novel principle in England, and involved a change off public policy so great as had scarcely ever been attempted without the preliminary of Parliamentary inquiry. He felt, therefore, that he was making no improper demand when he called for such preliminary inquiry. He would rather that the Committee he proposed to move for should have more general powers of investigation than his resolution would give them; but he had so limited the terms of his Motion, thinking it would be more likely in that form to find acceptance, and have a useful and practical result. If he proposed an inquiry into the state of education throughout the whole kingdom, he felt that it might continue for so long a period as to be, comparatively useless for the present object, and render him open to the charge of desiring to get rid of the question by a side wind. His hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) had told the House of the opposition the measure had met with from the corporation of Manchester, and of the opinion which had been given indirectly, as it appeared, by that of Salford. But the House should remember that the resolution passed by the corporation of Salford was merely an abstract declaration in favour of providing for education by means of local rates, and had no particular reference to the Bill now before the House, which involved not only the levying a rate for educational purposes, but the important proposition—whether they were prepared to support all kinds of religious teaching, and to train up children in the Roman Catholic religion, the Protestant religion, and in the religion of all the various denominations of dissent, by means of public rates? On this question the corporation of Salford had never given any opinion. This was, in fact, one of the leading and most important principles of the Bill—that it proposed not merely to apply the rates to some kind of instruction or education, but for the purpose of teaching all forms of religion as far as they were contained in the Christian faith. They were told by his hon. Friend that the promoters of the Bill did not wish to
1200
interfere with the rights of conscience, or to act unfairly towards any portion of the ratepayers; but although there were undoubtedly provisions for schools connected with the various religious denominations, there was a body—and, in Manchester, not an inconsiderable one—for whom there was no provision made in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman—he meant the Jews. The only provision for the Jews in the Bill was, that they were to pay the rate. The provision for the Roman Catholics, too, was this, namely, that they might avail themselves of schools built in destitute districts by the ratepayers at large, and themselves amongst the number, upon one condition. That condition was, that they should consent to hare their children instructed in the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures. Surely that was not consonant with the principle laid down by his hon. Friend, when he said that he did not wish to invade the rights of conscience, for it would put it out of the power of the Roman Catholics to avail themselves of those schools at all. He (Mr. M. Gibson) did not think it was necessary for him to go through all the provisions of the measure; because, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, the better course would be for the House to confine themselves to its leading principles; but he thought it was not a mere matter of detail thus to limit the voting of the rates to such schools only as were of a purely religious character, because he believed the promoters of the Bill would not waive that most important principle. In speaking of those Gentlemen, he could conscientiously agree with his hon. Friend in saying, that they deserved great credit for the efforts they had made, for the expenditure they had incurred, and the labour they bad devoted to this momentous subject. He should certainly regret very deeply, though he differed from them to some considerable extent, if those labours were to be of no avail. He thought that to have the results they had arrived at placed on record, in an authoritative form before a Committee of that House, would best meet their views, while it would at the same time relieve other parties from the necessity of entering into an expensive and perhaps painful conflict with them, such as would ensue if they were to be heard by counsel before a Private Bill Committee. Those parties, if the plan he recommended were adopted, would be able to state their opinions as to the policy of any course that might be sug-

1201
gessed without the necessity for that strong antagonism and those rancorous religious conflicts that he feared might arise if the measure came before a Committee as a Private Bill; and, he repeated, it would prevent those expensive proceedings that must ensue in a case like this, where the corporation of Manchester would be certain to use their utmost efforts, in conformity with the resolution that they had adopted, and as the representatives of the great body of the ratepayers, in opposing the Bill. All these disagreeable consequences would be saved by the course he had pointed out; and he did not think that the promoters would have any right to complain that they had been unfairly dealt with, nor would the expenditure which they had incurred have been for nothing. He hoped the House would understand, that it was not from any hostility to the plan of supporting education by local rates, that he asked them to agree to the Amendment. He was himself disposed to favour a plan which he believed would not be very acceptable to many hon. Gentlemen in that House, but it corresponded at all events with the plan of local rates. Every Gentleman in that House would feel that in the present state of public affairs, it was almost impossible that a measure of this kind could pass into a law this Session; and therefore the interests of the promoters would be best served by not pressing it forward, for it would surely be much better to reserve the subscriptions they had raised for another day, than to expend them now in a fruitless Parliamentary conflict. The petition which he (Mr. M. Gibson) had presented that day would show that the petitions in favour of the Bill were obtained from no desire, he was sure, on the part of its promoters to mislead those who had signed them, but from a perhaps unavoidable misconception of its nature. The petitioners stated that they had signed the previous petitions under an impression that they were signing petitions for the promotion of a general national education. There was another plan which had also been most elaborately promoted in Manchester and in other parts of the country—namely, a scheme of secular education. That plan had been supported by a petition from Manchester, signed by no fewer than 60,000 persons; and he mentioned this merely to show that there were rival schemes which had obtained great favour with the public—a circumstance that surely furnished another strong argument
1202
to prove that there should be a deliberate Parliamentary inquiry before they sanctioned the principle of the present Bill. He hoped that they would do him the credit to believe that he had acted bonâ fide in the promotion of the object of the measure; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), who had taken a great interest in it, would see that the mere pressing the second reading, if it should afterwards be suspended, was not so legitimate a course as to have a preliminary inquiry. If it was intended that the second reading should only be pro formâ, then those very words pro formâ would show that the House was unwilling to recognise the important principle of the measure. The House, therefore, ought not to agree to any plan before they had had a Committee, so that a good measure might be introduced by the Government of the country in some future Session.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he seconded the Amendment on much narrower grounds than those taken by the right hon. Member who had just sat down, but which he thought it was quite impossible that they could overlook. He had objected the other day for the same reasons to the Bill proposed by the corporation of the city of London; and he was really anxious to know what line they were to draw between Public and Private Bills if this was a Private Bill? They had in this Bill questions involving principles of the widest importance, and in which the whole country was deeply interested. For his own part, he had no very great objection to the measure, for he had a great desire to see the cause of education forwarded, and he was quite prepared to support a rate for educational purposes; but he did object to the form in which the Bill now appeared before the House. He thought that there was such a strong technical objection to it that it ought to be stopped in limine, and not be allowed to proceed to a second reading at all. He might as well bring in a Bill to alter the law of succession within the borough of Manchester—that would only apply to the locality—and would be as much a Private Bill as the one before them. And by the same rule he might bring in a Private Bill to alter the law of murder within that borough; indeed, the whole administration of the criminal justice of the country might just as well be changed in the same manner. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) had taken credit for not having opposed the presenta-

1203
tion of petitions against the measure, and said that he might have enforced their being sent to the Private Bill Office, as he understood from his hon. Friend (Mr. Bright) had been done with some other petitions. He could understand cases where the regulations respecting Private Bills might be expedient; but there was no private interest concerned in this. The interests of all were involved; but how could they ask a poor man to go before a Committee of that House and vindicate his rights? But if they made it a Public Bill, he could be represented by hon. Members. Every hon. Member was, in fact, the representative of everybody whose interests were concerned, and they could discuss it, or oppose it, as they thought best; but if it were made a Private Bill, how could he (Mr. Roebuck) go into the Committee to oppose it, unless he happened to be selected to sit upon that Committee? He would ask the right I hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) how he could allow such a measure to be brought in as a Private Bill, which touched the rights and affected the consciences of the people at large? He (Mr. Roebuck) certainly thought that such a Bill ought to be required to go through the solemn ordeal to which all public measures were forced to submit.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, In order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the state of Education in the municipal boroughs of Manchester and Salford, and in the contiguous townships of Broughton, Pendleton, and Pendlebury, and whether it is advisable to make any further provision, and in what manner, for the education of the inhabitants within such boroughs and townships, by means of local rates to be raised within the same,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was anxious to state very early in the discussion the individual opinions that he entertained on the subject before the House, and also, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr Roebuck), to explain the views which he thought should be taken as to the distinction existing between Public and Private Bills. In his opinion great credit was due to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brotherton) and to the promoters of this Bill, for endeavouring to provide for the education of the humbler classes in two such populous and important towns as
1204
Manchester and Salford. They were doubly entitled to credit, inasmuch as they had endeavoured to found the education they proposed to give upon a religious and not upon a secular basis, and they had endeavoured to do this by interfering as little as possible with the rights of conscience and the honest conviction of the religious denominations within their districts. But, with every desire to assist the promoters of this measure, he thought that the House ought not to sanction the second reading of this Bill. He thought they might reasonably sanction the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson), provided he would leave out a few words at the end, which affected a great public principle. With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he must say that he thought he had a little overdrawn his case, when he Said that this measure did not come within the definition of a Private Bill. There were many cases in which great public principles were dealt with by Private Bills, but they were not deemed public measures. The Standing Orders set forth that all Private Bills to which the Standing Orders were applicable, should be divided into three classes. The first class comprised measures of a general public character, relating to burial grounds, building and maintaining churches or chapels, paving, lighting, and improving cities or towns; Crown, church, or corporation property, fisheries, enclosing and draining land, poor-rates; and the third class included gaols, letters patent, and incorporated companies. Now these might all involve the consideration of great public principles, although they be treated as Private Bills. He did not therefore object to this Bill because it was a Private Bill, but on the ground that, being a Private Bill, it established a great public principle, which, if applied to the boroughs of Manchester and Salford, might, and probably would, be made use of as a precedent for applying the same principle to other populous towns where the ratepayers might not be so anxious to have the principle applied. Recent experience had shown that the clauses of Private Bills had been made use of as precedents, and as justifications for great public measures. He need not advert more particularly to this subject, but hon. Members would remember some discussions last year, which showed that you must not hastily adopt a public principle in a Private Bill, as it might fee made use of on some future occasion; and

1205
the importance of the principles admitted into Private Bills with regard to the Bill before the House. He conceived there were four great principles involved in the present measure. The first would be found in the 64th Clause, which provided by means of a public rate for the education of the poorer classes of Manchester and Sal-ford—such rates to be leviable in proportion to the annual value of the property-assessable to the relief of the poor. The second would be found in Clauses 29, 30, and 31; and by these clauses every school admitted into union with the District School Committee was to be a free school, and the children were to be educated free of charge. But by the 31st Clause, no child attending any school admitted into union, should be required to learn any distinctive religious creed, catechism, or formulary, to which the parents of the child should object. The third principle of the Bill was contained in the 69th Clause, which said that any ratepayer might require the amount of his rate to be appropriated to any particular school which he might specify; but a proviso in this Clause enacted that if the amount of the rates so appropriated should exceed the amount required by the particular school, the surplus should be applied, not according to the will of the ratepayer, but for the general purposes of the Act. The fourth principle would be found in the 75th and 86th Clauses, which enabled the Committee to provide schools in districts in which no school had been provided by any religious body; and declared that, with the exception of reading the holy Scriptures in the authorised version, no religious education should be given in such schools. It was important to see how far these principles were applicable to the general education of the people, before they Were sanctioned by Parliament in any Bill applicable to any particular borough. He wished to express no opinion upon the principles themselves, but only as to the consequences of agreeing to this particular Bill, if these principles were sanctioned. By the rating Clauses it was obvious they would supersede the voluntary efforts of religious bodies to contribute to the education of the children of the humbler classes, and they would also supersede that great duty on the part of parents to contribute as far as they could out of their own earnings to the education of their children, instead of leaving it to be provided for at the public cost. As to the next principle—namely, that of
1206
making all schools free, or open to the admission of all children, whatever might have been the original foundation or rules on which the schools were established, it would inevitably lead to a consequence which required to be well weighed. The promoters of the Bill professed an intention to retain in these schools the means of educating children according to the principles on which they were established; but when you came to make a general rate, and gave free admission to these schools, without distinction of creed, it was obvious that in some particular districts the schools might be occupied by children not one of whom would necessarily be educated according to the views of the original founders. It was for the House to consider whether it would be proper to consent to a principle leading to this important result without grave preliminary discussion. The third principle of the Bill seemed to be not less important, for, according to it, any ratepayer would have the power of appropriating the money which he contributed to the rates to the education of children in the schools, with whose religious views he sympathised; but if the school were already provided with sufficient means for providing religious instruction of the kind the ratepayer approved of, his contribution would then go to the surplus fund, and be applied to the general purposes of the Act, some of which were quite unconnected with religious education. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the House would be introducing into a Private Bill the grievances connected with Church rates, without the justification for them. Those were founded on immemorial principles: this would rest on a mere novelty. Now he, for one, would willingly alleviate, but would never do anything to increase, the grievances which, in the present state of society, were severely felt by some persons. There were some persons in this country—actuated by the best motives, he had no doubt—who, seeing the difficulty experienced in combining children of various denominations in any general plan of religious instruction, were desirous of establishing a system of education into which religious training should not enter. Once, for all, he would declare that his mind was deeply impressed with the necessity of making religion the basis of all education; and he could see no way of carrying that principle into practice except that of leaving the different religious bodies to their voluntary

1207
exertions, combining with those exertions grants in aid from the public funds. He entirely concurred in the commendation which had been bestowed upon the promoters of this measure. They deserved the greatest credit for their exertions to extend to the working classes of Manchester and Salford the blessings of education founded on a religious basis; but, believing it would be unwise to sanction the important principles contained in the Bill without mature consideration and ample discussion, he recommended the House, as the safer course, to adopt the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Manchester. At the same time, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the omission of the last words of his Amendment, relating to rating, because that was one of the questionable principles contained in the Bill, and the retention of those words in the Amendment would be almost tantamount to a recognition of that principle by the House. Those words being omitted, he should be happy to give his cordial assent to the Amendment.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The House has heard, Sir, I am sure with great pleasure, the temperate and able statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I cannot agree with him in all that he has said, nor precisely in the conclusion to which he has arrived, but I do agree in many of the principles the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, and I think it most desirable that on this occasion there should lie, if possible, no division; that we should hot discountenance the endeavour which has been made by a great many persons interested in the welfare of Manchester and Salford; and I further think, with the right hon. Gentleman, that the promoters of the Bill are entitled to the highest credit for the efforts they have made, believing, as I do, that they have been animated by the most benevolent motives. In anything which I shall say or vote, I will endeavour, without entering into the question of proceeding by Private Bill, not to discourage this praiseworthy effort for obtaining better education for the poor in Manchester and Salford. I concur entirely in the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), respecting the definition of a Private Bill, for it has frequently happened, according to the system of our legislation, that questions of the greatest
1208
importance, the maintenance and building of churches, the maintenance of an officiating minister, and the municipal government of towns, which very often involve high questions of public and municipal laws are considered as Private Bills. But when we have to consider whether it is advisable that the House should assent to the second reading of this particular Bill, I must own I think there was much force in the objections taken by my right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson), that there would be great hardship if the corporation or inhabitants of Manchester would be obliged to contend before a Private Committee upon a public principle to which they are opposed. I own, I think the most advisable course for the promoters of this Bill to pursue, would be to adopt the recommendation of my right hon. Friend, and consent to suspend the Bill whilst an inquiry was going forward in a Committee of the House into the whole subject. If the question were whether the Bill should be read a second time;, or whether it be rejected altogether, I certainly must give my vote for the second reading; but the proposition before the House is simply to postpone the second reading until a Committee has been appointed to inquire into the state of education in Manchester and Salford, and the means by which it can be promoted, and whether the establishment of a local rate for the purpose would be desirable. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department has objected to that point being referred to the Committee; but I think that that part of it should be also referred to a Committee, because it is a matter of the greatest consequence. It appears to me that we could obtain and impose certain conditions, at the same time that we established a plan of local rates in order to facilitate education in this country. As to those conditions, I might differ with the right hon. Gentleman as to some of them; but in others I think we should agree. I think it would be a great misfortune if the parent were taught that it was not necessary he should contribute to the education of his children, and that their education would be carried on entirely by the State. I think, in the next place, that the establishment of those schools entirely as free schools would be, not an improvement, but would tend to make these schools of less use than they are, and that the payment of small sums by parents is rather an inceptive to them to look after the education of their children. In the next place, I think

1209
we should interfere as little as possible with those schools established by voluntary efforts, and which are likely to be maintained by voluntary efforts. Let it be recollected that Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics have, during the last twenty years, made great efforts in the establishment and promotion of schools for the poor; and that many of those schools are in a most flourishing condition. I think it would be the greatest misfortune if, in endeavouring to develop schemes of improvement, we should introduce elements of discord, elements of destruction, perhaps, and thereby, instead of promoting, altogether lose the advantages we now possess. The only way of maintaining those schools would be by allowing the managers, I mean of those schools supported by voluntary subscriptions, to carry them on as they now do, with such aid as the Committee of the Council of Education gives according to Minutes which are approved and established by the sanction of the House, and which are consequent upon the yearly votes of Parliament. With that exception I think they ought to receive no aid from the State. But there are other schools which have been established by voluntary efforts at considerable expense in the first instance, but which, far from being maintained with the same expense or the same efforts, now require that the attention of the State should be directed to them. In many country parishes it is well known that the contributors to such schools do not now contribute so largely as at the commencement, and very often a serious and heavy charge falls upon the parochial clergyman Who may reside there, and who, taking an interest in education, bears a greater charge than, perhaps, his means warrant, for the purpose of maintaining the schools in an efficient state. It is very desirable, when the subscriptions are not sufficient, that increased, regular, and constant means should be afforded. I cannot see how such advance could be made, except by local rating, or out of the Consolidated Fund. This, too, was a great principle which ought to be inquired into and settled. The discussion involves principles so large, that I hardly wish, upon an occasion of this kind, to touch upon them, and yet there are one or two upon which I think it necessary to say a few words. One great principle, with respect to which this Bill has laid down a distinct line, is, that education ought not to be purely secular, but that it should be religious as
1210
well as secular. In that principle I fully concur. I do not think the House of Commons, or the country at large, would be satisfied with seeing established either a general system of education, or education in particular districts, to serve as an example and a model, from which religious instruction was to be excluded. I know many differ from me, but that is my impression. But with regard to the next question—obtaining a system of education which should not interfere with the consciences of several denominations upon that subject—no doubt there is the greatest difficulty. I, for my own part, do not think that any provision was satisfactory which went further than this, to say that certain religious instruction, the reading of the Scriptures, for instance, should be enforced, and that no child should be obliged to attend that part of the religious instructions to which the parent might object. With regard to Roman Catholics and Jews, the hardship on them would be great and unjust; it would be as great a hardship to make a Jew read the books of the New Testament, or to make a Roman Catholic read our authorised version of the Scriptures, as to compel a dissenter to learn the catechism of the Church of England. The Roman Catholics object to any version of the Holy Scriptures, without their own comment; and, if that be their principle, it must be respected. So with the Jew; it would be most unjust to him to compel his child to read the "Stew Testament. The general principle involves this difficulty, that, if you compel every householder in a district to contribute towards the support of a school, the teaching there should be in consonance with his opinions; for it would not be fair to force upon his child instructions which were not in unison with the obligations of his conscience; for instance, it was urged that it was unjust to make a member of the Church of England contribute to the maintenance of a school in which the catechism was not taught. That raises another question of great importance, into which I will not enter, but content myself with observing, that I do not admit of the claims of conscience being pushed to that extent. Parliament ought not to decide this great question without the fullest care and consideration. I have endeavoured to discuss it upon grounds as broad as possible, and I trust hereafter to see much improvement, both as to the extent and quality of education. I rejoice to think

1211
that those efforts which have been made of late years—the plans of the Committee of the Council of Education have been greatly extended—that the quality of the education has been improved—and I should be very sorry if any step now taken should retard the progress of this great question. I entirely concur in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson). I think the words should be left out to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alludes, and that the whole question ought to be referred to a Committee for inquiry.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose to answer the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson). He (Mr. Cardwell) had not the conduct of the Bill, but it was true that he had taken the greatest interest in it, and he thought that if the promoters of the Bill were to reap no other reward than the discussion which had taken place that day, their meritorious efforts would not pass unrequited. He thought they were very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble Lord who had spoken last, for the great light which they had thrown on the important subject of education; and he begged to express his great satisfaction that the House was now approaching so near to an agreement. In the discussion as to whether this should be a Public or a Private Bill, there had been a misunder-understanding as to the distinction between the two. In a Private Bill there was every security for public debate. Every stage was taken that could be taken in a Public Bill, and there were also additional stages imposed by the Standing Orders of the House for the protection of private interests. The promoters of this Bill could not have done otherwise than bring it forward as a Private Bill. If there were any blame upon the subject, it did not rest with those who had honestly and faithfully complied with those Standing Orders, which for the protection of property it had been thought necessary to impose. He (Mr. Cardwell) thought it quite proper that the Bill should pass this stage of the proceedings. There was no proposal to reject it, or pass the remotest censure upon it. In the present stage of business, he did not think the House ought to admit the principle of the Bill; and nothing could be mare foreign to the wishes of the promoters than to seize any unfair advantage by
1212
which the House might be made to appear to sanction a measure which it was really not their intention to sanction. They bad come to the conclusion to have a full and dispassionate inquiry, upon the widest possible grounds, so far as they applied to the condition of the people of Manchester and Salford; that the Bill should survive that inquiry, and that no opinion should be expressed upon it in the present imperfect state of the information upon the subject. The fullest justice had been done to the great merits of the people of Manchester and Salford in this matter; for the great majority of the population, the opponents as well as the supporters of this Bill, had voluntarily expressed their readiness to submit to a rate for the purpose of education. There was then no reason why there should be any heartburning with regard to this matter. The promoters did not desire it. They had no wish to waste their own money needlessly, or the money of the corporation and ratepayers of Manchester, in a contest upstairs. Without heartburning, then—without expense—with universal concurrence, and without misunderstanding, there was now a good opportunity of submitting Manchester and Salford to that inquiry which they came forward to ask; of making them the pioneers in the great cause of national education—religious, he hoped, as well as secular—which that House so much desired to promote.
MR. WILSON PATTEN,as a supporter of the Bill, suggested that his hon. Friend who had charge of it should at once accede to the proposal which had been made. He did not make that recommendation without some regret. He was authorised by the promoters, however, to say that they not only did not reject, but courted the fullest inquiry in public Committee. Perhaps the greatest justice would be done to them by acceding to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. As to the question whether this was a public or a private measure, he desired to state, on behalf of the promoters, that it was only after having taken great pains to receive the most competent advice upon the subject, that they came to the conclusion that the only mode of having the question properly discussed before that House and the public was by introducing it as a Private Bill. Although he acceded to the course which had been pursued, he considered that it was objectionable on the score of expense, as the expenses both of

1213
a Public and Private Committee would be incurred. As he had stated on a former occasion that there was complete unanimity amongst the clergy of Manchester in favour of this Bill, he considered it was only proper now to state that he had received letters from three clergymen in that town, who said they could not be considered as being favourable to the Bill. It was, however, clear that the great body of the clergy were favourable to it.
MR. BROTHERTONhad great pleasure in acceding to the proposal, as by doing so he believed he should be consulting the wishes of all parties. It was promised that a full inquiry should be made into the subject, and that was all the promoters of the Bill could have expected to accomplish in the present Session. He bad only to request that after the Amendment was disposed of, the House would allow him to postpone the second reading of the Bill for a month.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he must beg the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. Whatever might be said of the principle of the Bill, he thought it was clear that the application of; that principle to the particular case of Manchester and Salford was quite legitimately brought before the House in the shape of a Private Bill; and he agreed with the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) that the parties could only bring the subject before the House in such a manner. He, however, deprecated the adoption of the principle of the Bill, and was unwilling that the House should recognise it as applicable to any one town in this kingdom. If applicable to one, it was applicable to all towns. His doctrine now, as it had ever been, was, that the education of the people was a national concern, to be conducted by that Church which the nation had recognised and established. That doctrine he had ever held—he had heard nothing to induce him to doubt its justice—and he was quite satisfied that by means of no other organisation could the education of the people be successfully conducted. He did not deny to any human being, of whatever religion he might be, the fullest right to teach whatever he pleased; but as a member of the Church recognised by the State, he (Sir R. Inglis) objected to being compelled to pay for that teaching. The Established Church was not a mere sect, one of perhaps twenty, to all of which the State was equally indifferent. It was the body which the
1214
State had adopted as the Truth; and when his noble Friend at the head of the late Government said, that he also was desirous that religion should be taught in every school, he must remind him that there could be no religion taught which was not identified with particular doctrines and forms of belief and worship. It was absurd to say that religion was taught merely by the reading of the Scriptures. Explanations of Scripture were necessary; and he could not consent to adopt any method of teaching religion except that which the State had selected and established.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet who had last spoken, to this extent—that if money raised by general or local taxation was to be applied to religious teaching, that religious teaching should be the religion of the majority. But the Bill went on the principle of taxing all denominations and churches, with a view to the teaching of the religion of all, or almost all, denominations and churches. His objection to this was, that it introduced a new principle into legislation; it was in fact an extension of the Church Establishment in this country. It sanctioned other doctrines, applied money raised by taxation to the inculcation of those doctrines, and thus in effect made a species of establishment on a different principle, and in a totally different spirit. If there was to be such an extension of the Church Establishment, it should not be made in the form of an Education Bill; it should be made directly and distinctly, by legalising opinions which could not now be legally held in the Church of England. It should sanction modes of faith and worship which now were not recognised; and it was a serious objection to any Bill that it thus introduced a principle hitherto unknown to legislation. There had been grants of public money given to religious bodies; but there was always a distinction taken between the object for which they were made, and direct support of that religious denomination. The grant to the Protestant Dissenters was made as a charity to the aged, not as a payment for the inculcation of their religion. That to the Presbyterians of Ireland was originally also for a charitable purpose. In no instance had there been a direct payment for the inculcation of various systems of religion. And, considering how much mischievous as well as useful instruction might be communicated under the form of reli-

1215
gious teaching, he thought the policy of that House had been a wise one. It seemed that any religion which would submit to the test of reading the authorised version of the Scriptures was recognised as a religion by this Bill, the teaching of which might be paid for by money levied as rates on the people. Perhaps a Mormonite would not object to this test. Thus they would be paying for, not only the inculcation of the doctrines of the Bible, but of the revelations of Joe Smith; and he did not think the people of this country were at all disposed to do so. He trusted the principle of the Bill would undergo strict revision in the Committee. The state of feeling with regard to it in Manchester needed further inquiry. It was said 40,000 ratepayers were in its favour; that left a minority of 20,000, no small proportion of whom had conscientious objections to the Bill; and such a minority was certainly entitled to serious consideration from that House, before passing such a measure to tax them. He sympathised in the deprecation of the right hon. Home Secretary of any extension of the Church-rate system—and this Bill would infallibly extend it—there would be the same species of resistance to the School rate as there was to the Church rate. Happily, Manchester was free from the latter; and it was desirable to keep it free from the other. Only the preceding day he had presented a petition from an individual, declaring that his objections were so strong, deep-founded, and conscientious, that he would not pay any rate that might be levied for such purposes as those included in the local education scheme sanctioned by this Bill. Many others would be of the same opinion; and there should be a serious inquiry made into the mode by which these mischiefs might be avoided. Another reason why he could not concur in the Bill was, that with much that did the highest credit to its promoters, it offered no substantial promise of improving the quality as well as extending the quantity of education. He believed this country to be as much or more behind the countries which had most distinguished themselves by applying public resources to educational purposes, in the quality of education which was generally attainable, as it was even in the quantity. The Factory Inspectors were authorised to apply the produce of fines upon millowners for leaving their machinery unguarded, and for other violations of the Factory Acts, to the support of schools. Mr. Horner, the inspector
1216
for that very district, in his Report for the half year before last, distinctly said that the great majority of schools in that neighbourhood were in such a wretched condition that they scarcely knew the schools which were worthy of receiving the funds thus entrusted to them for distribution. This was not said of private schools, or of those supported by the millowners, in some of which the best instruction was given, but of the schools connected with the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society. This Report perfectly agreed with what had been said again and again by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. The Rev. Mr. Moseley, whose reports were always worthy of attention, said he despaired of seeing a really efficient and religious education resulting from the, schools now existing in the country generally. He said in that report that if the whole country were dotted over with schools, and the whole of the juvenile population received into those schools, he should still despair of seeing the great object of the friends of education accomplished by them in such a way as they would desire. He (Mr. W. J. Fox) trusted that in such a state of things, the attention of the Committee would be directed to what related to the quality as well as to the quantity of education. How they would get over the difficulty arising from making schools denominational, he could not say, for there was the great difficulty. If they classified the schools, they would run the risk of having masters employed either above or below their capacity. He trusted the inquiry would be conducted in such a way as to throw some important light on the question of national education.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, the hon. Member who spoke last, would probably be surprised to find anybody going farther than himself. But, for his own part, he could not acquiesce in the hon. Member's statement on the rights of a majority. He apprehended there were, cases when a majority ought not to have its way. Judges and juries were assembled for no other purpose, than to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak; in, other words, to prevent majorities in power from unjustly ruling. Every man who had attended to cases where education, was to be extended to different religions, as for instance in India, knew there were but two ways to take. One was, to limit the education to matters involving no religions differences; and the other was, to allow each religion its proportion of the

1217
general stock, and leave it to manage its education with the introduction of so much as it pleased of its own peculiar rites and tenets. He had never heard any objection to this, but that the professors of the true religion could not consent to take money out of the same bag. [Laughter.] They had no objection to others putting into the bag, but it was matter of conscience to take it all for themselves. Everybody said his was the true religion, and of course everybody's else was false. The ways stated were the only ones which had justice in them; and the present scheme was neither. The scheme was to take money from all religions by a general rate, and then apply it with such mixture of religious teaching as it was known minorities, or portions of them, could not and would not consent to. For example, he would fasten Oh the case of the Jews which had been instanced. "Had not a Jew eyes, had not a Jew ears?"—but we are for recognising nothing but that he has a purse. The question will never be settled till it is taken up upon principles such as men would accept if applied to themselves. The interest in the question, too, extended far beyond Manchester and Salford; and he should be glad if anything he had said should excite or keep it up.
MR. SLANEYwould ask the Committee calmly to consider a suggestion which had been made upon a previous discussion of this subject by the late Solicitor General (Sir W. P. Wood), namely, that if any rate were raised for educational purposes, any party who conscientiously objected to it upon religious grounds, and who could at the same time show that he contributed a fair quota towards the education of the humble people of his own denomination, should be exempt from payment of this rate. This would remove a serious objection that had been made to the scheme.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he should not press the latter words of the Amendment if it were understood that the Committee was not thereby precluded from inquiring into the proposal for supporting education by local rates.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Amendment, as drawn up by the right hon. Member for Manchester, entirely confined the consideration of the Committee to the system of establishing local rates. The modification proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would give them a wider field; and certainty he did not understand it to pre-
1218
clude the Committee from going into the question alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Milner).
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 14th April.
Select Committee appointed—
"To inquire into the state of Education in the municipal boroughs of Manchester and Salford, and in the contiguous townships of Broughton, Pendleton, and Pendlebury, and whether it is advisable to make any further provision, and in what manner, for the education of the inhabitants within such boroughs and townships."

PHARMACY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. JACOB BELLpresented petitions in favour of the Bill, from the President and Censors of the Royal College of Physicians, London; the President, Vice-Presidents, and Council of the Royal College of Surgeons; one signed by 150 eminent medical practitioners residing in London; and numerous petitions from medical practitioners, chemists, and others, in various parts of the country. He hoped the House would consider the above petitions, especially those from the two colleges and the members of the medical profession, a sufficient answer to the allegation that there was no necessity for a Bill of this nature. It might be laid down as an axiom, that education in any branch connected with the profession of medicine was necessary; and repeated attempts had been made to supply the deficiency in the present law relating to Pharmaceutical Chemists. No doubt could exist as to the propriety of establishing an Examining Board, and ensuring the proper qualification of the members of that body, by means of an examination. Some difference of opinion had existed as to the jurisdiction under which such board should be constituted; and about the years 1839 and 1840, communications took place between the chemists and the several medical bodies on this subject. It was proposed at one time to form a joint board of examiners with the College of Physicians; but after much discussion and consideration this was found to be impracticable, and was abandoned. The College of Surgeons declined to entertain the question; and there were insuperable obstacles to an amalgamation with the Society of Apothecaries. The result of these deliberations, was the establishment of the Pharmaceutical Society, consisting entirely of chemists, as the institution which should

1219
regulate the education and conduct the examination of the future members of that body. This society, which was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1843, was entirely of a voluntary character; its powers did not extend beyond those who thought proper to come within its ranks, and only those young men who desired to distinguish themselves came forward for examination; consequently, the influence of the society numerically, on those entering the business, was small, while the result of the system of education and examination, in the cases of those who availed themselves of it, afforded satisfactory evidence of its efficacy. It was therefore, necessary, in order to extend that beneficial influence, to increase the powers of the society, and for this purpose the Pharmacy Bill was introduced. The Bill confirmed the Charter of the society, with certain modifications, and gave power to make by-laws and other necessary regulations. It then enacted that it would be unlawful for any person to assume the name of Pharmaceutical Chemist, or Chemist and Druggist, &c., unless he had passed the prescribed examination, as a guarantee to the public that he was qualified to perform the responsible duty of dispensing medical prescriptions. There was a clause exempting from interference all persons already engaged in the business, as it would be unjust to make the Act retrospective in its operation. There was another clause, exempting all the medical bodies in the three kingdoms, the provisions of the measure being confined exclusively to chemists and druggists. The penal clauses were not nearly so stringent as those in other Acts of Parliament of a similar nature, as they only went so far as to prevent the public from being imposed upon by unqualified persons, and to recognise and establish a standard of qualification for those who assume the name and profess to be Pharmaceutical Chemists. The Bill was generally supported by the chemists throughout the kingdom, and also by a large proportion of the medical profession. The only opposition which had arisen, was from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow. The first objection was, that it would obstruct the progress of a general measure for regulating the entire medical profession. This he (Mr. Bell) was prepared to refute, as it was one of the merits of the Bill that it did not interfere in any way with the existing medical and surgical
1220
bodies. Those who had any experience in what is called medical reform must be aware that it is a most complicated and intricate subject, involving a great variety of interests and prejudices, and it had been the studious endeavour of the promoters of this Bill to keep it perfectly isolated and distinct. The medical profession might legislate independently, and the passing of this Bill would rather facilitate such legislation than otherwise. Another objection was, that too much power was vested in the Pharmaceutical Society, and that the by-laws and regulations ought to be under the supervision of the Secretary of State or other officer of the Government. Now this provision had been introduced into the Bill of last Session; but it was omitted in the present Bill, on account of the indisposition of the late Home Secretary to have anything to do with it, under the idea, no doubt, that the question would be involved in the same intricacy as that of medical reform. This, however, was not the case. If it were thought right, the clause which had been expunged could be reintroduced. Another objection was, that the Bill would affect the licentiates of the abovenamed corporations, who have the power of granting licences for general practice, including the practice of pharmacy. This, however, was a misapprehension, as the parties in question would be expressly exempted, and would enjoy all the rights and privileges that they would have possessed if the Bill had not passed. They could not, however, be registered as pharmaceutical chemists under the Bill, as that term was confined to "persons who dispense medical prescriptions and prepare medicines, not being members of the medical profession, or practising under a diploma or licence of a medical or surgical corporate body." These latter words were introduced by the desire of the apothecaries in London, and now he was required to take them out to satisfy the medical practitioners in Scotland. If he were to comply, and confer by the Bill new powers on the two licensing bodies who made the demand, a contention and rivalry would immediately arise between the practitioners in England and the practitioners in Scotland, which would hazard the passing of the Bill. It was necessary to confine the registry to pharmaceutical chemists, to make the institution strictly pharmaceutical, and to avoid the confusion which would arise if medical chemists, surgical chemists, and pharmaceutical chemists,

1221
having different kinds of qualification, were all registered together on one list. In fact, the charter of incorporation defined the members to be chemists and druggists; and members of the medical or surgical profession were disqualified for admission as members of the Pharmaceutical Society. The Society of Apothecaries had fallen into the dilemma of gradually assuming the character of medical practitioners, and this had led to their abandonment of pharmacy as their primary and principal pursuit, an example which the Pharmaceutical Society was desirous not to imitate. It was needless to discuss more in detail the minor provisions of the Bill, which would be duly considered by a Select Committee, in the event of the House acceding to the Motion of which he had given notice, lie felt assured that if the Bill should pass, it would, in a few years, raise the character of pharmaceutical chemists. It would oblige all those who regularly follow the business to learn the rudiments of chemistry and the collateral sciences. Among the number some would be found who, by their natural talent and industry, aided by the fundamental education rendered necessary by the Bill, would turn their attention to the higher branches of science, and reflect credit on the country. The majority, however, would confer a benefit on the public in another way, by performing in a more safe and efficient manner the duties of pharmaceutical chemists in the preparation of medicines, many of which are powerful poisons, and ought not to be entrusted in the hands of ignorant and inexperienced persons. He moved that the Bill be read a second time, for the purpose of being referred to a Select Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. WALPOLE, considering the great powers given by the Bill to the Pharmaceutical Society, was not prepared to give his assent to the second reading before the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee. The second clause gave very great and irresponsible powers to the Pharmaceutical Society in making bylaws and regulations; and the fifteenth clause subjected persons to serious penalties for assuming the business of a chemist and druggist, contrary to the regulations so laid down. Very difficult cases might arise on that question, unless the clauses were worded with exceeding care; and he hoped therefore, that the Committee be-
1222
fore whom the Bill should be sent, would be very careful in the construction of these clauses.
MR. BOUVERIEagreed with what had fallen from the right hon. the Home Secretary. Very grave objections could be stated to the Bill as it now stood. In fact it would give a trading monopoly to a chartered body, of which that House knew very little indeed. So far as he could understand the object of the Bill, it was intended to turn chemists and druggists into apothecaries, and to derive a revenue for the society by levying large contributions from chemists already in business. The business now pursued by the chemists was formerly carried on by the Apothecaries, also a trading body, to whom an Act of Parliament had given great powers; and unless great care were taken they would find a fresh crop of medical practitioners springing up among the chemists.
MR. BELLsaid, that the object of the Bill was diametrically opposed to that stated by the hon. Member, and was about to explain further, but being called to order, he resumed his seat.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he trusted that the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill after it should have come from the Committee.
Bill read 2°, and committed.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.
MR. TUFNELLbegged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualification for Members of Parliament. The House would perhaps remember that, in the course of last Session, he took occasion to give notice of his intention to bring the subject under the notice of that House. His noble Friend the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) bad, however, subsequently made it the subject of one of the Clauses of the Bill for the reform of the representation, which he had introduced; but as that measure had been withdrawn, he now took the earliest opportunity of again bringing the question before the notice of the House; and if there was no objection to the introduction of the Bill, he would waive all discussion of the subject till the second reading.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would not offer any opposition to the introduction of the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as it had constituted a portion of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London, to the introduction of which no

1223
opposition had been offered, and of which measure it was not the most important portion. He must reserve to himself, however, the full right of dealing with the Bill hereafter, and be understood as not pledging the Government on the subject one way or the other.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he should be very jealous of, and oppose to the utmost of his power, any attempt to do away with such qualifications as he considered were constitutionally necessary.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tufnell. Sir William Molesworth, and Mr. Ewart.
The House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.