Sitting of 30 July 1833

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The House went into Committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill.
The Chairmansaid the question was, the insertion of the sum of 20,000,000 l. in the blank left in the 25th clause, for the purpose of having the amount determined by the House.
Sir Eardley Wilmotsaid, that he was not actuated by any party feelings in the view he took of this question; but he was decided in his determination to move an Amendment in accordance with the notice he had given. He should oppose the grant of 20,000,000 l. on two grounds: the first, that the covenant entered into for the immediate abolition of slavery had not been kept; and the second was, that the additional 5,000,000 l., proposed to be given to purchase the concurrence of the West-India interests could not be asked for on that ground, as their concurrence had not been obtained. He could not, with respect to the first of these objections, admit the argument of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, who, at the commencement of the debate on that subject, had said, that he was for "a conditional liberty; and if the slaves would not work, let them perish." Such an observation might be very well if applied to England; it might do very well for a man possessed of such strength of mind, as well as of body, as the hon. and learned Member; but it was inapplicable to the condition of a slave, who, it should be remembered, was called upon by seven years' labour to attain that to which he was indisputably entitled before the term commenced. There was no parity in the two cases. In this country an apprenticeship might lead, as it often had led, to the highest office of civic honour—to the Lord Mayor's chair—or even to a seat in that
130
hon. House. On his second objection he should say, without fear of contradiction, that the West-India interest were conclusively against giving their concurrence to the measure. He believed he might say, that two-thirds were against it; and if that were true, it proved, that the consent of that interest had not been obtained. He thought, however, there was a third party whoso interests had been neglected, and that was the people of England. He did not wish to paint the distresses of this country in high colours, but he knew that great distress did prevail. Within a very few miles of his residence, there were many thousand persons (he alluded to the ribbon weavers) who, when they got up in the morning, knew not where they should lie down at night. In one parish near Coventry, there were 300 families, consisting of 1,000 persons, whose earnings did not average 2½d. per day. He therefore thought it but justice to ask for one corner of the sympathy of the House for our own countrymen. It had been said by two hon. Members, that he had formed his opinions from having attended meetings on the subject at Exeter Hall. He denied, that he had been converted by anything that had been said at those meetings: he had only attended one, and he did not think he should ever attend another; and as for having formed an opinion from what he had heard there, he had formed his opinion long before ever he went there. As to the arguments used by Mr. Stephen, they were so extraordinary and contradictory, that he could not follow or agree to them. He disclaimed all participation in Mr. Stephen's doctrines. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the words "fifteen millions "instead of "twenty millions "be inserted in the clause.
Mr. O'Connell, before he proceeded to address the House, wished to ask the Chairman (Mr. Bernal) a question upon a point of privilege, viz.—whether he (the Chairman) possessed the same privilege as the Speaker in ordering the Gallery to be cleared of strangers.
The Chairman(Mr. Bernal) said, if any hon. Member chose to say, that he saw strangers in the Gallery, it would be his duty to order the Gallery to be cleared.
Mr. O'Connell: "Oh, very well. Sir; but I do not intend to look that way at present." His object, the hon. Member said, had been attained. The House would perhaps have been placed in a very unpleasant predicament; but he would refrain, as he had seen an avowal that, if the "people"

131
were suffered to report, justice would be done. He would not advert to the scurrilous manner in which that avowal had been made; but if gentlemen were desirous of seeing an excellent specimen of scurrility, he would recommend them to read The Times of that morning. He did not believe the promise would be kept because, as designedly false reports had been given before, they would be given again. With regard to the Motion before the House, he regretted to hear the hon. Baronet use an expression against a gentleman who was not present to defend himself. That gentleman, Mr. Stephen, had devoted many years of his life gratuitously to achieve negro emancipation; he was to a certain extent an enthusiast, but it was in a good cause; he was a gentleman of great talent and integrity, who had devoted his time to the advancement of humanity. He (Mr. O'Connell) had heard Mr. Stephen's speech at the meeting in question, but it certainly did not make any particular impression on his mind. He was sorry the hon. Baronet had declared he would not attend another of those meetings, for, although he believed the hon. Baronet was not of any great use, he added to the respectability of the meeting. He would inform the hon. Baronet, that Mr. Stephen was the son of that great patriarch in the cause of emancipation, the late Mr. Stephen, who was a Master in Chancery, and who had zealously aided the cause of emancipation. He did not know on what the question of the 20,000,000 l. was to rest. Could the people of England afford that sum The Members had been sent to that House for the purpose of making reductions, and they had scarcely made one. The House had refused to diminish the Malt-tax; it had refused to abolish the Assessed Taxes; it had refused to diminish the great burthens of the people. And the ground on which it had refused to do so was, that the Government could not afford it. Why then, he would ask, were those burthens to be increased? How were they to be provided for. The people had a right to know that. Was it to be laid upon the agricultural interest? It had been clearly shown that the farmers were going to decay. Was it upon the shipping interest.' It was, perhaps, true that that interest was in a more flourishing condition than any other; but he objected to anything like monopoly, or the giving of a benefit to the West-India interest by that monopoly. He should prefer that the burthens should be thrown on the general
132
taxation of the country, rather than upon any particular interest. In his opinion such a system was too bad to continue it at any time, but extremely so when every particular interest in the country was suffering. If 20,000,000 l. were to be paid, the people ought to get value for it. In the present instance, he could see no value or equivalent the nation was to get for it. The greater part of the Representatives of the West-India interest were against the proceedings. He would only refer to the pamphlets of Mr. Burge and several other agents of the different colonies in the West Indies, all protesting against the plan. Up to the present moment there was not the slightest indication of an intention to give up the enforcement of labour from the slaves by the whip. No one colony had come forward to put an end to that abominable and cruel practice; the lash was still to continue, and therefore he would persist in contending, that the people of this country had received no value or equivalent for their 20,000,000 l. It was true that in one clause the slaves were given the rights of freemen, but in others a power was given to the Colonial Legislatures to take those rights from them. It was said, that the west Indians would sustain great loss, and that advantages would be taken from them which had been sanctioned by repeated Acts of Parliament. Now he would take upon himself to deny that slavery was ever sanctioned by law in this country; and that was demonstrated most clearly by the fact that, whatever value had been given for a slave, the moment he set foot in this land, where a remedy was to be found, the slave was free. He denied that anything would be lost by the emancipation, as it was in evidence, both in and out of that House, that there was not any set of human beings who had more desire to get money than the negroes. He challenged the hon. Member who had spoken last to disprove that statement. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the name of the people of England, protested against the grant of 20,000,000 l., and said he felt it to be his duly to vote against it.
Mr. Stanleywas quite satisfied that there was no sacrifice the nation would not make rather than sacrifice the national honour. Neither of the two hon. Members who had spoken on this subject had stated any ground whatever-, why 15,000,000 l. should be preferred to 20,000,000 l. He would pass over the observations of the right hon. Baronet upon the Anti-Slavery meeting, and the

133
Anti-Slavery Society, with which he had nothing to do, and he would pass over, on the other hand, the remarks of the hon. and learned member for Dublin on the West-India Legislature; only observing, that violent attacks were not calculated to bring parties together. The hon. Baronet took as a ground for substituting 15,000,000 l. instead of 20,000,000 l., that the engagement entered into by the Government and the House had not been completed. He was sure the hon. Baronet unintentionally misrepresented what the Resolution passed by the House was; for the hon. Baronet said, that the House of Commons pledged themselves, by their first Resolution, to the immediate and entire abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions, and that has not taken place. Now, with due respect to the hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Stanley) would tell him that they had pledged themselves to no such thing. What they had pledged themselves to was, that an immediate and effectual measure should be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies. The right hon. Baronet (the member for Tamworth) noticed at the time that very word "immediate," and stated that it would be bettor to strike it out, because it might lead to an inference that it was wished to introduce the immediate abolition. It was then understood, that the word "immediate" referred to immediate measures for the future abolition of slavery. Those immediate measures had been taken—the Bill had been introduced, and the Act of Parliament would, he trusted, in a very short time be passed, which should forthwith have the effect of producing, within a very short period, the entire abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions. But the hon. Gentleman said, they had not obtained that cordial co-operation which they had a right to expect from the Jamaica Legislature. He gave the names of two or three gentlemen who had entered their protests against the whole proceeding, and stated this as an example of what was to be expected from the whole of the colonists. He certainly must express his sincere regret that those gentlemen—one the agent for Trinidad, and the others all representing the interest of the island of Jamaica—had not felt it their duty to come forward in the manner which he thought the interests of their clients required. The question for them was not whether, in all its details, this measure would be desirable in the colonies or not, but whether, under the
134
state of public opinion here, it was not for the interest of those whom they represented, to close with the British Parliament upon the terms which they were disposed to offer. At the same time these Gentlemen did not represent the whole of the West-India population. They were very far from representing the whole of that body. He would even yet trust, that these Gentlemen, having had the opportunity of witnessing the proceedings of that House, and of personally knowing what the difficulties of the Government had been in obtaining for them such terms as they thought just and equitable, would exert their influence when they proposed it for the purpose of enforcing and encouraging an acquiescence in a measure which had now become absolutely necessary. But if, unfortunately, a different course should be pursued—and he begged to say, that such speeches as they had just heard from the hon. and learned Member opposite might tend to stir up feelings of irritation—if they would still resist the feelings and determination of this country, why then, to look at it in a secondary point of view—to look at it in the low question of pecuniary consideration—Jamaica, at least, would forfeit the whole of the claim she might have to any portion of the 20,000,000 l. which were now proposed to be granted. The question then arose as to whether 37 l. 10 s. per head throughout the island was a fair calculation with regard to the value of slaves. He thought it difficult to give the exact amount of the value of every slave, but he had in his hands a list of actual sales which had taken place of negroes, exhibiting what the value of negroes had been between 1808 and 1827. During that period, there had been sold 22,66 l negroes, at an average of 71 l. 10 s. currency, which was about 51 l. sterling; and the greater part of the 22,000 had been sold under the disadvantageous circumstances of being sold for debt. From 1808 to 1812, there had been sold 5,498 slaves, at an average of 53 l. 10 s.; from 1813 to 1817, 6,598, at an average of 53 l. 10 s.; from 1818 to 1822, 5,200, at an average of 58 l.; and from 1822 to 1827, 5,365, at an average of 38 l. The House would see, therefore, that from 1822 to 1827, there was a fall in the value of slaves to 38 l., which was at the rate of 10 s a-head more than the average which Government had acted upon. The average in Trinidad, from 1825 to 1830, was 66 l 15 s.; in Demerara, from 1821 to 1825, 93 l.; and in Barbadoes, from the two periods of

135
from 1821 to 1825, and from 1825 to 1830, 38 l. These were some of the calculations upon which the Government had gone. In assuming, that the sum of twenty millions ought to be granted as compensation, they (lid not consider that, in assuming the average value to be 37 l. 10 s., they had exceeded the actual value of the slaves. There was not one of the calculations of ten planters, eight planters, or six planters, that had been alluded to by the hon. Baronet, but would more than give the amount of twenty millions. Then, again, since the House had acceded to the granting of twenty millions, which was done on a division, it had cut off five years from the terra of the apprenticeship; and no man would say, that that was not a great reduction of value to the planter. They had already agreed, that twenty millions should be the compensation; and having, since that, taken off the five years, it was too much to expect that the House would cancel that vote without one single argument having been advanced to justify such a proceeding. The House would recollect the manner in which the Government had been accused for agreeing to the shortening of the apprenticeship to which they were driven by the force of public opinion. The present proposition was one to which no Ministers, who had any feelings of honour or consistency, could submit. His honour at least was pledged, and he felt it his duty to give it all the opposition in his power.
Mr. Buxton, after passing a high eulogium on Mr. Stephen, proceeded to say, that there was not one clause in the Bill, however curious it might appear, that he would support with more pleasure than the grant of 20,000,000 l.; and, if any degree of reproach attached to those who voted for it, he was prepared to take his share. The amount was far surpassing what he thought the actual value of the slaves; and, if the Government were only to wait till next year, they might buy emancipation at a quarter of the present price; but, then, in what state would the colonies be." He supported the grant for this reason: if emancipation was not given, more than 20,000,000 l. would be spent in military preparations; and, what was worse, it would be against men who were merely asserting their natural rights. He would much rather give double, or any amount, to the planter, than have such a thing happen. The Government was entitled to great praise for the measure, and he
136
was sure they would be supported by the country. He was quite aware that the people were suffering great distress, but he very well knew they would suffer a little more hardship, rather than lose all the benefits of the Bill. If it was not passed, they would lose the colonies. Were they not cheap at the price of 20,000,000 l.? It would put an end to that murderous system of depopulation which had been so long going on in the West Indies. It would extinguish slavery in our colonies; and it was possible—in his opinion it was certain, to altogether extinguish the slave trade; and also, it would go a very great way towards abolishing slavery in the world. For all those benefits, would the people grudge such a sum The Government, he was sure, would receive the cooperation of the slaves themselves—they would repay their debt of gratitude by their industry and their peaceable conduct in their new situation. The body of delegates, though against him on the compensation clause, were a most excellent body of men; but if they were opposed to him, he had one great name on his side; he could not name him now, without feelings of emotion—he meant Mr. Wilberforce; he bore a high testimony to the character of that gentleman, and regretted that he had not lived to see the cause he had so long and so ably advocated, carried into full execution. To no man were the words of the poet more applicable—
A veteran warrior in the Christian field,
Who never saw the sword he could not wield,
Who, when occasion justified its use,
Had wit as bright, as ready to produce;
Could draw from records of an earlier age
Or from philosophy's enlightened page,
His rich materials; and regale the ear
With strains it was a privilege to hear!
Mr. Fryerexpressed his astonishment at the manner in which the question was met by the House. Scarce was the sound of a loan for 15,000,000 l. out of the mouth of the right hon. Secretary, before he came down with a proposition for a grant of 20,000,000 l., and this was founded upon the value of slaves; but was giving 20 l. for 32 l. 10 s. paying the full value? The planters would get the money, but would never execute the Bill; and the Bill was a dead robbery. The people of England did not make the negroes slaves, and why call upon them to pay the money "The House would not dare to make such a Bill for Canada, nor dare to take away the legislative rights of that colony. The other

137
ground on which he was determined to oppose this grant was, that the House had no right to mortgage the future industry and labour of the country. There was no pledge given, that the sugar trade would be thrown open, and after all this compensation-money was granted, the West Indians might still charge the people of this country at as extravagant a rate as they pleased. He would oppose the grant in toto.
Mr. Rigby Wasonopposed the grant as enormous and extravagant. According to the calculations made by the planters themselves, this grant of 20,000,000 l. would greatly exceed the entire value of their slaves and estates in the West Indies.
Mr. Harveysaid, it was curious, that after all that had taken place, they had not heard one word from the noble Lord about the source from which the 20,000,000 l. was to come, and by whom the interest of it was to be paid. He had, indeed, heard it stated, and he should be most glad to hear it confirmed, that, inasmuch as emancipation was a Christian duty, it was in the contemplation of those to whom our interests in those matters were confided, to raise it by a sale of a portion of the Church revenues of the country. That would be a most comfortable assurance, for then there would be an appropriate correspondence between the end to be accomplished, and the means by which it was to be gained. But he was afraid that was a mere illusion. He remembered the eagerness and eloquence with which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) appealed to the House to give its unanimous sanction to the Resolutions, in order that they might be sent off as a rich freight to the Colonies. But they did not then foresee the dilemma into which they might be thrown. When Mr. Peel's Bill was brought forward, Mr. Canning most eloquently implored the House to give that Bill its sanction, and the House was so beguiled by the reasoning in that speech, that they decided upon a measure, the effect of which they had been deploring ever since. It was the same with the present measure. The House had been led away by their feelings, and by the feeling out of doors, to give this measure their sanction; but if, when all the meetings throughout the country for the abolition of slavery were held, it had been known that that great boon was to be purchased at a price of 20,000,000 l., he could not
138
imagine those petitions would have found their way into that House. The House was now in such a situation that it was scarcely possible for it to retrace its steps. He was one who would not part with the twenty millions, without a proper equivalent; but the proposition before the House was, whether it should rescind Resolutions which it had previously passed In his opinion, the House was bound to adhere to them, unless it could be shown they were founded upon false calculations, and embodied upon defective principles.
Mr. Robinsonwished to know from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in what manner he intended to pay the interest of the money? He must, at the same time, state his concurrence in the grant, and he had no doubt that he should be able to justify his vote to his constituents?
Lord Althorpsaid, that he meant to propose to raise the money by an additional tax on colonial produce. He knew that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) would not approve of that plan—he would rather have a property-tax—but in that he did not concur. As he did not see that there were many Gentlemen who were prepared to vote for the clause, he did not think it necessary to go further into the question.
Mr. O' Connellsaid, as he understood the proposition, the noble Lord intended to raise the scale of taxation on other produce, so as to keep the advantage to the West-India body. Was not that granting a monopoly?
Lord Althorpconsidered, that, at pre-sent, our own colonies ought to have a preference.
Mr. Herriessaid, the noble Lord, in answer to the various questions put to him, had merely stated, that the ultimate intention of the Government was to provide for the interest of this debt by a tax on colonial produce; but he (Mr. Herries) thought this clause required a great deal more explanation, before the House could be justified in laying an additional burthen of 20,000,000 l. on the people. It was the most unusual grant he had ever heard of.
Mr. Stanleydid not rise to dispute the propriety of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, but merely to remind him that the question before the House was whether the blank should be filled up with 15,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l.
Mr. Herrieshad not yet come to the passage relating to that subject, and, therefore,

139
he considered he had been rather improperly interrupted. It was not stated in what manner, or how this sum of money was to be raised; but the Government were empowered to raise it in whatever way they pleased, without the control or authority of Parliament. On all occasions hitherto, every perpetual debt incurred by a Minister had been subjected to the confirmation of Parliament. He was sure the noble Lord opposite would not think it impertinent in him, if he called upon him to give a more minute explanation of the grounds on which he had framed that clause in the way in which it now stood. A subject of so much importance ought not to be discussed in the absence of so many Members on the Committee business of the House. He was afraid that the House was not in a condition honestly and fairy' to refuse the compensation; but it was incumbent on the House to show that it was given with reluctance.
Mr. Aglionbycould not permit the House to divide without stating his dissent from the sum proposed.
The House, it being three o'clock, resumed; the Committee to sit again.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. Roebuckrose to move a Resolution in conformity to his notice, that the House would, with the smallest delay possible, consider the means of establishing a system of National Education; and spoke as follows:—Although the subject to which I am now about to solicit the attention of the House, can be surpassed by none in the importance of its influence upon the well-being of society; although none even at this time more imperiously demands consideration from the rulers of the people; yet all this, notwithstanding, I dare not, in the present temper of the political world, request the House to listen to anything like a complete exposition of my opinions and my plans respecting it. Men's minds are now in a ferment on matters solely of immediate import—the interest of the day, the pressing urgency of the present moment, are those alone which can command the consideration of the existing race of politicians. It would, therefore, be idle to hope, that a subject like general education could engage their favour, or even occupy their thoughts. Its results are distant—the benefits to be expected from it can only be attained by the slow operation of time, patience, and industry. There is nothing to raise the wonder and admiration of the ignorant many—no party
140
—no individual purposes can be served by promoting it—nought can be obtained by its assistance, but the pure unalloyed benefit of the community at large—no wonder, then, that it has been so long, so steadily, so pertinaciously neglected. For so unpopular a cause I cannot hope to gain more than a brief, a very brief hearing. Amidst the jar of political warfare, I may, however, if peculiarly fortunate, obtain one moment of calm. Tired of contention, a slight truce may be agreed on by hostile parties; and for this brief interval they may be content to listen, by way of relaxation, to suggestions relating merely to the vital interests of society, unconnected with party, passion, or individual interests. I even have been too long in the stormy world of politics, and know too well the temper of this House to demand anything beyond this very slight and imperfect consideration of the great subject to which I am now endeavouring to obtain its attention. I will at once state to the House the course I intend to pursue. My purpose is, at the close of the few observations with which I mean to trouble you. Sir, to propose a Resolution, by which this House will acknowledge as a principle of Government, that the education of the people is a matter of national concern; that, as such, it ought to be the object of the most immediate, continued, and sedulous attention on the part of the Legislature,' and that, therefore, in the next coming Session, this House will earnestly endeavour to frame some plan for the universal education of the people. It may, and perhaps will, be said, that this might have been delayed until the next Session, and our time might at present be thereby economised. This, to me Sir, appears an unwise economy. If the House adopt my suggestion, one step, and that a very important one, will have been gained. It being generally understood that the House of Commons acknowledges the great principle that the Government ought to superintend the education of the people, the attention of thinking men will be directed to the subject, and various matters suggested, by which the control and aid of the Government may be rendered efficient; and thus, when we proceed next Session to the investigation of the subject by a Committee, we shall find men's minds prepared on it, and not surprised and taken unawares. The enunciation of the principle is all that we could at first attempt, and there is no reason why that should not be done at the end as well as the beginning of

141
the Session. Let no one say that it is an abstract question leading to no practical result. This talk about abstract questions is usually an unintelligible jargon, it would be so in the present case. In order to establish eventually a mode of general education, certain preliminary steps must be taken by the Legislature. Ours, from the nature of things, is an operose machinery—what a despot would do, by the mere force of his will, we must do by influencing gradually the will of others. Now, one of these preliminary steps, one which must be taken, is to enunciate to the nation at large, our acknowledgment of the principle. This acknowledgment is itself a practical proceeding, and it leads also directly, and necessarily almost, to the establishment of the means of educating the people—in other words, it leads directly to, it is the necessary forerunner of, an important practical result. Such being the case, it is to be hoped that no one will, on the present occasion, feel indisposed towards the Resolution to be proposed, as not being of a practical description. In order then, Sir, to obtain the assent of the House to the Resolutions I shall have the honour to propose, I must make a few—necessarily a few—observations on the three following subjects—subjects indeed distinct, though intimately related to each other. I would first solicit the attention of the House to the more prominent benefits to be obtained by a general education of the people. Secondly, I would endeavour to show why the Government should itself supply this education; and, lastly, I shall attempt to trace a rude outline of a plan by which every inhabitant of this empire might receive the instruction requisite for the well-being of society. At the outset, to prevent misconception, I may be permitted to describe what I mean by education, The narrow acceptation of this term so generally received, has done infinite mischief. Education is usually supposed to signify merely learning to read and write, and sometimes, by a stretch of liberality, it is made to include arithmetic. But this is not education, it is simply some of the means of education. In ordinary conversation, when men say that education cannot relieve the necessities, or cure the vices of the people, they mean that learning to read and write cannot do this; and in so saying they are right. Putting a hammer and saw into a man's hand does not make him a carpenter; putting a flute into his hands does not make him a musician; in both cases you give him
142
certain instruments, which if he have the knowledge requisite, he may use to good purposes, but if he do not possess it, they will prove either useless or mischievous. So may it happen with the instruments of knowledge. Unless the mind be trained to their exercise—unless the will and the power to turn them to good purposes, be conferred, not only will they be useless, idle powers, but they may be made eminently mischievous. But this narrow, vulgar acceptation of the term education, is not the correct one. Education means not merely the conferring these necessary means or instruments for the acquiring of knowledge, but it means also the so training or fashioning the intellectual and moral qualities of the individual, that he may be able and willing to acquire knowledge, and to turn it to its right use. It means the so framing the mind of the individual, that he may become a useful and virtuous member of society in the various relations of life. It means making him a good child, a good parent, a good neighbour, a good citizen, in short, a good man. All these he cannot be without knowledge, but neither will the mere acquisition of knowledge confer on him these qualities; his moral, as well as his intellectual powers, must contribute to this great end, and the true fashioning of these to this purpose is right education. Such, Sir, is the acceptation which I attribute to the term education. The actual training of the human being in his moral and intellectual being, whatever that training may be, good or bad, is education. The wild Indian, the dull and plodding peasant, and the far-sighted philosopher, are all educated. But to be rightly educated is to be made what I have just described—and when I hereafter speak of education, I shall intend good education. Were I to attempt any description of the mode of training which leads to this so desired result, I should exceed the patience of this House and my own physical powers. Such a description would be a work of months, not of minutes; the labour of a life, not the effort of some hours' consideration. I shall assume throughout, not only that such a training can be discovered, but that we have actually discovered it. I now will attempt to point out one or two results from such a training not usually adverted to, though of unspeakable importance; and I do so the more readily, because they are well calculated to attract the attention of the leading classes of existing politicians. While so doing, doubtless I may incur-

143
censure from the misjudging friends of the popular cause—but sure I am, that its more enlightened and virtuous supporters will bear testimony to the truth of what I utter. I need hardly, I think, Sir, do more than suggest to this House, that of the many evils which afflict mankind as members of political societies, there are many, very many, which are utterly beyond the control of Government, no matter how wisely fashioned, how virtuously inclined. In other words, we may say, that if there were this day in our own, or any other country, established a government perfect in its form, and in its composition completely virtuous, still the happiness or misery of the people would not be completely at its command. Of the evils which men suffer, it is true, some portion, ay, and an important portion, may be controlled by a government; but there is a still larger, far more important portion, which depends solely on the people themselves. Now, one of the first, one of the most important results from a proper education of the people, would be a thorough understanding on their part of the circumstances on which their happiness depended, and of the powers by which those circumstances were controlled. They would learn what a government could, and what a government could not do to relieve their distresses—they would learn what depended on themselves, what on others—what evils resulted from evil authority, what from popular ignorance and popular vice. Of all the knowledge that can be conferred on a people, this is the most essential; let them once understand thoroughly their social condition, and we shall have no more unmeaning discontents—no wild and futile schemes of Reform; we shall not have a stack-burning peasantry—a sturdy pauper population—a monopoly-seeking manufacturing class; we shall not have a middle class directing all their efforts to the repeal of a single tax, or to the wild plan of universal robbery; neither will there be immoral landlords wishing to maintain a dangerous corn monopoly; or foolish consumers, who will suffer it to remain. We shall have right efforts directed to right ends. We shall have a people industrious, honest, tolerant and happy. We often hear outcries against education, based on its dangerous consequences to the peace of the community and the security of property. It is asserted that men will wish to leave their actual station, and be unfitted for the common duties of life, by being taught to long for a higher and more luxurious condition.
144
This whole outcry is grounded on a gross, and, one would have imagined, remarkably apparent fallacy. First, there is a misconception as to the meaning of the term education; and next, a rule is drawn from certain peculiar cases now happening in society, to the detriment of an universal education. What, however, may be true of a peculiar case, when only a portion—and a small portion—of the people receive education, will not be true, when the whole body are instructed. When the whole people are instructed education, even in the narrow sense of the term, will not, as now, be a thing of rare occurrence, and thereby a distinction—all will be alike; and no peculiar privilege will be sought by an individual because he happens not to be as ignorant as a savage. The Archbishop of Dublin in his excellent work on Logic, thus technically and forcibly describes this very fallacy:—'Thus, in arguing, by example, &c., the parallelism of two cases, is often assumed, from their being in some respects alike, though perhaps they differ in the very point which is essential to the argument—e. g., from the circumstance that some men of humbler station, who have been well educated, are apt to think themselves above low drudgery, it is argued, that universal education of the lower orders would beget general idleness; this argument rests, of course, on the assumption of parallelism in the two cases—viz., the past and the future; whereas there is a circumstance that is absolutely essential in which they differ, for when education is universal it must cease to be a distinction—which is probably the 'very circumstance that renders men too proud for their work.' Again, it should be observed that the education intended is expressly the teaching and training men to be all in their several conditions useful to themselves, their neighbours, and society. In the existing condition of society, however, it is worse than idle to say, that this cannot be effected by education, and thus to attempt a continuance of our present situation. If, as heretofore, the majority of mankind were content to be a slumbering mass—an inert and utterly inactive body—then the policy, as a selfish policy—might possibly be defended. But this is no longer the case. The business of Government is not, and can no longer be, the affair of a few, Within these few years a new element has arisen, which now ought to enter into all political calculations. The multitude—the hitherto inert and

145
submissive multitude—are filled with a new spirit—their attention is intently directed towards the affairs of the State—they lake an active part in their own social concerns, and however unwilling persons may be to contemplate the fact, any one who will calmly and carefully watch the signs of the times, will discover, and if he be really honest and wise, will at once allow, that the hitherto subject many are about to become paramount in the State. I speak not now in the character of one desiring or fearing this consummation, but merely as one observing the passing events around me, and I mention the coming circumstance in the same spirit as that in which an astronomer would predict an eclipse; to me the result appears inevitable; and I therefore cast about me to learn in what way this new force may be made efficient to purposes of good, and how any of its probable mischievous results may be prevented. Although I be one who believe that no good Government can be attained without the concurrence of the people—to speak in still plainer terms—that the people will never be well governed until they govern themselves—still I am far from believing that the golden age will be attained merely by creating a Democratic Government. The people at present are far too ignorant to render themselves happy, even though they should possess supreme power to-morrow. Of the many evils even which they now suffer, the larger part arises from their own ignorance, and not immediately from the Government. The Government, indeed, does not inflict much direct and positive oppression, although it produces immense indirect mischief. Indeed the evils of bad Government in this country are, for the most part, not of a positive, but of a negative description. The Government does not often immediately inflict misery on the people by any brutal or bare-faced oppression—but by abstaining from its duty, by shrinking from doing the good that it ought to do, enormous misery is allowed to continue. By fostering and perpetuating ignorance among the people, it inflicts more injury than by any or all of its direct oppressions—all its immense taxation, considered as a burthen, is a feather in the scale when compared with the ills produced by the ignorance it has engendered. Could we enlighten the whole population—could we at one moment give all of them knowledge and forethought—a thorough understanding of the circumstances on which their happiness is dependent—and at the
146
same time endow them with fortitude to resist present temptations to enjoyment—in a few short years they would laugh at the taxes, when called a burthen, and wonder at those who believed, that so long as they existed, no happiness for the people could ever be known. This, Sir, is not a popular doctrine. It is one, nevertheless, which I have long held, and always openly avowed. Holding it, I have been, and am a strenuous advocate of education, as well as a fervent admirer of popular institutions. I am not the less desirous of remedying the ills arising from bad Government, because I see that many arise from popular ignorance. Neither shall I the less strenuously resist the present improvident expenditure of the Government, even though I see that its mischief is much overrated. One of the great reasons, however, for which I seek for thoroughly popular institutions is, that by this means the attention of the people might be steadily directed to the chief great causes of their misery. Bad Government no longer existing, that could not be deemed the source of all ill; they would then set themselves strenuously to discover wherein the mischief lay; and seek with something like a reasonable conduct, to apply the remedy. So long as our present faulty institutions, and faulty conduct continue, so long, I fear, will their attention be misdirected, and their efforts unavailing. Before I leave this part of my subject, there is one other beneficial result to which I would advert in very general terms. It is of a practical nature, and is connected with matters thought of immediate import even by the practical politicians of the day. It should be remembered that no system of police or of punishment, and no system for the regulation of the poor can be complete without embracing education as a part of the means to be employed. In support of the first part of this assertion I will make two short quotations. On the first I do not rest as an authority; but I take it merely as explicitly stating my ideas on the question; it is extracted from an article in the last number of The Jurist, on the punishment of death [Here the hon. Member read the quotation]. In the next extract, however, I do rest with great confidence, as I know of no higher authority in the whole range of practical legislators. This extract is taken from the introduction to the Code of Prison Discipline established in Louisiana, which code, as must be well known to every one in this House, was framed by the profound and philanthropic

147
Livingston [Here the hon. Member read the extract]. I now take leave of this part of my subject with this single remark;—In the observations which I have made respecting the advantages to be derived from a general or national education, I have abstained from any appeal to those singular and exalted motives which may be supposed to actuate the philosopher and philanthropist in their efforts to ameliorate the condition of mankind. I have not attempted to prove, that a people accustomed to derive their chief enjoyments from intellectual sources can alone be a happy people. I have not attempted to describe as the end to be obtained (thereby attempting to make that end the chief motive to exertion) the exalted and ennobling spectacle of a highly enlightened nation, among whom the law had become simply a rule of conduct, which all cheerfully followed, with hardly any other sanction than public opinion, among whom the governing authority was a guide zealously followed without threats and without cavil. I abstained. Sir, I say, from all appeals of this description; for although these to some might have been the most potent arguments, I fear that in the present temper of the political world, had I indulged in this course of remark, I should thereby have received the censure of being an idle dreamer, a wild and dangerous enthusiast. I now. Sir, proceed to the second object which I proposed to myself—namely, attempting to point out the necessity of making the education of the people the business of the Government. In the first place, Sir, I would beg to remark, that this idea is not only not a new one, but that at this moment the most enlightened nations of the earth have taken upon themselves that task, which I am now endeavouring to recommend to the consideration of this House. Within a few days we have seen a law passed to this end by the Legislature of France—a precedent which I pray to God we may have wisdom to follow. In Prussia and in Saxony a more complete system of public instruction is now in operation than has ever yet had place in any nation of the world. Speaking of these two nations, with respect to their systems of education. Professor Cousin pointedly observes—"I consider France and Prussia the two most enlightened countries in Europe—the most advanced in letters and in science—the two most truly civilized, without excepting England herself—all bristling with prejudices, Gothic institutions, and semi-barbarous customs
148
over which there is awkwardly thrown the mantle d'une civilisation toute materielle." I cannot pass this work of Professor Cousin, without pointing out, as an example to our own Government, the circumstances which produced this admirable work. The French Government, desirous of framing a law on this all-important subject, and not being too proud to learn from the experience of others, sent one of its most renowned philosophers to make inquiries on the subject. It sent him, too, into a State to which the people of France are peculiarly hostile—namely, Prussia; thus showing that idle prejudices could not divert them from the path which wisdom pointed out may also mention, that, in America, the magnificent provisions for this same great object surpass all that the world has seen before. The single state of New York has dedicated to the advancement of knowledge a prospective revenue that must shortly surpass the whole revenue of the State, and more than equal to the enormous sums which we lavish upon our Government. Passing, however, from the authority derived from these striking examples, I would endeavour to rest the question upon its individual merits. No one, I suspect, will dispute that it is the duty of the Government not merely to punish all infractions of security, whether as regards person or property, but also to prevent, as far as possible, all such infractions. Neither will it be denied, I think, that among the most potent moans of such prevention is a good education of the mass of the people. If, then, we seek no higher ground, we may here safely rest, and say, that, as mere matter of police, the education of the people ought to be considered as a part of the duties of the Government. If, however, we do seek a higher ground, the argument becomes stronger. If we consider it the business of Government not merely to prevent evil, but also, by the concentrated force of the social system, directly to promote good—to increase, by all the means which its powers confer on it, the happiness and well-being of its subjects—then the mode in which the people are educated ought to be one of its first and most important objects of consideration. We find that, in order to maintain the peace of society, the Government takes upon itself the business of administering justice—for the better regulation of the mercantile transactions of its subjects, it takes upon itself the regulation of the money of the country—for the furtherance of intercourse, it superintends

149
the roads of the country;—and in a hundred other ways shows, that it does take an active part in the actual promotion of the well-being of the community. It makes laws, also, for the regulation of public morality, thus actually making the business of training of the public mind one of its attributes. Inasmuch, then, as this training is among the chief means of regulating public morality—as it is one of the chief means of furthering generally the well-being, the happiness of society—insomuch, we may say, without fear of refutation, that the business of education ought to be deemed one of its chief concerns. There are, however, some objections made to this statement, which I deem it right here to notice. The first on which I shall remark comes usually from persons favouring the popular cause, and dreading the influence of Government. It is dangerous, they say, to put such an instrument as education into the hands of Government; lest thereby the public mind be debauched, and slavish ideas and habits alone be propagated. My answer to this objection is two-fold. First, I observe, that by the plan which I should propose, no such result will be produced, because, though I propose to make the education of the people a matter of national and not merely individual concern, I should propose that the persons to determine, in the last resort, on the subject matter of instruction, and on whom the actual task of instruction shall fall, should be the people themselves; the people acting, however, in a public, and not in a private capacity. But, secondly, I observe, that I cannot admire the policy of those whose sole end seems to be to bind the hands of Government, and who fancy that a good Government is one totally without power. I know, indeed, that this policy has been followed almost invariably by the friends of the popular cause in England. All their efforts have been directed to the end of rendering the Government harmless, powerless to good as well as to evil purposes. They seem studiously to have avoided the consideration of a means of making the Government strong to useful, weak to mischievous purposes. Another objection, which I here deem it right to notice, does not, indeed, claim attention from its own interest or cogency, but merely because it comes from an authoritative quarter. It is this:—If the Government take upon itself the business of popular education, it is said, that private contributions and efforts to the same end will cease, and thus one means
150
of connecting the different classes of society, the poor and the rich, will he destroyed. My answer to this is, that I see no reason for believing that the efforts of the more enlightened classes would relax; on the contrary, I have very great hope of seeing, in consequence of an improved plan, a much more constant and affectionate communication between different classes of society, than any which now exists. The efforts, indeed, of all would be more systematic, more sustained, less guided by caprice in individual differences of character and feeling. What is now whim, or the result of peculiar and individual sympathies, and therefore called charity, would then be constant, would be considered a duty, and would thus be far more effective than now. It is true there would be no patronage in the case—there would be no charity-schools of this or that individual—there would be no ostentatious display of aid on the one hand, and abject subservience on the other. The children of the poor man would receive instruction and incur no obligation but to the State—no painful feeling of degradation would attach to it; whereas now a stigma is affixed to every one who receives gratuitous instruction. No independent and exalted feeling can arise amongst those whose existence is marked, every day of their lives, with the broad indelible stain of living by the bread of others. But this objection, in fact, arises from a thorough misconception of the mode in which any well-digested scheme of education would attempt to attain its end. In our Government (and for the present we need not travel beyond it) the real control is in the hands of the more wealthy portions of the population; and, even in the most democratic states, the actual business of Government falls very much upon them. But those are the very persons who now contribute, from their private purses, towards the gratuitous education of the poor. As the leisure class must, of necessity, be the most instructed, and as we should wish the most instructed to undertake the office of instructors, it is this leisure class that would in a good Government—always indeed subject to the control of the mass of the population—be the guides to the rest of the people in the business of education, as also of Government. But, instead of being such guides in their private capacity, and subject to no responsibility, they would be so, in a public and responsible character. Excepting under a despotism, a people can

151
never, as a mass, be raised by any sudden steps above the most civilised classes of the community. You may, indeed, bring the mass up to the highest; and you may, by slow degrees, afterwards hope to raise the general standard. But where the people are to be the instruments of their own improvement, we can only hope to improve them imperfectly at first, and only step by step. The great object, however, in any plan of general education would be to make the most instructed classes the guides; and there is no way, in our country at least, more effectual to this purpose, than by making the mass of persons, who really constitute the governing body, these guides; and as the object is, not merely to make them guides, but active and effectual ones, it would be advisable to make it their duty to perform this important service thus required of them. Do what we will, say what we will, this class must guide and govern; our business ought to be, to act in both capacities under a constant feeling of immediate and urgent responsibility. There is one other and more potent argument, however, against leaving the means of popular education in its present state—and that is, the hitherto imperfect success of all private efforts to educate the people. If the matter were one of minor import, we might, perhaps, be justified in leaving it still to chance; but as it involves the entire happiness of the community—as without a much more complete system of education this happiness can never properly be provided for, all tampering with the difficulty—all hesitation or carelessness as to pursuing the course open before us, is in the highest degree criminal as well as absurd. We all of us seem to feel the necessity of supervising our Criminal Code—our Code of Prison Discipline—our Poor-laws; but all these are only off-shoots of, or adjuncts to, a system of Education. That is the great touch—the main-spring of the whole. We allow crime and misery to spring up, and then attempt, by a vast and cumbrous machinery, to obviate the mischief. We punish, we do not prevent—we try to put down effects, without caring for the cause. Like ignorant physicians, our minds are absorbed by a consideration of symptoms, while the disease is making head, to the utter destruction of life. And why are we thus remiss? Shall it be said, that because simply the benefit of the whole community was concerned in the matter, and no selfish interest could be promoted by it, we were careless regarding
152
it? Shall it be said, that the Government of England only abstained from interference in that case where its assistance might have been afforded with the most pure and unalloyed benefit; and that though boasting of our acts and our learning, and proudly claiming to be placed at the head of the civilized world, we were content to suffer the mass of our population to be educated as chance might direct, and to form what habits and desires the merest hazard might determine; that while we minutely inspected, and jealously guarded the interior of a beer-house, the school that was next door, where the minds of all the parish—and not a few—might be framed to good or evil, was passed by with utter—ay, and scornful—indifference. I have now arrived at the last object, which I proposed to myself at the outset. After having touched upon some of the more prominent benefits to be derived from a general education of the people, and pointed at some of the advantages likely to result from the assumption by the Government of the office of instructor, I have now. Sir, to give a rough sketch of the manner in which this general education might be effected. When considering any system of education, we must carefully divide from each other; first, the subject-matter of instruction; second, the various machinery by which this instruction is afforded; and third, the supervising and contending authority which regulates the whole. Much confusion has unluckily been created by not paying attention to this very obvious division. Premising then. Sir, that I shall endeavour to keep these very dissimilar things perfectly separate, I shall proceed, at once, to the exposition of my plan; remarking, however, that though these matters be distinct, they, in description, will constantly run one into another; and that, consequently, I must often anticipate a knowledge of parts of my plan, when, in reality, I have not yet described it. This is a difficulty attendant on all subjects, complicated as this is, and by no means resulting from any peculiar division of it. The first great innovation that I would strenuously recommend is, to make the education of the children no longer dependent on the mere will of the parents or guardians. I would make it a matter of necessity—in other words, would pass a law, making it an offence to keep a child from school between certain years of age. By the Prussian code this duty is enforced in the following words:—"Art. 43. Every inhabitant who cannot, or

153
who wishes not to give his children at his own house such instruction as is deemed necessary, is obligated (obliged) to send them to school (i. e. to the national school) from the age of five years, accomplished." "Art. 44. Starting from this age no child can be absent or keep from school for any time, if not on account of peculiar circumstances, and with the consent of the civil and ecclesiastical authority." These various quotations express pretty distinctly what I intend. In general terms, I would say, that I would oblige, by law, every child in Great Britain and Ireland from, perhaps, six years of age to twelve years of age to be a regular attendant at school. If the parents be able to give, and actually do give their children elsewhere sufficient education, then they should not be compelled to send them to the national school. If, however, they should be unable or unwilling to give them such instruction, then the State should step in and supply this want, by compelling the parent to send the child to the school of the State. Now, Sir, I feel well persuaded that this declaration will be exceedingly unpopular in many quarters. There are two classes of objections to it that I will here notice, observing at the outset of my reply to them, that I consider this compulsion absolutely essential to the success of any scheme of general education. It must be recollected that the power of the parent over the child is a fiduciary power—a power surrounded by various obligations both to the child and to the public. The chief of these is to educate the child in such a way that he be a virtuous citizen. If the parent neglect this duty, the State ought to, and in the case of the rich, does, step in and see that the duty thus neglected shall be performed. But say, one class of objectors, this is an arbitrary interference with the rights of the parent; it is making the State despotic, and robbing the people of freedom. I ask. Sir, in the first place, if it rob the people of rational freedom? We every day coerce the people by laws, and rob them of freedom. We rob them of the freedom of killing their children; we rob them of the freedom of brutally treating their children—and the Magistrate can by fine and imprisonment punish any parent who thus maltreats his offspring; and shall it be said that he ought not to interfere in the far more important case of continuous neglect of the child's best interests, in his most vital concerns? He (the parent) is not permitted to give his child a cruel beating,
154
but he may, according to this class of reasoners, consign him without let or hindrance, to a degrading and dangerous ignorance. He may render him a curse to himself, and a nuisance to society at large. This appears to me a childish adherence to a name—a fatal disregard of the necessary limits, which prudence every day compels society to put upon the freedom of its Members. Freedom in itself is not a good thing—it is only good when it leads to good—if it lead to evil, it must be, it is every day, restrained by the most stringent and coercing bonds. Again, Sir, I would remark, if the State or Government cannot be thus trusted—it is a proof that the Government is a bad one—if so, get rid of it, reform it, make it a good one—but in the name of all that is reasonable, do not deprive it of all means of doing good. The argument thus constantly used is a cogent one against the existing Government—it is none whatever against the proposal to intrust a good Government with the power in question. But, Sir, I must assume that the Government, by its very existence, proves itself good to this purpose. If on trial it should prove to be otherwise, we must not take away the power which must be intrusted to it, we must revise its form, and improve its responsibility. There is another objection, however, which rests on a different ground, and deserves far more attention. It is this; the State school may teach doctrines, which the parent holds to be pernicious, and he may therefore, from conscientious scruples, withhold his children from school. In answer to this. Sir, I would observe, that by the plan which I shall hereafter state, I believe much of this difficulty will be avoided. In the first place, the majority of the heads of families will determine on the subject matter of instruction, and I have little doubt they will quickly see the impropriety of forcing, or attempting to force upon any one, opinions which they regard with disfavour. In fact, I hope, I have very great expectation, that the National Schools will thus, when intrusted to the whole people, become, in the best sense of the term, national; that the subject-matter of instruction will be made to include such matters, and such matters only, as will be in accordance with the whole of the people. With the permission of the House, I would here read a passage from the law of Prussia on this head, which conveys a useful lesson to all people:—'Difference of religion in Christian schools, necessarily produces differences in religious

155
instruction. This instruction will always accord with the spirit and dogmas of the worship to which the school belongs. But, as in every school of a Christian State, the spirit which is dominant and common to all confessions ought to be piety, and a profound respect for the Divinity, every school may receive children of another Christian worship. The masters and the superintendants ought to avoid, most carefully, every species of constraint, and everything that would give pain to the children on the subject of their peculiar worship. No school ought to abuse its opportunities, in order to promote any view of proselytism; and the children of any sect or worship differing from that of the school, ought not, either against their own wishes or those of their parents, to be compelled to attend either the religious teaching or exercises. Peculiar masters of their own sect shall be charged with their religious education; and wherever it is impossible to have as many masters as differing sects, there the parents ought with all possible care, to fulfil those duties themselves, if they desire that their children should not follow, in these particulars, the lessons of the school.' Any people or Government pretending to the character of being civilized, would strictly adhere to these admirable instructions. In populous places also, as in even tolerant Prussia, schools of different sects might be established; and, as with them, even our moral schools might regard different professions of faith. It may be said, that however necessary may be this compulsive attendance, yet the idea to the people of England is too novel to be immediately acted on by the Legislature. I willingly admit this objection to have great weight; but, on the other hand, I ask how long would the prejudice against it live in the minds of the people, if their Representatives in the solemn exercise of their high functions, were deliberately to declare its necessity? Not a day, not an hour, if the people once believed the House of Commons really intent on the welfare of the community. And in this matter, if the law were accompanied by the careful restrictions and paternal considerations evinced by the Prussian authorities, every thinking man (and the thinking men guide the remainder) would at once see, that a pure and exalted benevolence had presided over this legislation. The prejudice would at once fade away, and a cheerful obedience would be given to the law. It being once established, that every inhabitant was to be
156
provided with instruction, all subsequent regulations must keep that point in view. And now, first, as to the subject-matter of instruction. Although the State determine, that every child should receive some instruction, it does not thereby declare that the instruction to all should be alike. What the quantum of instruction should be in the various cases, would have to be determined by the supervising authorities, of whom I shall hereafter speak. I need here only make the following remarks respecting it:—In infancy all children, no matter what may be their after-destination in life, require the same treatment. All that we can do in that tender age is to provide for the due development of the body, prepare the mind for culture, and lay the foundation of habits of application, and self-government and kindly sympathies. As far as regards the moral training, this age is all-important; as regards the mental, comparatively less so. But inasmuch, as all require the same moral training—that is, as in all the same class of virtues are required—so the training by which alone those virtues can be produced, ought to be extended to all. "Effort and sacrifice," profoundly observes Professor Cousin, "Voila les conditions pour savoir quelque chose, et pour être honnête: déguiser à lenforceé ces conditions, c'est tromper sur la vie humaine." When I come to speak of infant schools, I shall draw an important practical conclusion from this fact. After the age of infancy is past, and it becomes necessary to convey instruction eon-sonant to the condition of the receiver, then we must take into consideration the necessities which that condition involves. In the present state of society, however, there are certain instruments to the acquirement of knowledge, which are deemed so to facilitate its acquirement, that to all alike these instruments are imparted—namely:—reading and writing, and the elements of numbers, which last knowledge in a certain sense, may also be considered an instrument. On this portion of instruction I would observe, that its utility depends entirely upon the facility in its employment which is obtained by the scholar. At present it seems very generally believed, that a rough sort of knowledge of reading and writing is sufficient for the poor man. This is a great—a fatal error. Whilst reading is difficult it cannot be made a means or instrument of knowledge. The mind is absorbed by the process, its difficulties attract attention all to itself, and the

157
subject matter is necessarily passed over. Any one may judge of this in his own case by reading a foreign language. Let any one not conversant with Latin, for example, read a passage of Cicero. Let him, by way of experiment, see what he can make of the distinction contained in the essay De Divinations and if the person so making the experiment, be not master of the language he will quickly see how hopeless will be his attempt to direct his attention to the subject-matter of the essay. So with reading in our own language; the process must be one so easy and familiar, that we must not regard it, otherwise we shall vainly hope to make it an instrument of knowledge. This is a much more important point than persons not accustomed to reflect on the business would readily admit. It is, in fact, the foundation stone—if it be not thoroughly secure at first, all future additions will be useless. And the practical conclusion is, that if we do really undertake the instruction of the people the most complete use and facility in the exercise of these important instruments should most religiously be imparted. The next point regarding the subject-matter of instruction to which I shall advert, is the variety of instruction, or, in other words, the differing sorts, differing in consequence of the different destinations of the scholars. All that I have hitherto spoken of may be called "Primary Instruction," and should be alike in all. The forming the mental powers for the reception of knowledge, and moral powers to fulfil the duties of life—the imparting a perfect facility as to the instruments of knowledge—so far education is the same for the rich and the poor—the ploughman and the philosopher—the maker of pins and the maker of laws. When actual knowledge beyond this comes to be imparted, then comes a consideration of the future destination of the scholar. Any comprehensive system of education would contemplate and include all classes, and for that purpose a series of schools would be adopted rising from infant schools to the all comprehensive university. But in the present state of the public mind, this is more than I dare contemplate. However imperfect the scheme—however reluctant I may be, I must force myself, at present, only to consider the immediate education of the mass of the people. I cannot, however, avoid making one remark on this topic. No education of the mass will be anything approximating to perfection, while that of the higher classes of scholars is imperfect. The infant school
158
will never be properly conducted while the University is imperfect. Reading will never be properly taught while philosophers are wandering in ignorance. Every portion of the whole great scheme of education is intimately bound together—and all are necessarily associated with the every day business of life. The patient thinking of the solitary student, neglected though he be, his name unknown, his influence around him being nought, will often win its way into the world, and certainly, though silently, change the destinies of mighty nations. It is he who fashions the thoughts and feelings of the multitude, though they know him not. How little consonant then is it with ordinary prudence in the Legislature of a civilized people to neglect the institutions by which these guiding minds are fashioned and directed! But, Sir, I quit this subject with reluctance certainly; but under the painful conviction that any attempt of mine would be useless regarding it. I shall confine myself to the consideration of the instruction of the mass of the population—namely, the poor, and the formation of their teachers. The first distinction that suggests itself, is that of sex. Men and women have very different offices to perform in life, and therefore require very different sorts of knowledge. As a striking proof of the necessity of instruction on the part of the women of the poorer classes, I will refer to the evidence of one, who, from personal experience, thoroughly understands the subject on which he is speaking—I mean Mr. Rowland Detrosier. In perfect agreement with these remarks, has been the conduct, I hear, of that noble Lady, the Grand Duchess of Saxe Weimar:—"Mad. la Grande Duchesse, vientd'établir à Weimar une école speciale pour les filles pauvres, où on leur apprend à devenir des bonnes ménagères." As respects the boys, they should be taught their various trades; and from experiments made in America, we see that their labour might contribute materially to their own maintenance, and the furtherance of their own education. These schools of industry might be made a blessing to the nation at large. There is one portion of instruction to which I feel compelled to advert, although by so doing I fear I may incur displeasure. I hold indispensable, both as regards the well-being of the State, and of the individual himself, that every man should receive a good political education. Let me explain what I mean by political education. He should be made acquainted with the circumstances

159
on which his happiness as a member of society is necessarily dependent; and also he should know the general principles of the Government under which he lives. For example, for the well-being of the mass of labourers it is essential that each should know what circumstances govern the rate of wages. If this had been understood, does any one believe, that we should have had "Combination Laws" on the one hand, or combinations on the other? Can any one believe that an enraged, because badly-paid population, would then have burned ricks, in order to raise wages? Or that we should see unhappy, and futile attempts at strikes? Knowing on what the rate of wages really depended, the enlightened labourer would have pursued the only mode by which that rate can be increased. He would have done it peaceably, but certainly. Neither will I attempt to disguise from this House my opinion that good government can only be obtained by instructing the people as I have already asserted, any one who will look before him must see the growing political importance of the mass of the population. They will have power. In a very short time they will be paramount. I wish them to be enlightened, in order that they may use that power well which they will inevitably obtain. I now pass to the second portion of the plan, which I have called the machinery by which the instruction is to be imparted. This machinery is of threefold nature: 1st, schools; 2nd, masters; 3rd, money, whether acquired by taxes or otherwise. The schools which I contemplate (since, as I have already observed, my plan is confined to the education of the poor) are of three separate classes:—1st, Infant Schools; 2nd, Schools of Industry; and 3rd, Normal Schools, or schools for the instruction of masters; separately for boys and girls. As the purpose is to educate everybody, there ought to be in every parish in the kingdom at least one infant school, and one school of industry, and this without any exception. As the law would be imperative in demanding the presence of the children, justice would demand that the schools should be placed within their reach. In all cases where the size of the parish demanded a greater number of schools, more than one would be erected. Many expedients I have heard mentioned, by which the richer classes might be brought into intimate and affectionate union with the poorer. In every part of England, London, perhaps, only excepted, this might effectually be
160
done by sending the children of both classes to the same school; for example, to an infant school. By my supposition this school would be regulated according to the highest state of knowledge now existing respecting the rearing and education of infants; and if the children of the tradesman and gentleman were sent (not by compulsion, but voluntarily) to the school at which the poor cotter's child was taught, much real benefit would be conferred on the last, and no slight good reaped by the former. The more educated mothers would anxiously watch after their own offspring, and thus, in reality, preside over the well-being of the others. A more forcible, and yet gentle bond of sympathy could hardly be imagined than the one here supposed. It may be thought that I am trusting too much to my imagination, and conjuring up a picture which no reality can sanction. Happy am I to be able to say, that experience really bears out what I say. In Massachusetts the national schools are so admirably conducted, that the children of all classes receive their instruction from them; and I really can see no reason why ours should not be equally efficient. I must observe, that if our infant schools were not so conducted, as regards cleanliness, the manner and matter of instruction, as to be fitted for the richest amongst us, then they would not have reached that point at which I aim. If they did, I am inclined to think, that if we were a reasonable people, they would soon supersede all others. The schools of industry would have two objects in view—first, the imparting of what may be termed scholarship; and, secondly, the knowledge of some trade. I would have these two objects connected, because thereby time might be saved, and much knowledge gained with pleasure instead of pain. When speaking of what I have termed scholarship, I would by no means have it supposed that I would confine it to mere reading, writing, and the elements of numbers. Most deeply do I feel the importance of imparting to every human being the inexhaustible fund of enjoyment derived from intellectual pleasures. Ask a man who has once learned to derive pleasure from these pure sources, what power he prizes above all others, that which he would sell for no price, the deprivation of which would render life a blank, and existence a burthen, and he would unhesitatingly answer, the means of mental enjoyments. I speak not in the language of boasting, or of exaggerating rhetoric,

161
when I declare, that from the perennial fountain, the poor man may draw a draught that will cheer him over the rugged path of his life; that possessed of this, he will envy no man his possessions; though poor, he will not feel his want of riches; it will arm him against sorrow, and teach him to hear up against affliction. To rob human life of woe is impossible, but that which most effectually soothes the wounds and stings which hard fortune inflicts, which; will multiply, and enhance the pleasures which cross us in our path through life, is assuredly the godlike attribute of deriving pleasure from intellectual sources. This being my opinion, and I speak from the teaching of experience, I would not curtail the instruction which should be imparted to the poor man. There is one limit which his lot affixes. It is his fate that he labours for the means of his actual being. But I would intreat the legislator, who has to fix what this should be, to stretch to the utmost boundary which prudence will permit. Besides mere scholarship, I would give such knowledge as would create a taste for art, and above all, as a cheap means of recreation, one which every poor man can attain, and also, as a powerful means of softening and exalting the character, music and singing should be made, as in Germany, an invariable portion of instruction. Added to this, such portions of natural history, and of the nature of our own physical system, as would enable the people generally to understand the ordinary phenomena of nature, and to preserve their health. This, with the careful watching of their moral character, and the communicating a general knowledge of our Government and other institutions, with such portions of political economy as regarded their condition, would be the object of the schools of industry. The ages to which they should be limited would be from seven to fourteen. In the towns, however, another class of schools might be established, to contribute to the instruction of persons above fourteen, who might have leisure from their employment during the evening, Sundays, or holidays. Such schools would be of immense service, preventing idle habits, and low and debauching pleasures from arising among the youths in the towns. Of the Normal schools I will speak in conjunction with the next subject, viz. masters. The great object of these schools would be to create masters for the national schools, and unless great care and diligence were employed in the early formation of these
162
masters, little could be expected from a national education. Such young men as determined on the vocation of a teacher, would upon having made at the school of industry certain advances in scholarship, be received by the Normal school upon examination: and on having gone through the various stages of those schools, which would occupy their time till they reached the age of twenty, they would receive a certificate constituting them teachers of national schools. The course of instruction at these Normal schools I need not touch on, as it would necessarily require great consideration, and would not be determined on without the most grave and deliberate inquiry. The certificate obtained by any young man would greatly aid him when candidate for the office of teacher. Such a proof of merit would have most weight with the people, and I would leave it open to any one to apply for it, on examination, whether he had gone through the Normal school or not. But as the inquiry would extend over his whole life, in order to learn his moral as well as mental character, the certificate would not be too easily obtained. These masters, when chosen by the people, would become an order of the State endowed with a great trust, which, if fulfilling that trust with fidelity, would render them worthy of the highest respect and consideration of the people. The certificate conferring a profession on the teacher, he would be liable to lose it on forfeiting the title of a moral man. In certain cases to be specified, he would lose his certificate, and thus be degraded from his office. If the old age of any public functionary ought to be guarded against the assaults of want, it would be that of a faithful teacher of the people. I come now to speak. Sir, of the money, or means by which these various schools should be maintained. In the first place, all persons capable of paying ought to pay. The authority which shall determine who can, who cannot pay, I shall immediately speak of. If these payments should not prove sufficient, and in very few cases would they be so, a general tax must be laid on the people to that end. If, indeed, the private contributions, and the existing funds dedicated to instruction, be sufficient, I shall feel happy; but if they should not, then there should be no hesitation to lay on a tax for the purpose. And I would observe to those parsimonious legislators who would object to this, that the saving gained in the business of administering justice would quickly cover any increased expense. Does

163
any one believe that maintaining the Mill-bank prison is a cheaper process than a school of some hundred children? On putting the same question in a different form, would it not have been cheaper to have the men, when boys, industrious and honest, than to attempt that process now that they are men, and confirmed thieves? If, however, it should be supposed that, in spite of the improvement of the people, there would yet be an increase of expenditure, I would suggest the expediency of saving the surplus out of any service rather than from that of public instruction. I would point to any and every branch of the Government before this. The Army, the Navy, the diplomatic service, the Home Government, in short, I would curtail every officer in the State from the highest to the lowest, rather than be parsimonious on this most important of all the services of the State. I must here leave the subject of money. I have now arrived at the last subject on which I shall touch; which subject, as ill fortune has determined, is the most delicate point of all—that on which differences of opinion are most likely to arise, and heats and animosities to Lave place; I mean the subject of the governing authority, by which the whole system of national education should be regulated. In this, as in the other matters, I will be perfectly explicit, and at once state what I deem necessary to the good government of these schools. The machinery of my government would be simple—first, there would be the people acting as electors. I should wish that the head of every family should possess a voice; but if this should be considered too democratic, why then every person who contributed towards the funds by which the schools would be maintained, should be endowed with this privilege. The whole country should then be divided into school districts, in each of which there should at least be one school. In the government of the school or schools of each school district, the people having the privilege of voting, should elect every year five persons who would be called, say the School Committee; and it should be their business to select and dismiss the master; to supervise the school, and, in the last resort, to determine on the instruction that should be then afforded. Being fairly chosen by the people, it may justly be supposed, that they would represent their opinions; and being selected from a large number of persons, they would, probably, indeed certainly, be among the most instructed persons of the
164
community. Without this, or some other mode were adopted, of making the people the guardians of their children's instruction, there would be, and justly too, eternal discontent throughout the community. Any attempt to throw the power into the hands of the Magistracy, would utterly ruin any scheme that could be devised. Besides those committees in every school district, I would have one other officer, and he should be among the highest in the State, indeed, a member of the Cabinet; and whatever might be his name, he, in fact, would have to fulfil the functions of the minister of public instruction. The business of his office would be a general supervision of all the national schools in the kingdom. He would have to determine, on the application of the school committees, what extra schools should be built. He would apportion the sum of money to be given to each district, for masters, for books, and repairs, and a hundred other things. Besides this, the Normal schools would be wholly under his control, and he would have to select for himself, and on his own responsibility, the masters and governors of each. In addition to these duties (and it will be understood that I am only giving a rough sketch of what those duties would be), in his character of general supervisor of schools, it would be his duty to make suggestions as to improved modes of teaching, and as to subjects that might be taught. Suggestions combing from a Minister of his high station would always have great weight, so that, by care and industry, he might materially and constantly improve the whole system of education. In furtherance of the same end, also, it would be a very important part of his duty to watch over the composition of books of instruction. The vital importance and great difficulty of this task can only be duly appreciated by those who have paid great and minute attention to the subject of education. The composition of books for the education of mere children is one of the most difficult portions of art. On this point M. Cousin well remarks, when touching on this matter:—"Je ne reprocherais Mr. le Ministre, de ne pas appeler quelques instans de votre attention sur les livres qui sont employés dans les écoles populaires, de diverse importance en Saxe Weimar. Rien n' est plus difficile à bien faire que de pareils livres, et le defaut d'ouvrages convenables en ce genre est une des grands plaies de l'instruction populaire en France." It may be said to be so of all instruction whatever in England; and no

165
Minister could perform a greater service for his countrymen than by providing for the composition of works adequate to the business of instruction. Further into the details of my plan I need not now enter. All these matters must necessarily be made the subject of very close and careful inquiry, over which, it is to be hoped, wisdom will preside, unswayed by passion, prejudice, or partial interests. I have now, Sir, gone through the whole of this very dry and unamusing detail, and have performed, to the best of my ability, the onerous task I had proposed to myself. The subject itself is not attractive; and it has, I fear, been rendered still less so in consequence of the inadequate ability of him who has brought it before you. I cannot, however, quit this subject, and leave it in the hands of the House to be dealt with according to their judgments, without appealing to them with the most unfeigned and deep anxiety, to weigh well, and without the bias of any party feeling, the great question which is now before them. They are not now to determine upon any minute portion of the general welfare, but upon the whole of the multitudinous interests of this mighty empire. They are called upon, in their high character of legislators, to determine on the future destinies of many millions yet unborn; and to say whether their happiness shall be left to the caprices of chance, or be fostered, guarded, and directed, by the paternal care of a wise and benevolent Government. You have this day to declare whether the Legislature of England is imbued with the spirit—whether it possesses the character and feeling—which should distinguish the rulers of an enlightened and generous people; whether we are anxious for the welfare of all, however lowly, and solicitous to provide for the well-being of the most helpless classes amongst us. Perhaps, I may be permitted to observe (and I do so without any intention of manifesting disrespect for this House) that we have not, perhaps, a body of legislators who could have satisfied the expectations that are formed respecting us. There is but too generally received an opinion, that we are not solicitous concerning the well-being of the mass of the population—of the poorer classes—but that all our acts and determinations result from personal, or certainly from partial, considerations. The most effectual answer that we could give to such statements, the most powerful means we could employ to regain our place in the affections of the
166
people, would be to prove to them, by passing the Resolutions which I shall immediately read, that we are alive to their dearest interests, and that we have determined industriously to forward them by the most effectual mode which our judgment can devise. If we do this, we may be regardless of all hasty and partial declarations concerning our motives and our conduct. A patient and thoughtful people, such as the people of this country, will truly appreciate the benefit conferred on them by this beneficent determination, and bestow on us a reward that the proudest would gladly receive—a grateful nation's heartfelt and affectionate approbation.—The hon. Gentleman concluded, by reading the following Resolution:—That this House, deeply impressed with the necessity of providing for a due education of the people at large; and believing, that to this end the aid and care of the State are absolutely needed, will, early during the next Session of Parliament, proceed to devise a means for the universal and national education of the whole people."
Mr. Grotesaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend, after whose very able speech it was unnecessary to trouble the House with many observations. He seconded the Motion, in the belief that two things were perfectly true. The first was, that the present system of education was defective—the other, that the defects of the system would not be remedied till the Government bestowed upon this important subject a greater degree of care than was now done. It was impossible that, in the present state of the Session, the details of this subject, or even the general principle, could receive the full attention of the House; but they would give satisfaction to the people at large, and show that they had a strong sense of their great and important duties, if they undertook, that amongst the cares of the next Session, they would attempt—not the least important part of their duties—to remove the defects of the National Education. He should not say anything more on the subject, but that he desired to recommend to the House the work of Professor Cousin. He knew that it was not a familiar idea to the people of this country, or to the Members of that House, that the Government should interfere with the education of the people; but, if attention was bestowed (m that work, they would see, that without any interference with I he comfort or the happiness of the people,

167
they might produce a more important effect on their education than was now done even in a country where wages were than in this and where the lower orders of the community suffered more from the higher orders than they did here. If hon. Gentlemen would read that book, they would be convinced that it was most important that the clergy should join with earnestness in promoting the success of the scheme. Far from introducing disputes and heartburnings, it would be the means of establishing cordiality among all the classes of the people, the object of the plan was to secure to every child in every parish the means of education; and the scheme, if carried into effect, would increase the confidence of the people in the clergy, who most zealously promoted the universal diffusion of the blessings of education.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the subject which the hon. Gentleman had brought under the consideration of the House was one of the greatest importance. He was sure he did not address one gentleman who did not feel anxiously desirous that the education of the people should be increased and improved in the utmost possible manner the question was, as to the best means by which that object could be effected. The hon. and learned Member had stated, in his definition of what education was, that reading and writing, and the first elements of figures, were not education. He was inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member in that statement. These things were the means of education, but not education itself. He was perfectly ready to concur with the general object of the hon. and learned Member, so far as it was intended to give a better education to the people generally. He believed, too, that he might agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that education was not as good as it might be, but he believed that it was and had been for some time improving, that it had been doing so of late years much beyond what was imagined possible twenty years ago. The difference had been caused by the public-spirited exertions of individuals; these had been perfectly successful, as was proved by the greater circulation of small publications. With respect to the plan itself, he thought it would be found difficult to force a national system of education by the Government, from the difficulty of ascertaining the number of schools required. There was a national system of education
168
in Scotland, where it was necessary to have a school in each parish; but to say that there should be a school in every parish in England might be but an ineffectual means of giving education to the people, for some of these parishes now contained great towns for which one school would be by no means sufficient. In his opinion, they ought to consider whether they could not acquire education for the people without the immediate and direct interference of the Government. When the question was first brought under the consideration of that House by his noble friend, the present Lord Chancellor, that learned person expressed a doubt whether it was desirable for the Government to interfere, and whether, by doing so, the voluntary exertions of the people would not suffer relaxation." Since that time the number of schools had been most extensively increased, and though the voluntary exertions of individuals had not, perhaps, gone quite so far as might be wished, yet they had been very considerable. The consequence of the Government interference would, he feared, be to put an end to them. That had been the case with institutions of a charitable nature. If that should be the case here, nothing could be more fatal to the cause of education. He confessed, that he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member, though Prussia was quoted as an authority, that there should be any provision to make it penal in a father not to educate his child. He was of opinion, that they might give a father the means of educating his children, and put it in the power of a man who could not afford the expense to do so without expense; but the actually punishing a man for not having his child properly educated, would, in his mind, be going further than they ought. He feared that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member was not practicable, but, if it were, the hon. and learned Member might as well have moved at once for leave to bring in a Bill as have merely introduced this Resolution, for, if the Government was to take up the matter, they could do as well without the Resolution as with it; and indeed the Resolution would then be disadvantageous rather than beneficial, for it was not desirable to pledge the House, as to what it should do next Session. The Resolution went to pledge the Government to establish a system of national education for the people. Now, he was not sure that the Government's so undertaking

169
would not rather do harm than good. He should think it most desirable to have the details of the plan and the proposed arrangements laid before them, before he ventured to pledge the House to any abstract resolution. Much of the policy of adopting the plan itself might depend on the manner in which that plan was to be carried into execution. For these reasons he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Motion to a division. The hon. and learned Member had had the opportunity of stating his opinions, to which he (Lord Althorp) had attended most carefully; and this having been done, he hoped the House would not be called on to come to any positive resolution on the subject.
Mr. O Connellhoped that the hon. and learned Member would comply with the request of the noble Lord, and not press the Resolution to a division. The House ought not to pledge itself on this subject without a previous inquiry before a Committee. This was a subject on which the interference of the Government was capable of provoking very strong feelings in a country like this. One of the best resolutions they could come to was to govern as little as they could. They might afford facilities for education, but they should do nothing more. There would be great difficulties in carrying such a measure into effect in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had referred to Prussia. That was a regimental government, and till lately, everything there had been conducted on a regimental plan. The Corporal was the great philosopher of that state, and it was he who made the people there acquiesce in the plans of the Government. The King of Prussia was now, however, the best reformer in Europe. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the French government; but he could only have done so as he did not know what the principle of the government of France was, as those did who had had actual experience of it. He could tell the hon. and learned Member, that the object of the liberal party in France, was to unchristianise that country. It was of little importance to them whether a man was a Deist or an Atheist. They were the party who endeavoured to enforce the education plan of the Normal school. The plan of the Normal school was to prevent that sort of education which the people wished to have. The people preferred to have the assistance of the brothers of the Church in their education.
170
If the Government was to create a Normal school here, it would give great offence to the people. He thought, that they should go no further than give countenance to religious instruction, and assist literary instruction. On that ground he protested against that House becoming a party to any such scheme, so far as having any connexion with that party in France, which, he thought, acted upon dangerous principles. He thought they should leave these details of education which the Government could not interfere with without spoiling. Facility of education should be encouraged, but all domination ought to be abolished. Nothing could be more destructive than to imitate the example of France, in respect to her system of national education.
Sir Robert Inglishardly knew how to resist the general proposition of the hon. and learned member for Bath; but though he concurred with that proposition, he hardly knew how he could agree with any other portion of the hon. and learned Member's speech. He did not know how the Government could deny the general proposition, that it was the duty of a Government to provide for the people, as it was the duty of a father to provide for his children, the means of education. He knew that the present Lord Chancellor had taken the greatest possible pains, and that, too, at a most important period of his professional life, to obtain complete information on this subject. That learned person had spent three hours a-day for two years together, investigating the returns made on this subject. The digest prepared from these returns was most laborious. It was published in two volumes, in 1818. The Lord Chancellor did not need his testimony, but he gave it most willingly. On the 28th June, 1820, that hon. and learned Gentleman, admitting the importance of the clergy and the value of their efforts, said, "he felt it his duty to return his most cordial thanks to those reverend Gentlemen, without whose assistance they would not have advanced a single step towards that point of their labours at which they had arrived—he meant the whole of the clergy of the Established Church." The hon. and learned Member had referred to the two Universities, and had asked what they had done for the public money they had received The hon. and learned Member was mistaken—they had not received any public money. The sums referred to were the gratuitous donations of the people—[Mr.

171
Roebuck said, he had used the expression, public property, not public money.] There was a most intelligible distinction between the two. The meaning was, to imply that the two Universities were the pensioners of the State. That was not so. The funds to support the Regius Professors were the private gift of the Sovereign, who, in return, had the honour of having the Professors designated by a title which intimated the means whence they were supported. With respect to other appropriations of property, that property had merely been given in exchange for what had been left some three or four centuries ago. He apologised for troubling the House with these observations, but he thought them necessary after what had been said on the subject. He should only add, that there was no class more interested in national education than the clergy.
Mr. Humeexpressed deep regret at the observation which had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, respecting the mission of the persons deputed from France to inquire into the state of education in England. He would take upon himself to say, that no such object as the hon. and learned member for Dublin had stated was the object adopted in France. If the hon. and learned Member would read the 17th article of the Projet de Loi, he would find that it was enacted that the maire, the curé, and three inhabitants, should be the Committee for managing the schools of each village. Now, the object of these schools was to give instruction to the people, and to avoid anything like that proselytism which his hon. and learned friend alluded to; and he was therefore sorry that his hon. and learned friend should have said anything that was calculated to damp the hopes of the people. If education were necessary to the welfare and prosperity of a people—a point which he thought no man who was friendly to the real interests of the poor could contradict—was it necessary to follow up the bad practices, if any existed in France, which he disbelieved, on this subject." He was not in favour of connecting the education of the people with the clergy entirely. He knew that there had been some difficulty experienced when it was attempted to establish Lancasterian schools, in separating them from the clergy of the Church of England, so as not to place them under the direction of its pastors. He hoped that if any schools were established, they would not be placed under the domination of any Church, for he saw no
172
reason why the State, which felt itself bound to compel its subjects to provide food for its poor, should not provide mental food and instruction for them also. It was not unusual to pledge the House to take certain measures in the ensuing Session; and he should therefore be sorry if his hon. and learned friend withdrew his Motion, for he thought that Ministers could not adduce any rational objection to it. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman might sneer at education, and might endeavour to discourage the plan of education adopted in France, he should continue to believe, that it was founded on the best principles, for the more the people were instructed, the more were the means increased of keeping the people tranquil and their institutions stable. The present vote was only preparatory, and he therefore hoped, that the noble Lord would not object to it. It pledged the House to nothing further than to the opinion, that education ought to be bestowed on the people; and he should give it his support.
Sir Robert Peeldiffered from the hon. member for Middlesex, as to the policy of the House entering into engagements with regard to what it would do in another Session. He objected also to its entering into the consideration of a mere abstract Resolution. There had been more notices for the discussion of mere abstract Resolutions this Session than he had ever recollected at any former period. Resolutions establishing abstract principles were just the very opposite to the course which the House ought to pursue. We should consider the difficulties surrounding practical questions before we entered into engagements on principles which we were not certain that we might be able to carry into execution. Few persons, he thought, would be found to deny the great advantage of extending the benefits of education among all classes of our countrymen; but it was not quite correct to assert that education in this empire was so very imperfect. He believed that almost every Gentleman who heard him endeavoured, in his own neighbourhood, to diffuse the blessings of education; but that did not appear to the hon. and learned Member to be enough, for he thought that the care of the State was also necessary. Now, that was a doubtful question; but even if it were not, a Bill should be brought in to show how it was practicable, instead of a vague resolution like the present. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "it is necessary

173
for this House, with the smallest delay possible, to devise means for establishing a; system of universal national education." Now, it would be necessary, in the first I place, to decide what a national education would be ill three countries which differed so much from each other, in many respects, as England, Scotland, and Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had mentioned the case of Prussia, and had said, that it was a great shame that we had not here an officer of State to superintend education. Free countries enjoyed many advantages; and so, too, did despotic countries, both in the management of their police and in their means of superintending public education. It was found, however, rather difficult to unite the advantages of both in one country. A compulsory system of education appeared to him to trench upon religious toleration; for it must, almost of necessity, interfere with religious opinion. The officer of State who had to superintend education, would have to provide books for the different schools. Now, this might be excellent in Prussia or in France, where the government was so different from our own; but if we were once to establish in this country an officer with power to superintend the education of children of all sects of religion, with power to select their books of instruction, we should excite apprehensions of general intolerance being intended by the Government, we should create jealousy in every part of the country. He did not wish to speak with disrespect of the mayors of this country, but would the French system of leaving the education of every town to its mayor do here? Any Bill which made the mayors of the different towns of England comptrollers of education within them, would create a degree of jealousy and resistance which the hon. Member would not be able to overcome. He would himself give every facility to education. He thought that the diffusion of education would produce great benefit; but, in a country like our own, which was justly proud of its freedom, he doubted whether it ought not to be left free from control. The subject was so environed with difficulties, that he objected to their making any magnificent promises respecting it, whilst they were yet in ignorance of the difficulties with which they might have to contend.
Mr. Wilksthought, that the House would be more able to decide this question, when the returns lately moved for by the noble Lord, the member for Calne, were laid before the House, than they could be
174
now. He, therefore, wished the Motion withdrawn for the present. At the same time they must all feel an obligation to the hon. and learned Member for the able manner in which he had brought the subject under their notice.
Mr. Roebuck, in reply, admitted that no final decision ought to be made on this subject without full inquiry. He must say, that of all the observations that had been made, those which had surprised him most were those that had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and of all unfounded attacks, that upon the French government and on M. Cousin, was the most unwarranted. To confound persons and things in this manner together, and to say, that a whole body of men wanted to put down religion, was highly unbecoming, and unworthy of the candid manner in which all persons should be treated. In the book of M. Cousin, it was distinctly said, that nothing could be effectually done for the education of the poorer classes without the aid of the clergy of the country. Did that look like a wish to put down religion? The object of the feeling thus expressed, was closely allied with that of the priesthood of Rome. That priesthood was not closely allied with the feelings of the people of France. That people had long had another Church—not the Church of Rome, but the Gallican Church—which was more particularly than that of Rome the favoured object of the French government, the French people, and of the Normal School. The hon. and learned member for Dublin should have known these things; and it would have been better had he brought forward documents than have made assertions, which were often hazarded and often retracted. He would, with the consent of the House, withdraw the Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

REDUCTIONS.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas rising to bring forward his Motion on this subject, when
Mr. Stanleythought, that the hon. Gentleman had expressed his acquiescence in the observations of the right hon. member for Tamworth as to the inexpediency of bringing before the House abstract propositions. No one could dispute the general proposition that it was desirable that all reductions should be made which were practicable; but this proposition contained an abstract principle; and if anything was necessary now, it was something' more than a declaration of the

175
necessity of making every practicable reduction.
Mr. Charles Bullercontended there was nothing abstract in his proposition. It pledged the Ministers to make such arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament as might be necessary to diminish the burthens of the country. He would, however, abandon his Motion if the noble Lord would allow him to place it on the Journals, and would promise to do something in consequence of it. Was the noble Lord ready to acquiesce in that proposition?
Lord AlthorpIf the hon. Member meant to say, that the House was to pledge itself to make every practicable reduction,—surely the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say, that the House was to make impracticable reductions? If the hon. Member merely wished the House to express the opinion, that it was desirable for the House to make reductions, no one could dissent from that proposition, because it was a truism; but the hon. Member's Motion implied more than this, for it pledged the House to arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Charles Bullerwas desirous that Ministers should pledge themselves to something specific—to declare, that it was possible to make extensive reductions, and to promise to effect them. He was sorry to press the subject forward in so thin a House, and when some were in the act of retiring from it, but without any intended discourtesy he felt bound to proceed. There was no subject in which the people took greater interest than in the diminution of burthens by lessening expenditure, and it was the duty of the House to ascertain, in the first instance, whether it was not possible to make considerable reductions. Matters of figures could never be made interesting, but fortunately for him it was not necessary to enter into any wearisome details. He did not mean to charge any particular departments with extravagance—nor to touch a single sinecure; he was in favour of a larger economy, which must be accomplished by a diminution of the public establishments, without the slightest danger to the public safety. He did not ground his proposition on prevailing distress, for he did not believe that it existed to any material extent; but there was no doubt, if the people were not oppressed, they
176
were greatly injured by taxation. He supposed it would be admitted, that taxation was in itself an evil. Time was, when a proposition had been made by the right hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson) for a reduction of sixteen or seventeen millions of taxes; but although Ministers had now forgotten their opposition dreams, it was the duty of the House to decide whether some greater degree of economy than was at present practised was not only expedient but necessary. The Reform of Parliament had been brought about for the purpose of lessening taxation, and the people had not put all their great energies in motion for the purpose merely of reducing a million in the imposts upon tiles, soap, and articles of that description. It would be most dangerous to make the people believe, that the late reform had done no good because not sufficiently extensive, and it was already a serious evil, that the House had lost, in a great degree, the confidence of the country. He was aware that he ought not to breathe a syllable in favour of a violation of the public faith, either by a fraudulent alteration of the currency, or by what had been miscalled an equitable adjustment: and it would be unfair and un can did not to admit that Ministers had done much towards reduction since they came into office. They had abolished three millions of taxes, and relieved the country from two millions of expenditure, and all departments of the public service were carried on with increased economy. They had also rid the country of many placemen and sinecurists, and all he complained of was, that they had not done enough. They were bound to do more in accordance with the wishes of the people, and their own declarations. Without being the apologist of sinecures, he might say, that the evil was not so much the amount, as the mode, and if the aristocracy must be supported from the hard earnings of the people, sinecures were much cheaper than jobs. As to the reduction of the establishments, everybody knew, that one ship or one regiment could not do as much as two ships and two regiments; but the question was, whether one ship and one regiment could not do all that was at this time required? He knew that there was always opposition made by the heads of each department to any abolition of expense in his department. Turgot had long ago

177
stated that opinion. The hon. Member read an extract from Turgot's letter to the King, saying, that every officer maintained the necessity of keeping up the expenditure with which he was intrusted. It had often been said, when Ministers were called upon to aid a generous people struggling against an odious tyranny, that the nation could not afford to go to war; true, but it might just as well go to war as keep war establishments. In the whole expenditure of the year there were 29,000,000 l., the disbursement of which Parliament could not control; but it could interfere to save a very large sum out of the remaining 21,000,000 l. He would not go through the items, but he might notice one which greatly exceeded the necessary sum—viz., the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, which cost the country 100,000 l. a-year. There was also a number of judicial sinecures and jobs which ought to be abolished; and, he believed, the country looked upon the diplomatic expenditure as a job from beginning to end, meant to provide the aristocracy with comfortable situations and comfortable incomes. At the same time, he allowed that the Ambassadors and higher officers spent more than they received, while the chief gainers were those in lower departments. He would touch briefly upon the three great heads of charge—the army, navy, and ordnance. The cost of the army, deducting the dead weight and the non-effective force, was about 9,000,000 l.; and it was well worth remark, that although the calculation had been that the dead weight would be reduced at the rate of about 100,000 l. a-year, such had been the mismanagement of the fund thus applied, that it had been actually increased since the peace. As to the effective force of the army, he admitted, that the estimates had been smaller than usual last year, but they ought to be still considerably lower. Nevertheless, he gave Ministers credit for what they had done, although, on the abstract principle, the army ought to be less in number now than even in 1792. Our possessions abroad were certainly more extended; but they ought, in all but a very few cases, to pay their own expenses, and maintain their own army. The great measure of justice recently given to Ireland, would render fewer troops necessary there; besides, Ministers having won the hearts of the people of
178
England, could not be in need of a standing army to keep the King's subjects in subordination. The abolition of slavery also would enable them to reduce the force now employed in the West-Indies. He did not wish to reduce this establishment to the standard of 1792; but, in 1823, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), then in Opposition, had contended, that 68,000 men could not be required. On another occasion the noble Lord ad-argued, that misgovernment alone rendered 29,000 men necessary for Ireland. Did the noble Lord still mean to contend, that, at this moment, the same misgovernment required that 25,000 men should be kept there? The same views had been supported by the present Secretary-at-War, while the late Secretary-at-War had gone so far in 1823 as to assert that the whole of the army at home ought to be disbanded. The hon. Member went into some further particulars upon this point, and afterwards proceeded to the naval department, contending, in the first place, that Lord Castlereagh was the most economical Minister this country had known since the time of Mr. Pitt. The navy was a favourite service, and he did not wish to see it reduced too low; all he would say upon it, therefore, was, that he was anxious to see it placed upon the same footing as during the Administration of Lord Castlereagh. The account of the ordnance stood thus:—In 1823, the estimates were 1,007,000 l.; in 1828, 1,914,000 l.; in 1832, 1,793,000 l. So that the cost of this department at this moment was more than in 1823 by no less than 786,000 l. The hon. Member contended, that it was expedient that the number of the household troops should be reduced, and that the colonial expenditure should be diminished. This was a vast source of profusion on the part of Government; and unless that were reduced, little would be done towards assailing the root of unnecessary expenditure. The question was this—was the country bound to defend colonies that could not defend themselves? If they cost the country (with few exceptions, such as Malta and Gibraltar) a large sum of money annually, were they worth preserving? Adam Smith had justly compared the colonies of a country to the expensive equipage of a private family. Ministers could not, he was aware, make the necessary reductions instanter—to attempt that would be preposterous and

179
impracticable. All he wished was, that the House should give the country an assurance that such reductions were in contemplation. He hoped, that they would be obtained from Ministers freely, and without extortion, and in redemption of the pledges they had repeatedly given. He had not brought forward the Motion in hostility to them, and it was not to be viewed as a censure upon, or a suspicion of them. If their intentions were honest, they would themselves support it; if they opposed it, he should not be sorry to see them defeated by the House, and the Motion carried in their despite. He was chiefly anxious that the Resolution with which he should conclude should be carried, for the sake of the House, as it would tend so importantly to restore to it the confidence of the people. It had encouraged hopes of great retrenchments; those hopes had been disappointed; and, as the sole power of the House depended upon its popularity, he was naturally very desirous that it should retain it. Nothing could be more dangerous than to disappoint the public expectations, or to tell the people that, however solemnly it had been promised, they were not to expect relief. The hon. Member moved—"That it is the opinion of this House, that, in order to satisfy the just expectations of the people, it is necessary that such extensive reductions be made in the public expenditure as shall effectually diminish the burthens of the country; and that it is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to make such arrangements previous to the next Session of Parliament, respecting the effective and non-effective services of the military, naval, civil, and colonial establishments, as may be necessary for the attainment of this object."
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that great expectations of economy were indulged by the nation at the time when his Majesty's Government came into power; and though large allowances were made for the peculiar circumstances in which they then stood, yet certainly the public had a right to expect that something considerable would be done towards relieving the burthens of the people. He regretted to say, that the just expectations of the people had been most grievously disappointed. The people of England bad of late years become too intelligent, and too well informed, not to know, that if ever men by their speeches, and by their express declarations on going into
180
the Cabinet, stood pledged to economy, those men were the present advisers of the Crown. The people in the present day not only read the debates of the present moment, but, with the view of ascertaining what had been the declarations of public men in times past, they referred to the debates of former Sessions. Much had been said of the necessity of rendering our establishments efficient; for his part, he thought our army was already too efficient, much more so than the necessities of the country required. Of late years, nations had agreed to interchange their commodities much more extensively than in former times, and hence they became more dependent upon each other. For these and other reasons, he deprecated the continuance of so large a military force as this country had hitherto maintained. The expenses of foreign embassies were also enormous; the times had passed away when the bulk of mankind were to be imposed upon by the pomp of oriental splendor; and in Europe at least, the practice of sending magnificent retinues with Ambassadors ought to be discontinued. One intelligent and able functionary, with, perhaps, the assistance of a competent secretary, would be quite sufficient for all the purposes of modern embassies. The fact was, that the expenses of embassies amounted to ten times as much as they ought. On all these grounds, he thought some distinct pledge ought to be given on the part of his Majesty's Government before the present Session came to a close, that would inspire confidence, and afford to the people a well founded hope that their reasonable expectations on the subject of reduction of taxation would be realised.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the subject was of great importance; but he confessed he could not discover what possible advantage was expected from bringing such a Motion as the present under the consideration of the House, other than making it the vehicle for conveying to the public a speech which might be expected to make an impression out of doors; as to its serving any other purpose, he professed himself unable to discover any. An endeavour had been made to cast blame upon his Majesty's Government, and the Record of Parliamentary Debates had been searched for the purpose of establishing the inconsistencies of the present advisers of the Crown. He trusted, that

181
the House would dispense with his proceeding into a detailed vindication of their conduct up to the present time. As to the Motion itself, he could not but regard it as a Motion of censure—if it were not to be looked upon in that light, it could not be considered of any use whatsoever; and if the House thought that Government had not done all that it could to accomplish the wishes of the people, they would agree to the Motion, but not otherwise. If the Government had not redeemed the pledges which they had offered to the nation on accepting office, then he should say they deserved censure; but they had most fully redeemed those pledges. During the whole course of their career in office, they had taken economy for their leading principle; true, they might not have realised all the expectations of the people, but they were warranted in saying, that they had realised all just and reasonable expectations that intelligent and unprejudiced persons could entertain; they had reduced three millions of taxes; and they had made not only that reduction in the amount of the money payable to the Treasury, but they had, at the same time, greatly reduced the patronage of the Crown. That they could now safely do; for, as he had often before said, the country could no longer be governed by patronage. The reduction, then, of taxation, and the relinquishment of patronage, were the principles upon which they had proceeded; and he would affirm that they had, in the pursuit of those principles, gone the utmost length that they could go, without exceeding the line of their duty. The hon. Member who spoke last had talked of reducing the army. Could that be done, he asked, in the colonies, at the moment when they were about to abolish slavery? Surely, when in the course of trying such an experiment as that of abolishing colonial slavery, the Motion of the hon. member for Liskeard was one which, if adopted by the House, would be liable to much misconstruction; and he, therefore, should propose another Resolution in its stead, or as an Amendment. It might not, perhaps, be very useful to adopt that which be should propose; but it would be perfectly harmless; its adoption would save the House from the necessity of negativing the Motion of the hon. Member, and it would likewise have the effect of admitting that which he was at all times perfectly ready
182
to admit—namely, that some reduction was required. The noble Lord concluded by moving—"That while this House acknowledges, with satisfaction, that, by the reduction of the public expenditure, and by the financial arrangements carried into effect, there has been a reduction of taxation in the last and the present Session to an amount exceeding 3,000,000 l. annually, they feel it their duty to affirm the determination to which they have already come, to adhere to the just principles of a wise economy, and to apply those principles to all departments of the State, paying a due regard to the national engagements, and to the interests of the public service."
Mr. Fryergave credit to Ministers for their good intentions; but good intentions alone would not do; they must have acts. He was afraid, however, that they were kept down by the fear of the oligarchy of the landlords. If they meant to relieve the country they must establish a Property-tax, not an Income-tax, for to that the public would never consent; but to a Property-tax they roust come at last. He did not want to turn Ministers out, but out they must go if they did not reduce the expenditure: and who was to come in in their places? Was it the Tories? He did not want the Tories; but they must come in if the present Ministers could not stay in. The Duke of Wellington must come in with his quantum suff. of steel and cold lead, which the people did not want. If, however, the Duke should come in, there was no doubt that one of his first acts would be the repeal of the House and Window-tax, and probably have a Property-tax in their stead, to the discomfiture of the landed oligarchy. There was no doubt that he would come down on that occasion as he had on those of the Test Acts and the Catholic question. He would repeat it, that the Duke would come in, and must, if Ministers did not change their plan; and when they were out of office, and sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House, they would learn to do better. What was a Reformed Parliament for, if it did not relieve the people from the pressure of taxation? All that he meant, was to urge the Ministers to do that which he was sure they were well inclined to do if they were not afraid of the landed oligarchy.
Amendment was agreed to, without a division.

CASE OF NARROBA.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwerrose to move that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to cause the claim of Narroba Govind Outia to be judicially re-considered before the Deccan Prize Money be distributed. The individual on whose behalf he made the Motion was a man who had no friends or connexions in this country, and he (Mr. Bulwer), therefore, appealed to the justice and the generosity of the House to give the case a fair and a patient hearing. During the war, which terminated in the subjugation of the Deccan country, the inhabitants of one of the places which surrendered were I allowed to go forth upon conditions expressly stated in the terms of the capitulation, one of which was, that the individual mentioned in the Motion, should, with others, be permitted to remove with his property, and if he went into any place in the possession of the British, he should enjoy the protection of British authority, and the benefits of British law. He did go to a town in the possession of the British forces, but so far from the compact made with him being observed, he was cast into prison, put in irons, robbed of all his property, and died in the extremest misery and want. Previous, however, to his sufferings thus being terminated by death, he had offered to refer his claim to a servant of the East-India Company. The decision of that functionary was in his favour, yet he got no relief. After his death, his heirs had no remedy but to bring the matter under the consideration of the Supreme Court at Bombay. It was then said, that the Supreme Court had not the power of adjudicating in this matter, because the Poonah country was in a state between peace and war. The Supreme Court, however, allowed that the property was that of these individuals, but that what they had to do was to appeal to another Court—to the Privy Council. They did so, and the Privy Council said they would hear the case, but the evidence should be confined to that which had been laid before the Court of Bombay. These individuals being limited to that evidence, could not well prove upon it their right to the property, nor show how it had been taken away from them. In fact, they were placed in the same position with ordinary individuals, the title deeds of whose property had been taken from
184
them. With respect to the decision of the Privy Council, what did the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) then say? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the question was of a most mysterious description, and that, he thought, the way it had been decided was unsatisfactory, and he said, that had it not been involved in mysterious circumstances, which had taken place so long a time ago, he would advise that the case should be again gone into. These were the only objections the hon. and learned Gentleman had to having the case re-considered. He thought, that unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could satisfy the House that the case had been properly tried, the House ought in justice to consent to the present Motion, and thereby give that individual an opportunity of making out by evidence the justice of his claims. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for "an humble Address to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to cause the claim of Narroba Govind Outia to be judicially considered before the Deccan Prize Money be distributed."
Mr. Halcombseconded the Motion, and said, that he had been requested to do so by parties whom, after a careful examination of documents, he believed entitled to the fullest confidence, and whose claims he considered as strongly deserving of attention, and of having justice done to them, as any that he ever recollected having been brought before that House. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to read a pamphlet, containing a statement of the claims of the parties, when,
Mr. James Mr. James moved, that the House be counted.
The House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Holyhead Roads. Petition presented. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from certain Tenants in Perthshire, for the Right of Shooting Hares and Pheasants on their own Farms.

PORTUGAL.
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the singular notification of blockade which he had recently brought under their consideration, and upon which he had endeavoured to obtain some information from the noble Earl at the head of

97
his Majesty's Government. The only paper which had been laid on the Table of their Lordships' House was so meagre in itself, and furnished so little information with respect to the blockade, that he could not help thinking there must be some further and stronger document not yet produced, or surely the noble Earl would not, on so slight a foundation, have consented to recognize a blockade so prejudicial to the commerce of this country. If he were asked, whether he expected to derive any advantage from thus occupying their Lordships' attention, he must reply in the negative. Why, then, it might be said, did he bring the question forward at all? His inducement was a conscientious feeling of duty both to England and to Portugal. In the latter country he had served during the best period of his life. He had there, at an humble distance, followed the footsteps of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), and he took a most sincere interest in the welfare of the people of that country, from whom, not only he himself, but the British army generally, had received repeated marks of kindness. So long, therefore, as he had a legislative voice in that Assembly, he could not bear to see his Majesty's Government acting towards that country in so partial, unjust, and unpardonable a manner, without, at least, expressing his opinion on the subject. Don Miguel was, by the voice and will of the people of Portugal, king of that country. The noble Earl could not deny that Don Miguel was as much king of Portugal, as Louis Philippe was king of France. He could not promise any good results from his Motion, because, if the noble Earl thought proper to adopt the means in his power to arrest any information, he might do so. He, however, had a right to examine into the validity of this blockade; and in order to do so, he requested their Lordships to consider how far the notification given was in conformity with other similar notices. He should not venture to argue upon his own information upon this subject, but he had endeavoured to collect some authorities which he conceived to be good, as regarded the course which had been taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Marquess then proceeded to read an opinion of Sir William Scott on the subject of blockades, to this effect:—'To constitute the legal effect of a blockade, two things are held to be
98
necessary—that an actual blockade shall exist, and that some notification shall be given of it, either by public declaration to foreign States, or by notice and warning to the individual ship charged with breaking it. Of these, the actual blockade is most essential, since, without that, a notification avails nothing, as it has been held by the Lords of Appeal in the case of the Proclamations issued by our Commanders in the West Indies, and published afterwards by our Minister in America. It may be laid down as a fundamental principle, that it is necessary that some actual blockade should exist, and that a notification is not of itself sufficient to raise the presumption of a blockade'. And again, 'in the very notion of a complete blockade, it is included, that the besieging force can apply its power to every point and part of the blockaded State. If it cannot, it is no blockade of that quarter where its power cannot be brought to bear Thus it appeared that an actual blockade was most essential, without which no notification was sufficient to raise even the presumption of a blockade. Sir William Scott also gave it as his opinion, That if the blockading Power had not sufficient force actually to blockade all that portion of the coast which it declared to be in a state of blockade, the notification could only be considered good as applied to those ports which were really blockaded How did this opinion agree with the blockade of Viscount Palmerston? He held in his hand the letter which was the foundation of the blockade, which he would read to the House. The noble Marquess then read the letter, commenting on it as he proceeded. The despatch commenced by announcing the victory obtained by Carlos de Ponza, which it described as reflecting glory on the arms of the two nations—Portugal and England, which had been allied for so many years. The noble Marquess repudiated the idea of considering England as either directly or indirectly engaged in the contest, much less would be consent that the exploits of a crew of Buccaneers should be deemed to reflect either honour or disgrace on the arms of England. The letter then went on to state 'that the Vice-Admiral Carlos de Ponza was preparing to blockade Lisbon without delay, and that probably at that moment (i, e. the moment of receiving the

99
letter), the instructions of the Regent of Portugal on that subject would probably have been carried into effect.' This, it appeared, then, was the only ground which his Majesty's Ministers had for declaring the ports of Portugal to be in a state of blockade. They had no actual blockade—no notification of a blockade, but merely a notice of a probable blockade of one port—that of Lisbon. [Earl Grey All the ports were mentioned in the letter.] Still it was but notice of a probability. He could not but believe that there must be something beyond this letter. Surely there must be some other documents which were not produced. This letter looked so like as if it had been made up in this country, that if those men in Don Pedro's service should do anything, then advantage should be taken of it here. The noble Marquess then proceeded to read several documents to show that Government had not been impartial in their conduct as respected the blockades of Lisbon and Oporto, and that with regard to the former, they had, in the instance of some shipments which were made at Villa Nova, of wines belonging to British merchants, refused to acknowledge the blockade, as they had no means of judging whether or not it would prove effectual. Surely the same argument applied with still more force in the present instance; and that Viscount Palmerston should admit one blockade, and refuse to recognize the other, was, in his opinion, an instance of most gross partiality. He had had the honour to know the gentleman who was now, he believed, called the Marquess of Palmella, and was become, he understood, a strong Constitutionalist and a Liberal. If report spoke true, he was now about to establish a Constitutional government in Portugal. His change was very remarkable—it was only to be compared to that of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Ripon). He remembered the time well when that noble Earl fought under the banners of a lamented relative of his, of whose principles the noble Earl seemed now strangely forgetful. In other circumstances the two cases were alike. Both the noble Lords had received a new office, and, he believed, an additional honour, from their respective Sovereigns But the change in these individuals was not so great as the change which had been made in our foreign policy since the noble Earl was in office with his late relative.
100
There was but one opinion, he believed, of the present policy—at least he knew that the opinion he entertained of it was generally entertained in the City of London. To show the effect of the communication, he should read to their Lordships the following letter which he had received upon the subject from a well-informed person in the City, and which would at once show the opinion that was entertained with respect to this blockade in the mercantile world:—'It is a fact that amidst 'the anomalies of the present day no event' ever excited so much surprise among us merchants in the City as the notice of the 15th. Practical men at the time considered the blockade of Madeira as a wanton outrage upon the commerce of neutral nations, because it was instituted without the smallest chance of attaining the object which alone could warrant a recurrence to so extreme, a measure; because it could not, with such a force as that applied, be rendered either effective or permanent; and finally, because the Government, or Power, thus interrupting the usual pursuits of trade, although in possession of a few vessels of war, had no Courts of Admiralty for the trial of prizes; no means, no consistency, sufficient to make it answerable for the injuries inflicted on neutrals. On these principles the Americans acted, and, in order to show their disapprobation of the interference with their trade by the Madeira blockade, the first of their frigates that visited the spot actually broke it, even without special orders to that effect, and the conduct of the Captain was highly approved of by the Government and people of the United States. And is the same contrast with the conduct of our Government again to be witnessed? Are we to be seen acknowledging a blockade which the Americans, acting on the very same principles which we have taught them, and enforced against them, for the mere protection of their trade, and in vindication of neutral rights, deem it their duty to disavow and break? This letter confirmed him in the opinions which he entertained of the conduct pursued by the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that not only the law of nations but the neutrality declared by the King of this country had been violated. He was the last man disposed to speak of any professional man, or of any public meet-

101
ings, with disrespect, but he could not avoid referring to the meeting which had been held the other day in the City, to consider of the means of rewarding and remunerating an Officer who had gone into the service of Don Pedro against the laws of the country, and been dismissed his Majesty's service. Speaking as a professional man, he was sorry that any such meeting should have been held for any such purpose; and he was sorry that an illustrious Duke (His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex) had presided at that meeting. He hoped he should never forget the respect which was due to that illustrious Duke, who had, on so many occasions, lent his services to promote the cause of charity and benevolence, and who was distinguished by his zeal and attention to whatever served the cause of humanity; but he was sorry that the illustrious Duke should have been advised to preside at such a meeting, or express an opinion on such a subject; for it was necessary that he should take care, and not by his illustrious judgment give countenance to what might be injurious. He had every respect for that illustrious person; but he thought he had a good right to express his opinion of that illustrious person's conduct; and he did feel great regret, as a professional man, that the illustrious Duke should have presided at a meeting, which was intended to reward a British sailor who had broken through the laws of his country. If such meetings were to be held in obedience to the vox populi, and encouraging disobedience to the laws, that must be, he thought, full of danger. To hold out reward for such conduct must be injurious. The illustrious person might himself, by the decree of Providence, be called to the Throne; and then, should persons violate the law, he could not feel otherwise than indignant at proceedings to countenance the violation. Nothing but a strong sense of duty could have induced him to say thus much; for he repeated, that he had great respect for the illustrious Duke, but he could not do otherwise than look at the dangerous consequences of disobeying the King's commands; and he thought it was their especial duty not to separate themselves from the Throne when there was a party continually endeavouring, by eulogizing one, to destroy the other. There was a disposition, too, at that meeting, to run down one of the parties in Portugal, and those who took the side of neutrality,
102
and were not prepared to disobey the laws, were called factious; and it was such imputations which made him take notice of the meeting. He submitted to their Lordships, whether he, as a soldier, could know that rewards were bestowed on a sailor, for breaking the laws, without being induced to make such observations? With respect to the blockade, it appeared as if the noble Earl was entirely ignorant of the subject. He must say, that since the noble Earl had taken the direction of affairs, too much had been left to the Foreign Secretary. If he were to state what he knew, he must say, that he believed there was somebody behind the curtain. He would say, boldly, that he believed Prince Talleyrand was the man who directed the whole foreign policy of this country. From him emanated all our proceedings. He maintained that all our acts were of that nature, that if they were under the direct control of France, they could not be more beneficial than they now were to that Power. He desired, if there were any further official papers, which could be laid on the Table, before the issuing of the notice as to the blockade, to have them, as he wished, before moving for the papers he intended to ask for, to know if the noble Earl had any objections to make to the production of them. He should move, first, for a Copy of the letter sent to Viscount Palmerston, by the Chevalier de Lima, of July 15th, which certainly was the most absurd and stupid letter that he ever read; secondly, he wished to have a Copy of any Communication touching the blockade of Portugal, which had been made to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs before the 25th instant. The noble Marquess concluded by apologizing for having trespassed so long on their Lordships' time, and was sitting down without moving for the papers, when cries of "Move, move!" reminded the noble Lord, and he put his Motion in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who put it from the Woolsack.
Earl Greysaid, he was not prepared that the noble Marquess would bring the statement he had made under the consideration of the House, in moving for the papers. If, however, he was prepared to go into the statement of the noble Marquess, he should regard the nature of the Motion of the noble Marquess as an improper occasion for doing

103
so. He was now not unwilling to go so far as was necessary, and that was only into a narrow field. Throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of a personal and extraneous nature, throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of the general foreign policy of the country, for discussing; which there had already been, and would again be opportunities, throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of Captain Napier, and the statements he had made of the meeting in the city, he should only require to trespass for a few minutes on their Lordships' time, while he made some remarks on the question of the notice given in the city relative lo the blockade. The noble Marquess said that it was most extraordinary, and he could not understand it, that we, professing neutrality, should have lent ourselves to one party, and that the blockade was one which ought not to have been recognised by this country. There was not, however, one but many examples of this country having followed the very course now objected to by the noble Marquess, he was one of the last men who would oppose those principles of the public and general laws of nations which had been so well laid down by the able and learned civilian who had so long presided in our Admiralty Courts. He subscribed entirely to the doctrine that a blockade, to be respected, must be effectual, and that none other was effectual. The question was, whether the blockade was effectual? The first inquiry of all was, what had been done? Upon the communication made to the Foreign Office by a person signing himself, not as the noble Earl said, but as the Agent of the Portuguese Regency, a notice was given at Lloyd's that such a blockade was to be instituted. The letter might be, as the noble Marquess said, absurd and stupid, though he did not know on what ground the noble Marquess found fault with it; certainly there were some expressions in it which might as well not have been used. But what he had to do with was the substance of the letter which announced a blockade. As he had stated, that letter intimated that the Queen's Government had come to a resolution to blockade Lisbon and all the ports of Portugal. The noble Marquess said, why was a notice given when it could not be supposed that there was any means of carrying the blockade into effect? The noble Marquess stated that
104
the Regency had not the means of making the blockade legal and effectual. But were there no means? Had not the Queen a naval force, which had just gained a signal victory, and annihilated the naval force of Don Miguel? A few days would be sufficient to refit that victorious fleet, and enable it to establish a blockade. Nobody could believe that an officer of the great capabilities of M. de Ponza, who had just distinguished himself by his great exploits, would be unable to equip his squadron in the bay of Lagos, or would be idle there, and be unable to carry the blockade into effect. A few days would suffice. The noble Duke had said formerly, that it would not require much time to fit out the squadron. It should be remembered that the squadron had sustained little damage—that there had been no cannonading, and the ships were carried by boarding. One of the best of those ships had surrendered without firing a shot; and he could not believe that the mere transfer of another to her could prevent her from proceeding immediately to establish the blockade. Having the power, then, to establish that blockade, and notice of the intention having been given to the Secretary of State, he did not see what could be done but to give the notice of that to Lloyd's, for the convenience of our merchants and ships. It was said, that we were neutral, and ought not to have acknowledged the blockade; but it was established by the laws of nations, that when two parties divided a country, a third Power was bound to treat each of the two as if it were an independent Sovereign State. Each of those parties had the same rights towards other States as an independent nation, and Great Britain had acted on this principle. In the case of the South American States, long before they were separated from Spain, we had acknowledged the blockade they instituted against Spain. The same was the case in the month of July, 1827, when we acknowledged the blockade instituted by the Greeks against some of the dominions of the Ottoman Porte, though we were then in friendship with that Power. Before the present Ministers were in office, the blockade of Madeira, instituted by the Regency of Don Pedro, had been acknowledged, though that Prince had no vessels to carry it into effect. On the 28th of July a notice had been given to the Secretary of State for

105
Foreign Affairs, by Viscount Santarem, that his Majesty had declared that the port of Funchal in Madeira, was about to be blockaded. On the receipt of that information, the noble Earl opposite (Aberdeen) directed Lord Dunglas to write to Lloyd's, to inform the underwriters that an effective blockade had been declared by the Government of Don Pedro. It was announced as effective, when there was only an intention to institute such a blockade, and the ships had not sailed from port that were to carry it into effect. The two cases were similar, though in the former there was not such an effective force as was at Lagos, and a similar notice had been then given as was given respecting the blockade of Lisbon. The Ministers having therefore received the letter which had been sent by the Chevalier de Lima on the subject, they, consistent with the usual practice, could not do otherwise than send a notice to Lloyd's of the blockade. The noble Earl concluded by alluding to what the noble Marquess had said of the conduct of Lord Palmerston, on whose exertions and zeal in his office he bestowed the highest praise, and declared, that for all the steps taken, he was, sharing in them by his counsel and advice, as fully responsible as any man could be. He did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships any further, particularly as they must be anxious to proceed to the more important business before them.
The Duke of Wellingtonagreed with the definition which had been given of an effective blockade. At the same time their Lordships should consider, that it was the habit of the Government of this country to give great facility to the formation of blockades. We had ourselves carried them to a great extent during war, and had therefore been obliged to give facility to others. But he believed that it was essentially necessary, to constitute an effective blockade, that there should be an actual blockade. To make a blockade effective, too, notice must be given, and no capture could be made unless the vessels were warned off. The warning might be given in different manners. Some powers required that the warning should be given in the strongest manner, namely, by the authority of the Government; holding it illegal to capture vessels till such a warning had been given. When, therefore, a government
106
received notice of a blockade, and gave a warning to its subjects, that warning rendered them liable to capture, and therefore before a government gave such notice, it was necessary that it should be quite sure that means existed to carry the blockade into effect. The noble Earl (Grey) had referred to an opinion of his on a former occasion; but several days had since elapsed, and they had not yet heard that Lisbon was actually blockaded. But it was not only Lisbon to which the notice was applied; it extended to all the coast and ports of Portugal. Even, therefore, if the one 74-gun ship was ready, she could not make an effectual blockade of the whole coast of Portugal. Me was ready to admit the skill and gallantry of Captain Napier, but denied that even with his resources, he was able to institute a blockade of the whole of Portugal. The Government, before giving the notice, should have inquired into the means possessed by Don Pedro of carrying it into effect. Since the news had first come, he had had time to make further inquiries. He had some doubts at first about the letter of the Chevalier de Lima, and he must confess, that his doubts had since been strengthened. The Chevalier stated, that he had on that day received orders to notify the blockade; but he begged their Lordships to look at dates. The Birmingham steamer left Lagos on the 6th, the action having taken place on the 5th, and that steamer carried the news of the battle to Oporto; but how did she communicate it? Why she sent it on board a transport, and had no communication with the shore. That vessel reached Falmouth on the 12th, and on the 15th the news of the action reached London. On the 16th, the Government sent to Lloyd's the notice of the blockade. He said, then, that no letters could have come by the Birmingham steamer from Oporto, and he believed that there were no letters from Oporto by any other conveyance. If these were the facts, was it not incumbent on the Government to make inquiries into the source of the Chevalier de Lima's information before noticing the blockade? With respect to the letter of the Chevalier de Lima, it contained the extraordinary expressions: "He congratulated the noble Viscount on a victory which was equally honourable to the two Crowns;" which expressions, as addressed to a neutral government, were

107
the most extraordinary he had ever read. Some notice should be taken of the letter, and he was sure the noble Earl could not refuse the information asked.
The Earl of Riponobserved, that the object of Government was merely to communicate the fact of the blockade as a warning to British merchants, who, if it had been withheld, might have suffered grievous wrongs. If no notice had been given, and a single ship were taken, how vociferously, as usual, would the noble Marquess have complained of the conduct of Ministers? It was a lamentable thing that, in questions affecting the public interest, the noble Marquess should think it equally agreeable to himself and the House to introduce some poor personalities. The noble Marquess had accused him of forgetting his obligations to the late Marquess of Londonderry, and of having abandoned the principles of that statesman. He would use the words formerly addressed by a noble Lord on the other side, to the noble Marquess—"I do not take your representation of the opinions of the late Lord Londonderry." He well remembered that rebuke, and now repeated it in his own person. When the noble Marquess sneered at him because his Majesty had beep pleased to elevate him in the Peerage, he asked whether the Noble Marquess himself had never received honours from the Sovereign? Did he grudge the noble Marquess those honours? No; and, above all, the first honour which he had received for his military services. He wished to say nothing of the circumstances under which that honour was conferred, nor of his own humble share in it. He would only add, that if the noble Marquess taunted him with having been raised to a higher rank in the peerage, at least his conscience was without reproach of having done anything to depreciate the honour he had received.
The Earl of Aberdeencontended, that the whole blockade transaction was most irregular, and he might almost say wholly unprecedented. The noble Earl had attempted to show that the announcement by the late Government of the intended blockade of Funchal was a case in point; but this was a case which differed from if in several important particulars, one of the principal of which had been noticed by the noble Earl himself—namely, that the then Government had announced that blockade on the authority of a Decree of
108
the Portuguese Government, a power which was in a condition to enforce the blockade. In the present instance, no such decree had been passed by Don Pedro's Government; and with the Portuguese Government which, however unstable it might be, of, however vituperated by some noble Lords, was still the government de facto, we were called upon to observe our ancient faith and treaties. The point was, that no official announcement of any blockade had been made; for the Chevalier de Lima, however respectable a character in himself, held no official position, at any rate in regard to this country, whatever post he might hold in the so-styled Regency of Portugal. Our Government had no right to act upon other than strictly official documents. In point of fact, the whole of this Portuguese affair was nothing but a stock-jobbing concern, the mysteries of which he did not very well understand, not being acquainted with the exact nature of the varieties of Scrip, Stock, Bonds, and so on; all he knew was, that the effect of this unjustifiable proceeding on the part of Ministers was, that several persons had been entirely ruined. Ministers had been most culpable in acting thus, without the slightest evidence that this was a bona fide or honest affair. There was no such haste made in declaring the blockade of Oporto. In the present case, indeed, the fact was not even published of there being a blockade at all. It was merely on a presumptive, a conditional blockade of all the Portuguese ports; so that the British merchants remained in as great a state of ignorance, suspense, and danger, as ever. Yet, though these traders were still kept in total ignorance as to what ports would be safe for them to send vessels to, and what ports would be dangerous to communicate with, all claims on the part of our merchants for losses sustained were to be put an end to by this declaration—not of a fact, but of a presumption. He admitted the conduct and courage of Captain Napier; but he regretted that the action, in which that officer and his men made so gallant a display of English valour and skill, was entirely in contravention of a neutrality which Parliament collectively, and the King in person, had so solemnly vowed to observe. In fact, the whole armament would appear to have been equipped and sent forth by a select company of Jew Stock Jobbers, whose views were merely

109
those of personal advantage, and the effect of whose speculation would be as highly injurious to the interests of this country, as it would be favourable to France. Independently of the gross breach of faith on our parts, and our national interests, which would suffer severely, it was perfectly absurd to attempt to force upon the Portuguese a prince whom they detested, and a Constitution they did not even understand. He trusted, however, that the noble Earl would, on consideration, be better advised than to commit such a gross breach of faith, and to engage in so mistaken a line of policy.
The Duke of Sussexrose in consequence of the noble Earl's (Earl Vane's) allusion to him. He had often heard the noble Earl address the House, and allude to a variety of topics in rather a desultory manner, therefore he did not feel surprised at the noble Earl having mixed up his name with the question of Portugal. The noble Earl wished to censure him for attending a meeting relative to Captain Napier. Differing from the noble Earl as he did in sentiment, he declined to take a leaf out of his political or diplomatic epitome. He was ready to answer to the country for what he did, but would not be dictated to by any man. He had attended the meeting because an attempt was made to crush the national feeling of pride expressed at the conduct of Captain Napier, and he wished to bear testimony to that gentleman's private character. The noble Earl said he spoke as a soldier; he (the Duke of Sussex) respected soldiers, but he was somewhat jealous of them, and conceived that when any man put his blue coat on and walked through the streets, he had a right to entertain his private opinions without being influenced by professional motives. He had stood forward to show respect to an individual of great merit and ability, who had achieved an action which he hoped would soon set the question of the sovereignty of Portugal at rest. He would act precisely in the same way if the thing was to be done again. He was responsible to no man; and if be had acted contrary to public opinion, he should not have been worthy of the seat which he held in that House.
The Earl of Eldoncould not admit that the illustrious Duke, or any other noble Lord, was at liberty to counteract the determination of the Sovereign to maintain strict neutrality between this country and
110
Portugal, No man on earth more respected and admired the gallantry of Captain Napier; but he had subjected himself to dismissal from his Majesty's service, and, therefore, it did not become the illustrious Duke, or any other Peer, by supporting that individual, to assist in counteracting his Majesty's declaration.
The Duke of Sussexhad done nothing to counteract his Majesty's wishes; he merely attended the meeting to express his opinion of the bravery and high character of Captain Napier. Would the noble Earl tell him, if this event had not taken place, that there were not Peers in their Lordships' House who would have enlisted officers and men to assist the opposite party in Portugal? He had heard reports to that effect, and he believed that they were perfectly well known. ["Name, name."] He was ready to name the steamer that had been engaged and the officer who was to command it.
The Marquess of Londonderry: The illustrious Duke spoke of Peers, will he have the goodness to name them.
The Earl of Eldonamidst cries of "Order," told the illustrious Duke, that anybody who pleased might countenance acts of disobedience to the Sovereign, but he would resist from first to last any such attempt.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, the illustrious Duke had stated that there were Peers in that House, who were ready to enlist forces to serve on the other side. He called upon the illustrious Duke to name those Peers. The illustrious Duke had expressed an opinion in which he begged leave, with all respect, to differ from him. The illustrious Duke said, that he respected the army and navy, but was jealous of the army; adding, however, that he thought when a man had put on his blue coat, he had a right to act and think as his private opinion should dictate. He combated this proposition, and asserted, that no man belonging to army or navy, whether he were a blue or a red coat, had a right to do any act contrary to the law of the land. The illustrious Duke's argument went to this—that, in defiance of the Sovereign, any man in the army or navy in a blue coat, had a right to do whatever he thought expedient according to his private opinions. He submitted that was a very false and untenable doctrine, and against the law of the land.
The Duke of Sussexwould be the last

111
man in the kingdom to indirectly encourage a violation of the laws of the land. He thought his character placed him above such an insinuation as that thrown out by the noble Earl; and he must say, that he thought the attack of the noble Duke unfair. It was contrary to the rules of debate to introduce the name of the Sovereign irrelevantly; and yet it was done that night over and over again. When he first became a Member of that House, such informalities would not be sanctioned. He repeated what he had stated before—namely, that his presiding on a recent occasion was merely to testify his admiration of the chivalrous valour of British seamen. He also repeated, that he had only referred to the reports which were bruited abroad respecting the interference of Peers on the side of Don Miguel; and not being cognizant of the facts themselves, he did not feel authorized to name the Peers referred to.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, if the illustrious Duke disavowed the meaning which those who heard him attributed to his words, he, of course, was bound to believe him; but certainly the impression of his auditors was, that he distinctly alluded to certain Peers.
Earl Greysaw not on what grounds the present Motion was founded. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that foreign powers at war with a power at peace with us had, again and again, sought and fitted out armaments in this country; and all that the Government did was, to preserve a strict neutrality. Then they were all aware that it was by no means unusual for meetings to be held, and subscriptions to be entered into, in favour of some foreign object appearing meritorious to the parties, and not meetings on one side only, but on both sides, according to the views of the parties. They must recollect the meetings which had been held in favour of the Poles, when that brave but unfortunate people were engaged in their struggle against despotism; when every encouragement was held out to men engaged in a just cause. The great principle for the Government to observe in all these instances was the preservation of strict neutrality; and this they had observed in the contest between Don Miguel and the Queen Donna Maria. Both parties had fitted out armaments in our ports, and certainly, at least, as much zeal was displayed by the agents of Don Miguel,
112
as by those of Don Pedro. With respect to the question of the blockade, all he need then observe was, that it would be contrary to the law of nations if a blockade was declared which could not be enforced; and though it certainly appeared impossible at present to enforce the blockade along the whole line of coast, it should be recollected that Don Pedro held Oporto in the north, while the array of Donna Maria held the south of that country. He could not say then, whether it would be convenient to produce the papers; and, therefore, trusted the noble Marquess would not press his Motion.
The Marquess of Londonderrywould, certainly, press for the production of the papers.
The Duke of Clevelandsaid, that he merely rose to express his opinion and feelings of admiration of the conduct of his Majesty's Government in regard to their general policy, but more especially in regard to their foreign policy. He had frequently heard unqualified attacks from the other side of the House made upon the Government on the subject of Portugal; but he did not conceive, under all the difficulties with which they had to contend, that they could have acted differently from what they had done; and he thought that their conduct in regard to that country redounded much to their honour. He took that opportunity, not only as a Peer of the Realm, but as an individual having some property at stake, and as an independent man, to thank them for keeping the country at peace. It frequently happened that party feeling was mixed up with the debates in that House, to the exclusion of the consideration of the advantage or disadvantage of the country; and he thought that such was the case at present. He was a friend to the Government, and should be happy to be able on every occasion to support the Ministers; but if their measures were likely, in his opinion, to be injurious to the interests of the State, he would not give them his support. And he believed that it was to the neutrality observed by the Government in the dispute between the two parties in Portugal that the country was indebted for being now in peace. If any infringement of that neutrality had taken place, he was convinced it would have involved us in war. He thought that Ministers, therefore, deserved great credit for the policy which they had pursued.
Earl Greywished to state that he had received no notice of the intention of the noble Marquess to move for these papers, and therefore, was not prepared to grant them.
The Marquess of Londonderry, after the observation of the noble Earl, would withdraw his Motion.
The Lord Chancellorwould trouble their Lordships with a few words in connexion with what had fallen from the noble Earl regarding the blockade. He would beg of them to remark that a blockade might be merely notified to the Government of a country without being an effective blockade; or it might be notified to individuals, or it might be a complete and effective blockade, and all this might be made a question in considering whether captures made in consequence of such blockade were legal captures according to the laws of nations or not. It was admitted on all hands, that in order that a blockade should be legal, and all vessels captured in consequence of it should be captured legally, the blockade itself should be an effective blockade. But notice of a blockade having been given to a Government, that Government should always be ready to communicate the notice to individuals who might be injured from ignorance of the blockade; and it would always be better to give notice even when such notice was unnecessary, than to lead individuals into a mistake by not attending to the notice given, from the supposition that the blockade would not be effective. The mere notice, however, would not make the blockade legal, nor the capture legal, unless the blockade was at the same time effective.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that notwithstanding the brilliant victory achieved by Captain Napier, the whole of the regency fleet could not effectually blockade Lisbon. It was, therefore, to be regretted, that the notice had been given, as the effect would be, that the whole of the trade with Portugal would be suspended, without there being an effectual blockade after all.
Motion withdrawn.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved the third reading of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
The Marquess of Headfortconsidered this to be a conservative measure. It had
114
been argued on the other side that this was a measure of spoliation. Upon a balance of evils it could not be so considered: for if such a Bill were not passed, much greater spoliation would take place. He would give the Bill his cordial support.
The Earl of Eldonspoke from the experience of a long life when he said, that the prosperity of this country was inseparably intervoven with the maintenance of an established religion. The Protestant religion he considered to be the best form of religion: and he had no more doubt than he had of his own existence, now drawing very near to a close, that the present Bill was calculated to undermine the established religion of this country. He had not formed his opinion without exercising the most careful consideration; but, having formed it, his duty was to act fearlessly upon it. Having given the best consideration in his power to the subject, he was convinced that it was the duty of every subject to maintain the Established Church of the country as an institution which was material to the benefit of the State. Such was the opinion he had formed, and if there was any mistake in it he had not been able to find it out. The destruction of this Church could not be effected without the consent of Parliament, and he, for one, would never give his consent. He hoped the argument that this was a measure calculated to strengthen the Church by its liberality would not prevail in that House. He held religious belief to be a thing between God and a man's own conscience; but it must, at the same time, be allowed that a man having acquired the liberty of his own conscience, was not therefore permitted to disturb the national peace and the national conscience. If he had not misread history, it was the opinion of men as pious and learned as any now existing—men too who were Dissenters from the Established Church, that the best protection of the Dissenters was the existence of an established form of worship. Now, his first objection to this Bill was, that it removed the payment of the Vestry-cess, and placed it upon a different class of persons. He objected to this as taking from the country the liability to give that support to the Church which, he contended, every man was bound to give. Whatever might be the opinion of their Lordships as to the religious feeling of the community, they might rely upon it that if the

115
principle of non-payment of rates because of a difference in religious belief were once established, many would be found to leave the Church for the purpose of evading the burthen. If that Bill had, as he thought it had, the tendency to support the Catholic Church of Ireland, then he must say, that the Union between the two countries never would have taken place if this measure could have been foreseen. The Protestants of Ireland never would have given their consent to the measure of the Union if they could have anticipated such an attack upon the Established Protestant Church. This Bill, he contended, was a direct fraud upon the Protestants of Ireland; he could give it no other name. His next objection to the Bill was, that it laid a tax upon the clergy. Nothing could be imagined more unfair or more destructive to the Church than such a course. An Established Church was a prop to the State; and if that prop were taken away, the State itself would sink. He contended that by this Bill they were taking away the main prop of the State; and they were acting in fraud of the Protestants of Ireland, who never would have assented to the Union could they have foreseen the introduction of this measure into the united Parliament. He could not help looking back to the Bill of 1829, the Catholic Relief Bill, introduced by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), as the cause of the present measure. He had opposed that Bill with the utmost sincerity. With the same sincerity he opposed the present Bill. Whether he was right in his views or not it was not for him to pronounce; but he must say, that he could not help feeling that that Bill of 1829 was the cause of the present one. Looking at the present state of Ireland, and especially to the number of Roman Catholic Bishops in that country, he must add, that he would rather increase than diminish the number of Protestant Bishops. Year after year sums of money were very properly voted for the building of churches in India. Protestant churches were erected with this money. But if Dissenters were not to contribute, how was the money henceforth to be raised? He would say nothing upon the subject of the Coronation Oath; but, he declared that he would rather forego his existence than support a bill which, in his opinion, was calculated to destroy the established Church of Ireland.
The Earl of Longfordadmitted, that when the Bill came into the House it had some good points, and that it had acquired others in the Committee. But it proceeded upon principles which he maintained were perfectly unjustifiable. He was persuaded that if it came into operation, it would not do the good that was expected from it, and would do material injury. He should like to see a new bill brought forward, comprehending all the good, and excluding fill the bad parts of the measure; to the third reading of this Bill he would give his hearty opposition.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he would not be drawn into a discussion on the Catholic question in consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned Earl (Eldon). The noble and learned Earl attributed the present measure to the Act of 1829; but many events occurred between 1829 and 1833, and even previous to 1829, which might account for the measure. He would not, however, discuss the question at that moment, and therefore would proceed at once to the Bill before the House. When the Bill stood for a second reading, he stated that he would not object to it going into a Committee, although he objected to its principle in many respects. The measure had undoubtedly been improved in Committee, as his noble friend and relation (the Earl of Longford) had stated, in some material points; but there still remained much objectionable matter in the Bill, and much to which he was decidedly opposed sin principle. In the first place, he objected decidedly to the Repeal of the assessments for Church purposes. He doubted very much whether the assessment ought to have been repealed, though the mode of levying it might have been altered. It had been found difficult, if not impossible, to levy the assessment, principally on account of the conspiracy which existed in Ireland against, not only that assessment, but every description of Church-property, and which the noble Lords opposite were much deceived if they thought they had got the better of. It was true that overt acts of disturbance were put down by the measure which Parliament passed in the spring; but he doubted much whether the conspiracy had been got the better of, and whether the Government yet felt themselves strong enough to carry into execution those measures which were necessary to restore to

117
the clergy and the laity that description of property hitherto known under the name of tithes. At present tithes were annihilated in Ireland, owing to the existence of the conspiracy to which he had alluded. He thought, that the Church-cess should be continued and levied on the land instead of the people. It was, however, most unjust to make the ministers of the Church themselves pay all the expenses attendant on the performance of divine worship, and he was certain that this object could not be carried into execution as the Bill now stood. He objected strongly to the sale in perpetuity of Bishops' lands. This was a circumstance which would deteriorate the position of the Church. Another objection which he had to the Bill was, that it put an end to more bishoprics than were necessary, even for the purpose which was professed by the measure. He freely confessed that it might be desirable to put an end to certain dioceses; but to put an end to them for the purpose of raising money in order to relieve the country from the payment of Church-cess was a thing of which he never could approve. But the worst provision of the Bill was that which went to levy a tax on the clergy on a graduated scale. The noble Lord opposite had said, that this system of taxation was founded on the First Fruits; and that the amount would be nearly that of the First Fruits, according to a new calculation. If that was really the object, nothing could be worse contrived to carry it into effect. According to the system of First Fruits, every clergyman paid the value of his living for the first year. If the value was 300 l., he paid 300 l.; if 500 l., he paid 500 l.; if 1,500 l., he paid 1,500 l. But according to the Bill, a clergyman whose living was of the value of 300 l. would pay only two and a-half per cent; while a clergyman whose living was of the value of 1,500 l. would pay fifteen per cent. If the noble Lord wished to relieve the lower ranks of the clergy, let him do so; but it ought not to be at the expense of the higher, or in any other way than in a fair proportion. To any just measure of augmenting small livings, he should have no objection; but to the present he certainly did object. It was a matter of importance that men of education and character should be induced to enter the Church by the hope of obtaining some of the large prizes; but if clergymen were to be subjected to a
118
lax of fifteen per cent, and the number of bishoprics should be reduced from twenty-two to twelve, this inducement would no longer exist, particularly as, from the various compositions which had been adopted, no large amount of tithes could now be levied, if indeed tithes should ever be paid again. He could not but feel that the Bill was, in a variety of its details, injurious to the clergy, and he had no doubt that sooner or later it would be found necessary to adopt some measure in order to relieve the Church from some of the burthens which were imposed upon it by the present Bill. Although, however, he disapproved of many of the provisions of the Bill, it was impossible for him, with the opinions which he entertained of the necessity that existed for some measure of this description, to concur in a vote against the third reading of the Bill. The more he considered the situation of the Church of Ireland, the more he was convinced of the necessity of agreeing to the present measure in the absence of a better. For three years past, the ministers of the Church of Ireland had received no tithes, and they were now depending on the Government, and a vote of the other House of Parliament, for their subsistence. Owing to an arrangement which was made last year in the other House of Parliament, the Bishops had not this year received their fines, which formed two-thirds of their income. It might be asked whether the measure was likely to ensure security and tranquillity to the Church. It was impossible for him to answer that question; but of this he was certain—that sooner or later the measure must be altered in order to afford relief to the Church. For the present the Bill would give the Church breathing time, and enable it to continue its beneficial labours for some time longer. Many persons thought, that as the Bill was not likely to produce all the benefit which the noble Lords opposite predicted, it ought upon principle to be opposed; but his opinion was, that they ought to do that which was best for the Church, and which would enable it to continue in existence.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it was painful to him to differ from his noble friend who had just addressed the House; and though he admitted that the Bill had been in some respects improved in Committee, the objections which he entertained to it were not in the slightest degree removed, for he

119
objected to its principle. He thought the measure was one of injustice as well as impolicy; and great as might be the danger of rejecting it, he contemplated no danger so great in the present position of the House and the country as that which would result from their acting with injustice. They were told that the Bill was a measure of relief to the Irish Church—he wished he could consider it so. It was unusual, at least, to tax those whom they professed to relieve. In what particular was the situation of the Irish clergy to be improved? They were at present by law entitled to their tithes, but they were deprived of them by the state of Ireland. Would this Bill improve the condition of that country? Would the Catholics be conciliated by the paltry boon of five farthings in the pound? They had frankly declared, that they would take any boon, however small, on account. They undoubtedly valued the present Bill; but for what? For the principle which it contained, and which they thought dangerous to the Church of England, and therefore useful to themselves. He considered the Bill a delusion, and that it would not answer the expectation of its framer. He was convinced, from the consideration which he had given the subject, that there would be a material deficiency in the financial results anticipated from the measure. It appeared to him that the noble Earl's estimate of the revenue that would be obtained under the operation of the Bill was too much by 36,000 l. a-year. In consequence of lessees having the privilege of referring the question to arbitration in cases where they considered the Bishop's fines too high, he believed not half the number of purchasers in perpetuity would be obtained. The present Bill was not brought forward as a measure of Church Reform—it came before their Lordships as a rider to a money Bill. The Bill would conciliate nobody. Whoever heard of injustice and violence being conciliated by concession? The Bill was a bill of ransom—a payment of black mail to the agitators. There was no security that the measures would be adopted, after the passing of the Bill, which ought to have been adopted before. He said it with regret, that he felt no security that the resolution which had passed the Commons for insuring the clergy payment for the tithes due during the last three years would be reduced into a law. After
120
the manner in which the Government had abandoned a most material part of the West-India measure, to which they were pledged, he could no longer place confidence in them, or in the House of Commons which sanctioned their proceedings. The Bill was a triumph to the Catholics, and an act of humiliation, if not spoliation, to the Protestants. In the present position of public affairs, there was no other hope of safety but in acting firmly and, above all, justly. From justice he never would depart, and he feared their Lordships would long rue the day when, in the apprehension of danger to the Church, they were induced to depart from the line of true policy, which was that of justice.
The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that he had not opposed the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that it would be so amended in Committee as to enable him to vote for it being passed into a law. Although he must admit, that the measure had been considerably improved in Committee, yet he felt that it was not sufficiently amended to enable him conscientiously to vote for the third reading.
The Duke of Buckinghamhad come to a determination to oppose the third reading of the measure upon the arguments stated in its favour by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington). He wished to know on what grounds the measure had been brought forward? They were told, that it was to support the Church of Ireland, but the Church of Ireland shrunk from the measure. They were told that it was required by the interests of the Protestants of Ireland, and the Protestants of Ireland eschewed the measure. Then they were told, that it was for the benefit of the Church of the United Empire, and the Church of the united Empire rejected the measure. What single petition had come before their Lordships in favour of the passing of this Bill from either of those parties he had yet to be told. He had certainly thought, that not a voice had been raised, not a hand had signed a petition, calling upon their Lordships to pass this measure which was so indispensable to the support of the Church of the United Empire. Upon a former occasion, when there was a vociferous call for another measure, their Lordships were told it must be passed, because the people demanded it. Now they were told this measure was unavoidable, and the people were silent. He maintained, that either the arguments of

121
his Majesty's Government were in the first instance wrong, or their position must now be false. He had before called the measure one of spoliation, and he repeated, that it was spoliation. He objected to it also, because it had been publicly declared—avowed—to be but a preliminary step; and that too on high authority, on authority which he thought had been too much attended to. He would ask, when they had passed this Bill for Ireland, what right would they have to refuse to adopt the same principle in England? The Dissenters would soon tell them that they would not pay Church-rates if the Catholics were to be relieved from it. Nay, the resistance had already begun; in the very metropolis it was at this moment in operation. Combinations had been effectually entered into to prevent the payment of rates, and when the principle should have been sanctioned by the passing of that Bill the extent to which it must soon spread might be easily conceived. With this evidence before him it was impossible for him to suffer the Bill to pass without opposition, and he trusted the House would do its duty and take the same course. If the Church must fall, let it at least be after a defence had been made for it worthy of such an institution. If it must be swept away with everything else that ought to be sacred when the torrent of innovation overspread the land, let it not be by the delinquency of those whose duty it was to be its natural defenders. Upon these grounds he should move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The Marquess of Lansdownobserved, that the noble Duke had been under the necessity of adverting to topics which were not even remotely connected with the argument. When the noble Duke talked of the opposition made by the Dissenters to the payment of the Church-rate, did he remember, that that opposition was made and followed up long before there was any probability of a Bill like the present? He would ask the noble Duke in his turn, whether he did not think that the throwing out of the Bill would have the effect of redoubling the opposition of the Dissenters to the payment of the Church-rate? It was not a measure of spoliation, but, in his conscience, he believed a measure of a protective character; a measure which, he hoped, might enable the Church of Ireland to regain its just position. The
122
noble Duke had adverted to a former argument that the expression of public opinion was necessary to any great measure. To public opinion attention ought certainly to be paid; but the vociferation of that opinion was by no means requisite. The removal of Church-cess was indispensable to the quiet of Ireland, and yet the noble Lord got up to tell them that this Bill was not called for, and that the abolition of Church-cess was a measure of spoliation. He quite agreed with the noble Duke that any tax to be levied on the present incumbents should be an equal tax. But the fact was, that no such tax on existing incumbents as that adverted to by the noble Duke, was contemplated. The argument of the noble Duke, therefore, fell to the ground; for surely there could be no injustice committed against future incumbents, who would accept their livings with the perfect knowledge of the charges to which they were subject. After the abolition of Church-cess was provided for, no other portion of the property of the Church was diverted from ecclesiastical purposes; but, on the contrary, was to be applied solely to the purpose of giving greater efficiency and security to the Church Establishment; and yet this was the measure which was branded as a measure of spoliation. He was convinced that the tendency of the Bill would be to rally all Protestants round the Church Establishment, and that even the respectable portion of the Roman Catholics would no longer hesitate to pay towards the support of a church, the abuses of which were cut away, and the pastors of which would no longer stand in the objectionable position which they at present occupied. It was, therefore, his earnest hope that this Bill might pass into a law, convinced as he was that its passing would facilitate the progress of those other measures which he agreed with the noble Lord opposite were essentially necessary to the security and welfare of the Established Church of Ireland.
Lord Wynfordagreed in the propriety of getting rid of the Church-cess, but objected to the mode in which it was proposed to be effected. He thought it most unjust to relieve the land of that impost and throw it entirely on the clergy. The only argument which he had heard at all calculated to induce him to vote for the Bill, was one which dropped from aright reverend Prelate opposite early in the debate—namely, that

123
the passing of this measure was the only mode of securing a provision for the Church of Ireland. He was certainly most anxious to secure this provision; but he felt confident that this Bill would by no means secure it. In his opinion the Bill was a violation of the Articles of Union, and he should feel it his duty to give his vote against the third reading.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that if he could agree with the noble and learned Lord who had preceded him in thinking that the Bill under consideration contained a violation of the Act of Union, or if he could agree with other noble Lords in thinking that the Bill contained a violation of the Coronation Oath, he would most certainly oppose it, even at that stage, and at whatever risk. He could not however; concur in either of those positions. The provisions of the Bill did not appear to him to involve, a violation of the Act of Union. He admitted, that the Bill altered the fifth article, but he contended, that the alteration was not such as to call for or justify the setting up of the Act of Union as a bar to the passing of this measure. The course he had taken in the Committee clearly showed his opinions of the Bill. He regarded it as unjust, unwise, and unnecessary. Undoubtedly he concurred in thinking that some of the great principles of the Bill were just; but they were most injuriously carried into effect. He thought it most desirable that the mode of levying the Church-rates should be altered. He thought it most prejudicial to the stability, and to the usefulness of the Church in Ireland, that Church-rates should be levied upon the Roman Catholic pauper; but that was no reason why the wealthy noble and the landed proprietor in general should be relieved from the burthen, and the payment cast upon the clergy. If the burthen had been thrown to a fair and just extent upon the landed proprietor, then there would have been a fund for providing for the building of churches, and increasing the stipends of the, poorer parochial clergy. He would say also; that upon ample information, and upon a declaration from the Prime Minister, that he had consulted with the Prelates of the Church in Ireland and that they agreed with him in thinking that some of the emoluments of the hierarchy might beneficially be reduced and applied to the other purposes of the Church, although he should have regretted
124
such a course, he still would have adopted the recommendation. But when he saw, without any information at all, that half the hierarchy were to be suppressed, and that a fund was to be created, which might better have been supplied by other means, he could not but protest against the measure It was true the Bill might have been worse it might have contained an attack upon vested interests; it might have applied the property of the Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes, and by so doing have become a most dangerous precedent for an interference with all private property. And if it had contained any such provisions he was quite sure it would have been rejected. The Bill then was not so bad as it might have been, but it was bad enough to induce him to reject it had it been presented in ordinary times. They, however, lived in times when reason was to be without power—when they were called upon to reason and to adopt a measure, not because in their judgment they approved of it, but because it was laid before them. A great deal had been said against their Lordships doing any thing which might render it necessary for the Ministers to resign office. Upon that subject too much had been said. The matter had been pressed too far. Indeed it had been carried to such lengths as to have made doing anything prejudicial to the political existence of the present Ministers an offence. The plan to compass the King's death was high treason; but now a new doctrine had sprung up, which was, that it was a political crime to destroy the political existence of the present Ministry. But he must say, with all his respect for the noble Lord opposite that consideration would not have operated on his mind, urged even as it had been, to induce him not to reject this Bill. And he must say, with reference to that argument in favour of the measure, that he could not conceive a more mischievous or a more dangerous mode for a Ministry to adopt to preserve themselves in office. Their Lordships had also been told of the great danger of a collision with the House of Commons, and that the rejection of this Bill would lead to such a collision. Few men were ready to sacrifice more largely than he was to avoid all such collision, for he was desirous of giving to the new Constitution a fair trial; but he would never consent to the abandonment of great fundamental principles for the

125
accomplishment of that object. That House must be independent—that House could not consent to be degraded—and therefore, if there were no other extraneous dangers pressing upon his mind than that of a collision with the House of Commons, that would not have been sufficient to induce him not to vote for the rejection of this Bill. They had heard to-night, and at other times, of the existing state of the Church in Ireland. He confessed he had not courage enough to look that question in the face, and vote against the Bill. The Bill did not give an accession of strength to the Church in Ireland but he looked for the preservation of that branch of that Church to other measures which were in progress. Could they hope that those would pass if this were rejected? He feared not; He had heard enough to know, that the greatest anxiety prevailed in Ireland for the passing of this Bill, for it was apprehended that if it did hot pass, those other measures intended for the relief and permanent prosperity of the Church might also be lost. These were the alternatives between which he had to choose; and he would fairly confess, bad as the Bill was, he had not courage to reject it in the face of such great dangers. There were precedents in the Bill which might prove injurious to the Church in England; but what were all those precedents to the destruction of the Church in Ireland? From what he had said it was impossible for him to utter "content" to a Bill with which he was not content at all; and therefore, when the question was put, he should shelter himself, although it was a course he would never follow but on extraordinary occasions by retiring.
Lord Bexleyopposed the third reading. It had been contended, that the Bill was favourable to the Irish clergy; was it favourable to impose on them a tax which properly belonged to the land? Was it favourable to place the management of ecclesiastical affairs, and the control of ecclesiastical property, in the hands of a lay Commission? He denied that the Bill did justice to the clergy of Ireland. He agreed with preceding speakers, that it was a breach of the articles of Union; and the reduction of the revenues of two Bishops, merely because it was assumed that their property was too great, was so much like an Agrarian law, and implied a principle so objectionable, that he could never assent to a Bill mentioning such doctrines.
Their Lordships divided on the Motion, that the Bill be read a third time. Contents (Present 70; Proxies 65) 1;
Not-contents (Present 50; Proxies 31) 81 Majority 54.
A clause was added by way of rider, and the Bill was passed.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

PRESENT.

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Cumberland

Arbuthnot

Gloucester

Strathallan

Beaufort

Sidmouth

Newcastle

Combermere

Buckingham

ARCHBISHOP.

MARQUESSES

Canterbury

Bute

BISHOPS.

Westmeath

Oxford

EARLS.

Gloucester

Winchilsea

Lincoln

Westmoreland

Rochester

Shaftesbury

Exeter

Dartmouth

BARONS.

Abingdon

Hay

Beverley

Gage

Mansfield

Rolle

Digby

Ormonde

Longford

Boston

Mayo

Kenyon

Eldon

Redesdale

Airlie

Ellenborough

Belmore

Bayning

Beauchamp

Bexley

Rosse

Colchester

Orford

Tenterden

Vane

Wynford

Charleville

Penshurst

Limerick

PROXIES.

MARQUESSES.

St. David's

Exeter

Bristol

Thomond

Durham

EARLS.

Carlisle

Graham (Montrose)

Bath and Wells

Poulett

Bangor

Guilford

Clonfert

Onslow

Ossory

Brownlow

BARONS.

Clancarty

Willoughby de Broke

Bradford

Carrington

Enniskillen

Churchill

Powis

Roden

O'Neil

Walsingham

VISCOUNT.

Manners

Exmouth

Sheffield

BISHOPS.

Loftus

Salisbury

Feversham

The following Protests were entered against the third reading of the Bill.
I.
Dissentient—1. Because the repeal of the

127
Church-cess, without any other provision for its necessary purposes than a partial charge on ecclesiastical property only, is calculated not only to establish in Ireland the principle that the service of the Established Church is not entitled to receive any support from the State, but to introduce the same false and pernicious opinion into other parts of the United King, dom.
2. Because the tax intended to be imposed on ecclesiastical benefices as a substitute for the payment of first-fruits is excessive, in proportion to the charge from which the clergy will be relieved, burthen some and oppressive in its amount, especially in the case of the more valuable benefices, and by the adoption of a progressive scale of taxation, encourages the project of a general equalization of property.
3. Because the proposal to invest certain Commissioners, of whom a large proportion may be laymen, and a great majority is to be appointed by, and removable at the pleasure of the Crown, with extensive powers over the whole property of the Church of Ireland, is in principle violent and arbitrary; the authority to be given to the Commissioners oppressive and inquisitorial; and the influence they will possess, both over the clergy and the tenants of Church lands, highly dangerous and unconstitutional.
4. Because the said Commissioners will supersede the functions of the Board of First Fruits, by which more than one-third of the benefices of Ireland has, since the Union, been provided with churches, and will, under the 117th clause, have the power of stopping the presentation to a considerable number of livings; and, therefore, may not only prevent the increase of Protestant places of worship, but permanently deprive many parishes of the benefit of a minister.
5. Because the proposed reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland is not only highly injurious to the influence and authority of the Established Church, which, from the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, more especially requires support, but is in direct violation of the treaty of Union, and endangers the stability, of the Union by the precedent of a breach of its provisions.
6. Because these dangerous and alarming infringements of long established rights and property will be so far from satisfying those who aim at still greater change, that they will only stimulate the desire for, and facilitate the introduction of, yet more fatal innovations.

BEXLEY

ERNEST

KENYON

ORFORD

WYNFORD

S. ROCHESTER

COLCHESTER

PENSHURST (for the 5th and 6th reasons.)

II.
Dissentient—1. Because his Majesty being bound in his executive and legislative capacity
128
by the Coronation Oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established, within England and Ireland, and the territories thereto belonging, and to preserve unto the Bishops and clergy of England and Ireland, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them; and this Bill being a fundamental alteration of the discipline and government of the Irish Church, and directly invading the rights and privileges of the clergy, it appears to us, that such Bill cannot be passed into a law with a proper observance of the Coronation Oath.
2. Because such Bill is opposed to the wishes and interests of the great body of the clergy in England and Ireland, whilst the people at large have not petitioned or expressed any desire for its adoption.
3. Because it is contrary to all justice and equity to exempt those hitherto properly liable to the payment of the Church-assessments in Ireland, and to impose such burthen arbitrarily on the impoverished Protestant clergy of that country.
4. Because the imposition of a tax on all parochial livings of a certain value in Ireland interferes with the vested rights of the owners of advowsons, by lessening the value of that species of property which they had acquired without such diminution of value.
5. Because the abolition of ten Irish bishoprics appears to us to be an act of spoliation, and to afford a fatal precedent for the future destruction of the whole Protestant hierarchy in that country.
6. Because this Bill in its principles and enactments appears to us as tending to advance the Roman Catholic, and to weaken the Protestant religion in Ireland, both in a temporal and spiritual point of view; and while it prepares the way for future acts of injustice, hardship, and oppression, towards the Protestant clergy there, it gives to the enemies of the Reformed Church increased strength to degrade and impoverish its ministers, to impair its efficiency, and, finally, to establish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, predominant in wealth and influence.
(Signed)
ERNEST.
III.
Dissentient—1. Because the Bill imposes upon the clergy of Ireland, already defrauded of their rightful property, the new charge of the Church-cess, heretofore borne by the land, which is at once a mockery and a wrong.
2. Because this charge will absorb so much of the fund to be provided by taxing the clergy, that for many years no part of that fund, and at no time any considerable part of it, will be applicable to the proposed improvement of small livings; so that to injustice is added delusion;
3. Because the Bill suppresses ten bishoprics,

129
not for purposes of Reform, but for purposes of finance, in order to supply the deficiency created by an act of injustice.
4. Because the Bill, affording an unworthy triumph to the Roman Catholics over the law they have distorted, and the clergy they have persecuted, encourages future aggressions; while, failing in its professed objects by the inadequacy and fallacy of its financial provisions, it humiliates the Protestants without contributing to the future efficiency of the Established Church.
ELLENBOROUGH.